jt

Apple Airport Express works well (Wifi, 802.11n).

The first link in a Google search for <i>batch adjustments aperture</i> gives <a

href="http://www.apertureprofessional.com/showthread.php?

t=1955">http://www.apertureprofessional.com/showthread.php?t=1955</a><br><br>

 

Basically, make your adjustments to one image, use the 'lift' tool, select all the images

you want to apply it to, (make sure the 'primary image only' button is not set) and click

the 'stamp' tool.

<i><q>Then I save a jpg copy of the file and I delete the tiff. At that point I have the

original RAW file + a jpg (in Adobe color space, full size with only capture sharpening). I

then resize the jpg (keeping the original jpg in tact), convert to sRGB and sharpen for the

desired output </q></i><br><br>You probably don't really want to be saving the TIFF

as a JPEG, playing around with it, then saving as a JPEG again for final printshop output.

What's the point of the intermediate large JPEG save? It will just lose data. Why not save

the large, capture-sharpened file as a 16-bit TIFF in Adobe RGB?<br><br>

 

As others said, the camera-set colour space is irrelevant if you're shooting RAW. Your

RAW converter program's output setting is the one to look at.

You cannot use Time Machine to back up Aperture libraries (at the moment) if that's what

you're interested in - possible data corruption bug.

 

Works fine for all files in 'normal' folders though.

 

Aperture backups are done manually with a click.

If you decide to get a 40D kit, your local store may be able to order-in the anniversary kit I

bought a couple of weeks ago with the 40D and 17-55mm f/2.8 IS - just to add another

option into your equation. It's a better lens than the other two lenses you mention in 40D

kits.

 

Enjoy whatever you get.

By the way, the graphics card will have no bearing on the performance of Photoshop.

Run Activity Monitor while using photoshop (after fresh restart of computer, with nothing else running). Do some 'typical' stuff, and then take a look back in Activity Monitor under the memory section - are you getting many 'Page Outs'? (i.e. computer having to read info that really should be in RAM off the hard disk instead as you didn't have enough RAM to keep it all in).

 

If you are, then another 1GB stick from crucial.com (good quality and repuation) is ?36 with free shipping (that's GBP; I don't know how that would convert to wherever you are). Much cheaper than any other options available. But I suspect that at least with the filter use, it's really your processor that's showing its age. 2GB RAM would make the iMac more sellable second hand if you decide it's still not fast enough.

 

(I have a 2GHz iMac G5 with 2GB RAM and find I'm using a most of the RAM and I'm only working with 6MP digital files).

CS3 is already faster.

 

The quad cores will maybe speed up CS2 more than they will speed up CS3 because going 2>4 cores will move CS2 from 1 core (1 being taken up with the Rosetta emulation thing) to say 3 cores (I'm not sure how multi-threaded PS is), but CS3 will be 'upgraded' from already using the full 2 cores to say 3 cores (50% increase in speed instead of 100% increase in speed). Simplified example but hopefully explains what Christopher meant.

Yes it's there, but I prefer Smultron (free) for anything text or basic coding-related.

"I can't splash out for a Macbook Pro so I'm looking at the next best option"

 

That would be the Macbook. Prices just dropped (in the UK anyway) and speeds went up (yesterday). You can add an external monitor later if/when you can afford it. 2GB RAM is better than 1GB if you're doing anything vaguely complex with your images.

 

Get a big external drive for backup if you don't have one already.

 

Adobe CS3 is Universal and will run faster on a Macbook than a Powerbook G4.

Lots of reviews online if you search Google.

 

I'm using Aperture and find it immensely useful, but different programs suit different people's requirements differently, so the best thing I think would be to get the Macbook, download the free trials of both Aperture and Lightroom and see which works better for YOU.

 

(Remember that Aperture uses the video card for a lot of its image processing so if you can afford it a Macbook Pro (dedicated graphics card) would perform any manipulation more quickly).

Maybe worth trying this? http://www.macworld.com/weblogs/macgems/2006/10/iphotolibrarymanager/index.php

Why not eliminate the pics using the iPhoto interface instead of fiddling around inside the library where there are significant chances of messing up the entire library (as you say, there are data files, attr files, etc etc all of which need to be kept in sync)?

 

Otherwise - Lightroom/Aperture, and there are several others similar-ish.

I've just been preparing files for printing and noticed something strange: the

JPG files from my Canon 350D are 3456x2304 pixels, but RAW files are 3456x2298

pixels.

 

Is this 'normal'?? It's certainly a bit of an inconvenience in that I have to

crop all the RAW files slightly to get the aspect ratios 'correct'.

 

Can anyone shed any light on what's going on?

 

(Using Aperture to import, but I can't imagine that's the cause of the issue -

does anyone have experience with other software (my camera is being repaired at

the moment))

 

Thanks,

Jonathan.

It will work fine, you just need LOTS more RAM. I think the Mac Pro can handle 16GB - you'll need at least 4GB.

Strange. Are you sure they're not aliased in a folder of the project you're dragging them from, [i'm not sure if this happens...:] making them still appear to be in the original project?

What do you mean by it won't let you? Do you get an error message, or the pointer just won't let you drop them? Or won't let you pick them up? Or....?

 

This might not be the most helpful information, but it works for me using Aperture 1.5.2 on an iMac G5.

Are you using Vista? That can make files unreadable by PS.

Drag and drop files from one project to another. That's from the overall project "box", not from folders in the project (file can be in only one project, but can have aliases in folders in other projects too).

 

Don't know about the other things.

Just to clarify, there are now THREE ways to apply sharpening in Aperture.

 

1. Under RAW Fine Tuning (Intensity/Edges), set on by default when importing RAW files.

 

2. By turning on Sharpening module/filter (Intensity/Radius)

 

3. 'New' Edge Sharpening (Intensity/Edges/Falloff)

 

I understand Number 3 replacing Number 2 (other than for backwards compatibility or people who prefer it), but I'm trying to figure how Number 1 fits into the picture.

I'm shooting RAW files with a Canon 350D.

 

When I import to Aperture, in the "RAW Fine Tuning" section of Adjustments, it

detects the Canon 350D and sets some (presumably Apple/Canon-set) default

settings for the RAW development - Boost 1.0; Sharpening Intensity 0.52, Edges

0.46; Chroma Blur 2.0; Auto noise compensation.

 

That's the same as it was in Aperture 1.1

 

Now this "new" Edge Sharpen tool in adjustments seems very similar to what's

already under RAW Fine Tuning. So is the idea to use it

(Intensity/Edges/Falloff) instead of the settings under RAW Fine Tuning, or in

addition to them? The default values for Edge Sharpen are quite different:

Intensity 0.81/Edges 0.22/Falloff 0.69.

 

I know the answer is at least partly "experiment and see what looks right" but I

think there should be some logic to the way I experiment (2 sharpening filters

or just one with changing values).

 

And is there a difference (other than the 3-pass Falloff thing) between the old

Intensity/Edges sharpening and the "new" Intensity/Edges/Falloff sharpening?

Wasn't 'edge sharpening' what Aperture was doing all along in previous versions?

Or is the term "Edges" misleading me?

 

 

Thanks for any enlightenment!

 

 

--Jonathan.

Make sure the camera's in One Shot AF mode, then you should get the beep. So long as there's enough light and contrast for the camera to focus.

 

My first 350D did have continual back-focus problems (just like in the pic of the brick wall above), but you need/want to check there's no operator error or anything else going on before you send it back.

The IE settings thing won't work (I don't think, anyway) - it's changing where temp internet files (not the browsing history file) is stored.

 

Go with Portable Firefox (but change history settings to more than the zero default days)

Assign the profile to the converted RAW file, and then do your editing or whatever.

 

Then if for example you wanted to upload to the web, Convert to e.g. sRGB when you save a copy.

Just FYI, the iMac/G5 (which is old, the iMac/Intel machines being the "new" ones) needs a software patch applying to enable it to output a true second display - the default settings only allow mirroring.

 

The new iMacs allow dual-display with no hacks.

 

Can't comment on 2-monitor profiling, sorry.