Reading mode: Light Dark

Aperture 2.1 Today!

Go to last post
Ugh, I can understand that for something as complex as dodging and burning that it has to work on and save a copy of an image (as opposed to working in real-time like the built in adjustments). I just hope that's not the case for all editing plugins.

Anyone know if it's possible to build something like a better sharpen or noise reduction plugin that works just like the built in adjustments (no intermediate files needed)?

-tim
--
http://flickr.com/photos/tfenne/
philcozz said:
Just realized that when you make edits in the plugin and then save,
you get a new file added to the original in a stack, but the new file
is a .psd. In my case, that turned an 11mb .NEF file into a 77.13
.psd file. Yikes!
Click to expand...
 
I think we have to stop and realize here what Apple has pulled off. The biggest issue facing photo editors has been the gulf between the non-destructive editing you do in a RAW convertor, which has always had to be global adjustments, and the pixel level editing available in Photoshop or Elements. Things like targeted adjustments are very difficult in a RAW convertor. Apple seems to have bridged that gap. In the past, if you were using either Lightroom or Aperture, you had to send a "copy" TIFF or PSD over to Photoshop and then save it back (pretty much what happens internally in 2.1) and of course, saving a 16 bit TIFF of PSD back into Aperture created a huge file. So you're pretty much at that same level, but you don't have to switch programs (well, maybe soon, in the future). Also, I think it's clever that they save the image as a PSD so it can be opened in PS if neccessary.

I'm off to play with the new toy! I think this is going to be a complete new re-birth for Aperture!

--
Only my opinion. It's worth what you paid for it. Your mileage may vary! ;-}
http://www.dougwigton.com/
 
why are my colors looking so different in aperture dodge and burn plug in vs just in aperture?

they look over saturated and contrasty.
--
Nick Kessler
 
Going to that editor may materialize it into a colorspace, probably close to Adobe RGB. If you turn on the on-screen proofing option in Aperture and use Adobe RGB, are the colours any closer?

-Najinsky
 
I appreciate the point, and I do think this is a workable solution. But, NX has the ability to combine global RAW conversion edits with selective adjustments, all while maintaining a non-destructive RAW process. So, it IS possible.

That said, the DAM features of AP2 and this new functionality definitely make for a nice app!
Alpha Doug said:
I think we have to stop and realize here what Apple has pulled off.
The biggest issue facing photo editors has been the gulf between the
non-destructive editing you do in a RAW convertor, which has always
had to be global adjustments, and the pixel level editing available
in Photoshop or Elements. Things like targeted adjustments are very
difficult in a RAW convertor. Apple seems to have bridged that gap.
In the past, if you were using either Lightroom or Aperture, you had
to send a "copy" TIFF or PSD over to Photoshop and then save it back
(pretty much what happens internally in 2.1) and of course, saving a
16 bit TIFF of PSD back into Aperture created a huge file. So you're
pretty much at that same level, but you don't have to switch programs
(well, maybe soon, in the future). Also, I think it's clever that
they save the image as a PSD so it can be opened in PS if neccessary.

I'm off to play with the new toy! I think this is going to be a
complete new re-birth for Aperture!

--
Only my opinion. It's worth what you paid for it. Your mileage may
vary! ;-}
http://www.dougwigton.com/
Click to expand...
--
Photos: http://web.mac.com/philcozz
 
Yes it would be a major bummer if all plugins required creating a new PSD file. If someone wanted to make a curve plugin, can they do that directly within the CoreImage engine that Aperture operates in?

Otherwise, how would it be any different from exporting to Photoshop?
 
Nikkor Nick said:
until now.

ok help....the exported image looks all red and saturated and
contrasty in comparison to my image in aperture
--
Nick Kessler
Click to expand...
First step, Dont Panic.

Next, export the image and check all options are still as they should be. Select the export preset and then choose Edit Presets. Make sure the colour profile being assigned is as you expect, and the blackpoint setting, etc...

Also, did you reboot since updating Aperture?

-Najinsky
 
I had scanned hundreds of black & white images into Aperture and unfortunately, the retouch tool was not functional with these images, though it did work with scanned color images. AP 2.1 fixed this issue. The solution would have been to export a version and then re-import into AP, or just use an external editor.
So I am quite pleased that I can avoid this extra work.

Overall I am so pleased as to where the development of AP going.

Ken
 
checked those things.

i will reboot now.

and it seems a subtle difference on most images. i checked a wedding i did last week and there is a difference in the export but very minor. these new images i am trying to work on look way different when opening in the plug in and export.

--
Nick Kessler
 
i have been long using a huey profile. i got rid of it. using the cinema hd profile. looks more natural between the two. and it looks closer to my macbook screen where it was not happening at all.

thanks for your help

--
Nick Kessler
 
It opens a new file, so basically it's like opening photoshop.

I guess if you don't own photoshop it's a good thing, but as I do, I don't see why I would use this feature. Bummer.

--
Jeremiah 1:5
 
This is a great update. Now, I would love to see a curves plug-in added and an option to select different colorspaces, like LAB. Sometimes LAB is just a flat out better colorspace to edit in than RGB (for example, when you have similar colors that need to be driven apart).

--
Cheers,
Doug

http://www.doglesbyimages.com
 
I actually would not be surprised if Apple had brought in the third party plugin folks to help develop this capability. I'd bet money that nik was instrumental in this update.

--
Only my opinion. It's worth what you paid for it. Your mileage may vary! ;-}
http://www.dougwigton.com/
 
Well, I would think that if it was a "global" function supported by CoreImage that someone could develop a "standard" curves tool without creating a new image. I'm not sure that Apple said the SDK would allow creating new standard tool blocks to be added to the adjustment pane though. I would humbly suggest that once you get used to using the "levels" tool in the adjustment pane you would find that you can do pretty much the same thing you could accomplish in curves, even on separate color histograms.

Also, the point difference is that even though you have to create a copy image, you don't have to open or go into Photoshop (not yet, but soon). In order to do targeted pixel editing, you pretty much have to have a pixel based image to work on, not a set of RAW instructions. And what I've seen so far leads me to believe that in the targeted processing, as sort of layer arrangement is working below the surface.

--
Only my opinion. It's worth what you paid for it. Your mileage may vary! ;-}
http://www.dougwigton.com/
 
Hmm, that looks very interesting. I think it's safe to say now that the ball is firmly in Adobe's court. Let see what can they do, but meanwhile I am going to be playing with AP 2.1 trial .... (I hope there's one ...)

Cheers,

Marek

p.s. It looks like AlphaDoug was right predicting that AP's updates will be coming out much more often since the main ground work has been released in 2.0. Good guess Doug.
 
I think the changes under the hood are far more significant than anyone realized at the outset. The difference in Lightroom is that Adobe supposedly is making an SDK available, but you would have to create a whole new "module" similar to the "Library", "Develop", or "Print" module. For instance, you would have the "nik Color Efex" module. Maybe I have it wrong, but this is how they have presented it. That would be somewhat clumsy if you had to shift to a different module for every type of third party "plugin". And, of course, they don't want to kill the need for Photographers to buy Photoshop. Puts them in sort of a quandary.

I think this development is huge, proves that Apple is VERY serious about this market, and opens the door to much photographic goodness!!!

--
Only my opinion. It's worth what you paid for it. Your mileage may vary! ;-}
http://www.dougwigton.com/
 
pprior said:
It opens a new file, so basically it's like opening photoshop.

I guess if you don't own photoshop it's a good thing, but as I do, I
don't see why I would use this feature. Bummer.
Click to expand...
Why would you open a whole new application if all you need is dodge/burn? This improves still on the number of times you have to open Photoshop.

If you're opening photoshop a lot anyway it doesn't matter, but for those of us in the 90/10 crowd this helps.

--
---> Kendall
http://InsideAperture.com
http://www.pbase.com/kgelner
http://www.pbase.com/sigmadslr/user_home
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top