Jump to content

RAW file appearance very different between APB and Aperture/Pixelmator


Recommended Posts

Hi

 

Really enjoying using the beta.

 

I've hit an interesting issue that came about the update before last. When loading a RAW file the colours and contrast look way off. I've attached three screen grabs, the first is from APB, the second from Pixelmator and the third from Aperture.

 

Pixelmator and Aperture look the same (no surprise as they use Apple's RAW processing engine), but APB looks way darker and saturated.

 

The raw file is a DNG from a D7000.

 

This doesn't seem to affect JPGs.

 

Thanks!

post-10162-0-98286300-1428948522_thumb.pngpost-10162-0-03177500-1428948553_thumb.pngpost-10162-0-51440500-1428948584_thumb.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi SamA, and welcome to the AP beta forum!

 

There were some posts about this a few days ago, and the reason is exactly what you say, it all depends on the processing engine.  There should be enough options in the AP Develop persona to get you an image that you like.  If you prefer the Aperture rendering you can always use it and set up AP as external editor for subsequent work.  

 

I see that you have a D7000, so one other thing to try is to download Nikon's ViewNX 2 and use it as a reference since (at least on the fact of it) you would expect the RAW processing engine provided by the camera manufacturer to give the closest approximation to what you see in the camera monitor.  (Avoid the more recent View NXi).

Retina iMac (4K display, 1TB SSD, 16GB RAM) OS X 10.11.6  Capture One 10.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for that - it's really helpful. I hadn't appreciated how much latitude there is in processing RAW files. 

 

I tried ViewNX2 and its processing of my RAW file looked very similar to Pixelmator/Aperture. I don't like the Nikon software though!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point about using ViewNX 2 was to see the outcome from processing the RAW  files using an engine in S/W created by the camera manufacturer, not to suggest that Sam (or anyone else) should use it in their workflow.  

 

But for the record ( :) ) my current camera is a D7100, and I do use ViewNX 2 to download from it.  The reasons I moved from using Aperture for that are that image processing with ViewNX 2 mirrors what you can do in the camera set up, compared to earlier Nikon "View" S/W it is better and free, and of course there is the EOL Aperture issue (which is probably overblown since I doubt there is a single supplier of S/W for any platform that will guarantee it will work with each and every update of the relevant OS).  I could easily keep using Aperture; moving away is as much due to distaste with Apple dumping it for the mass-market Photos as anything else.  And I have discovered some very nice S/W along the way, AP being the prime example.

Retina iMac (4K display, 1TB SSD, 16GB RAM) OS X 10.11.6  Capture One 10.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, typing DNG was a mistake - I meant NEF.

 

Completely agree with your thoughts on Aperture - I do love the interface and its ease of use though. But I've been with with Apple long enough to realise that you can't rely on their ongoing development and support of any particular product, so if there's a software area that's critical to your work using Apple products may not be the best choice.

 

I much prefer to use software from smaller responsive companies like Serif and Pixelmator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, SamA, long gone are the days when Apple was a great example of "smaller responsive companies".  To be fair though, anyone who bought their shares in the golden days would be sitting pretty today, so they are doing something right, somewhere.

Retina iMac (4K display, 1TB SSD, 16GB RAM) OS X 10.11.6  Capture One 10.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, to return to the original topic of SamA's question...

 

Any software is showing you an interpretation of the raw file, which is of course just bunch of 1s and 0s on your memory card, and none of them is the "real" picture. All have probably applied some kind of starting point for development of the raw file, such as a curve, a certain amount of contrast, etc. You may or you may not prefer what say Aperture, or AP do with the file in the first instance, but the beauty of raw is of course that you can work from that starting point however you like.

 

My favourite raw processing software is Capture One. It produces an "out of the box" image that is a bit more contrasty and saturated than say Lightroom.  And a lot of the time I am fairly happy with it. (I find the starting point that Lightroom gives me a bit pale and lacking in punch, though of course it can be adjusted.) I am gradually learning, though, that sliders for contrast and saturation can go down as well as up, and I don't have to accept what the software gives me if it doesn't suit a particular image. 

 

So I don't think that it is that Aperture was right and AP is wrong (or vice versa) but a case of what gives you images that you like and which you can most readily adjust to end up the way you like them. And don't forget that the Develop persona in AP is still billed as very much work in progress. It would soon drive me mad in its present state, much though I like other parts of the app.

 

Ian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect this is because Affinity is not able to read the Nikon Picture Controls header information. Adobe can't do this either, although you can create a set of import presets that mimic the Nikon Picture Control settings. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Staff

Hi,

 

First up - thanks for looking at Photo! Our develop stuff is still very "beta" - we're focussing on finishing up the main photo persona, then we'll be basically rewriting both the processing engine and UI for Develop - that's why there is that purple box when you first use it - warning that it is not complete.

 

If we were to just display "what the camera saw" - without doing any automatic compensation - you would see a very dark, grey mess! All RAW processing engines do a massive amount of work to even present the initial guess at what the image should look like. Ours is currently a very coarse approximation - as stated above.

 

Hopefully, once we've done a little more work on the main photo persona, we should be releasing some beta builds with the new develop engine - then hopefully it should start to produce results which people expect.

 

Thanks,

 

Andy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Andy - it's pretty good for a beta, if you take time to tweak it in Develop, but am really looking forward to the new engine!

 

Edited 24th April: "you" here means the user, not Andy!!

Retina iMac (4K display, 1TB SSD, 16GB RAM) OS X 10.11.6  Capture One 10.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are not all RAW converters and developers based on DCRaw? AFAIK even Nikons Capture NX 2.xx is based on DCRaw.

 

BTW, if you should be interested you can use Rawtherapee - it is the only RAW converter which does not apply any algorithm if you don't want to. With a good camera for capture RT delivers stunning tonal ranges and natural colors (like negative film).

 

The RT team even developed a feature to eliminate CA (chromatic aberration) without having to specify the lens.

 

I've used DCRaw for almost a year with excellent results. The original is free and if you know how to use terminal, it is the fastest you can get.

 

I am mentioning this because you can always limit or shrink the tonal range, but never extend it. 

hobbyists discuss new camera features

photographers discuss new software

masters discuss light

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, look into the dcraw files and enjoy to discover - you won't believe it - PhaseOne as well. It is already implemented in the standard code.

 

All vendors just code some kinky stuff around dcraw, add GUIs and spice the core thingie up to add some features.

hobbyists discuss new camera features

photographers discuss new software

masters discuss light

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Guidelines | We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.