Macworld Forums

Macworld Forums: How to get your pictures out of Aperture - Macworld Forums

Jump to content

  • (2 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

How to get your pictures out of Aperture

#1 User is offline   Macworld 

  • Story Poster
  • Group: MW Bot
  • Posts: 34,402
  • Joined: 30-November 07

Posted 09 November 2012 - 03:00 AM

Post your comments for How to get your pictures out of Aperture here
0

#2 User is offline   CDTobie 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 89
  • Joined: 16-January 07

  Posted 09 November 2012 - 05:32 AM

No mention is made of bit-depth. Advanced image editing in Photoshop typically starts by exporting a high-bit Tiff file from your RAW converter/archiving program. If there is no way to get more than 8 bits per channel out of Aperture, then the only serious export is "RAW".

Which brings us to the next question. Aperature adjustment data can't be exported as a sidecar file with the original (RAW) file? If not, all your work on a photo is a dead end, since the ratings, crop and adjustments are lost. This would mean migrating your image library to, say, Lightroom, would bust you back to the files just as they came off the camera card, losing what might be, for a serious photographer, many thousands of hours of rating, dust busting, and editing work in the transfer.
1

#3 User is offline   JohnBarnes 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: New Members
  • Posts: 23
  • Joined: 06-June 12

  Posted 09 November 2012 - 06:17 AM

Quote

No mention is made of bit-depth. Advanced image editing in Photoshop typically starts by exporting a high-bit Tiff file from your RAW converter/archiving program. If there is no way to get more than 8 bits per channel out of Aperture, then the only serious export is "RAW". Which brings us to the next question. Aperature adjustment data can't be exported as a sidecar file with the original (RAW) file? If not, all your work on a photo is a dead end, since the ratings, crop and adjustments are lost. This would mean migrating your image library to, say, Lightroom, would bust you back to the files just as they came off the camera card, losing what might be, for a serious photographer, many thousands of hours of rating, dust busting, and editing work in the transfer.


TIFFs can be exported in 8 or 16-bit. You can also export as PSD (16-bit).

Metadata can be exported in a sidecar file. It does not appear that you can export adjustments. It kind of makes sense given Aperture's workflow. You are making adjustments to a version, not the original, making it easy to have multiple versions of a photo. If you really needed to move from Aperture to Lightroom, you could export all of your original files with metatdata sidecar first. Then you could export your versions, with metadata and adjustments, as 16-bit TIFFs. You would not lose any work. There might be other ways, but I'll leave that to someone with experience migrating.
0

#4 User is offline   MoffeDK 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: New Members
  • Posts: 1
  • Joined: 09-November 12

  Posted 09 November 2012 - 08:03 AM

Aperture has the most non-intuitive workflow I have ever experienced in my cafeer as preepress supporter. Get a better life - go for Photoshop like the pros.
0

#5 User is offline   talmy 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 178
  • Joined: 03-November 08

  Posted 09 November 2012 - 08:39 AM

Quote

Which brings us to the next question. Aperature adjustment data can't be exported as a sidecar file with the original (RAW) file? If not, all your work on a photo is a dead end, since the ratings, crop and adjustments are lost.


This isn't just an Aperture problem, it exists for every non-destructive editing application AFAIK. You can't move from Lightroom to Aperture either! For years I used Nikon Capture with my first DSLR only to hit that same bottleneck when abandoning it. At least I've still got all the RAW files!
1

#6 User is offline   jb23 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3
  • Joined: 17-December 05

  Posted 09 November 2012 - 09:34 AM

Quote

Aperture has the most non-intuitive workflow I have ever experienced in my cafeer as preepress supporter. Get a better life - go for Photoshop like the pros.


Hmm, could this be a case of old dogs and new tricks... once you get engrained in doing things one way, it can be tough to switch. I actually face similar challenges when trying to configure things in Windows after being a Mac user for many years (believe it or not, I actually like Windows 7; I think MS did a good job with it, but it still seems "unnatural" times).
2

#7 User is offline   DerrickStory 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 59
  • Joined: 26-March 04

  Posted 09 November 2012 - 10:33 AM

Hey All, This is an article to help people understand how to best export images out of Aperture for other uses, such as publishing online, sharing with a friend, etc. This is part of a series of articles to help folks with the basic fundamentals of this app. Just like with Photoshop, Lightroom, AfterShot Pro, or any other imaging program, sharing basic information is helpful for those who are trying to come up the curve.
0

#8 User is offline   BlakeCloutier 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: New Members
  • Posts: 3
  • Joined: 20-June 12

  Posted 09 November 2012 - 01:46 PM

Thanks for the reminder to export my photos for additional backup. I realized I had been forgetting about it for a while now. I just started exporting 13,000 photos into separate folders. The Subfolder Export is something that I don't think iPhoto has and I hadn't looked for in Aperture. Now I'll have another copy of all of the photos in the safety deposit box. Pictures are in Aperture, an external hard drive, special ones are on Flickr and now the rest of the photos will be on flash drives in the safety deposit box.
0

#9 User is offline   hayesk 

  • Veteran
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,841
  • Joined: 07-August 04

  Posted 09 November 2012 - 02:10 PM

Quote

Aperture has the most non-intuitive workflow I have ever experienced in my cafeer as preepress supporter. Get a better life - go for Photoshop like the pros.


Aperture is not intended to compete with Photoshop. And Aperture doesn't have a workflow; people do. It's flexible so that you can use the workflow that you want.

I chose Aperture over Lightroom because of the free form workflow. I found Lightroom's forced steps to be too rigid. Software should conform to me, not the other way around.
3

#10 User is offline   clane47 

  • Member
  • Group: Macworld Insiders
  • Posts: 15
  • Joined: 30-January 08

  Posted 09 November 2012 - 03:26 PM

I use Aperture BECAUSE it has no formal workflow. Aperture is modeless, you can do most anything at any time. The workflow is up to the user. Lightroom forces you back into using a specific mode to use specific functions. I don't like it! It feels so….....1990ish.
3

#11 User is offline   Timhz3n 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: New Members
  • Posts: 12
  • Joined: 07-July 11

  Posted 09 November 2012 - 04:52 PM

Quote

Aperture has the most non-intuitive workflow I have ever experienced in my career as prepress supporter. Get a better life - go for Photoshop like the pros.


Afraid I have to disagree with you. I have been a Photoshop user for years: at home and work, and the general workflow and tools of Aperture are vastly better in terms of fast turnover.

Typically I will pull in 400-500 images into Aperture at a time and spend several hours cropping, tweaking and enhancing. Doing the same amount of work would be about 5X slower in Photoshop.

Don't get me wrong, I still use Photoshop when I need to do complex tasks and for total control, there's nothing in Aperture that comes close. But when you're talking about working through large numbers of photos, the Aperture sliders are just way faster.

Plus if I need to do tweaks within the image, the Aperture brushes for contrast, sharpness, saturation, lighten, skin smoothing, etc are superfast. I can generally avoid the PS mask work entirely and that's a huge workflow win.

My guess is that you must not know the Aperture 3 tool set if you think PS is that much faster.
3

#12 User is offline   FrenchKheldar 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: New Members
  • Posts: 1
  • Joined: 09-November 12

  Posted 09 November 2012 - 06:50 PM

Let's hope this is not an article to prepare us to export everything out to LR because Aperture 4 or X or whatever is nowhere in sight :(
0

#13 User is offline   CDTobie 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 89
  • Joined: 16-January 07

  Posted 10 November 2012 - 04:51 AM

So the answer (and I appreciate the input) is that migrating to Lightroom (which is the most common place for serious photographers to have their libraries) leaves one with two sets of files: the original RAWs (unrated and unedited) and a set of edited high bit Tiffs. What color space those Tiffs are in has still not been mentioned; that is important to serious photographers.

Given that the only way to end up with more would be to comply with exactly the editing tools used in Photoshop ACR and Lightroom (hardly a choice a competing product would care to make) that's a pretty workable solution. It is not documented in this article, however. Which is rather a failing (not of Aperture, but of the author), given the article's title and topic, and the fact that those shooting RAW are not consumers (they use iPhoto) but serious photographers, needing this type of advanced information. My thanks to all those who have assisted.
1

#14 User is offline   patriotusa 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 145
  • Joined: 09-September 04

  Posted 10 November 2012 - 06:11 PM

I've used Photoshop professionally since 1992, retouching for brands like Mary Kay, American Airlines, JCPenny, etc. Aperture is a great tool that I use in conjunction with Photoshop. The nice thing is that you can designate Photoshop as an external editor in Aperture. I tend to use Aperture's tools when I can because they are faster and get as good a result as Photoshop for most tasks. When it comes to complex editing I will edit the image in Photoshop, but opening it from within Aperture. This allows me to use Aperture's superior organization tools while complementing it with Photoshop's editing features. Aperture is a very powerful tool with the ability to use 8 or 16 bit files, and whichever color space you need. The ability to set up custom export profiles means you can have your primary image editing space be a larger gamut space, such as Adobe RGB, but export whatever you need such as sRGB for Web or SWOP CMYK for an offset press.
0

Share this topic:


  • (2 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users