Apple Aperture Importing question

[muzee]

Hello everyone,

It's been a while since I've posted here, but know I can always count on you to help me out.

I'm using Aperture 3.6, and was wondering about the differences in using JPEG as Original vs RAW as original (when importing). I can see the difference on screen, but what about the back end processing? If I import the RAW+JPEG pair with JPEG as original, do the edits apply to the JPEG or RAW (i.e, do I gain the benefits of the details in the RAW file, or am I stuck with the JPEG info)? I like seeing the camera processed JPEGs (not very good at reproducing the same colours via RAW processing), so I'm hoping JPEG as Original would be a good halfway point to processing the RAWs. Am I even making sense? Or am I stuck using RAW as originals if I want to gain the full RAW benefits?

 

[Brownie]

To start with, make sure you understand that RAW is not an acronym. It literally refers to the raw data from the digital file. The RAW program creates an image you can view from the RAW data, but it has nothing to do with the jpeg. jpeg and RAW are two different files. The reason the jpeg looks different is that the camera has already processed the file to the best of it's ability. Sometimes that's fine, sometimes it ends up a bunch of compromises.

Once the file is a jpeg there' no RAW data left to work with. There is no halfway point. You're either processing jpeg or RAW. Also, with RAW you can keep the original, unedited file and go back to it any time you want. It is a non-lossless format. With jpeg, every time you save you lose the ability to revert (unless you 'save-as' another file name) and, it is a 'lossy' file, meaning you lose a tiny bit of quality with each successive save. Whether that matters or not is a subject of debate, I expect to most people it makes no difference, within reason.

Don't worry too much about not being good at color reproduction or any of that. No one is at first, it's like anything else. I shoot RAW and jpeg because I find it easier to use the MS based photo viewer to decide what's worth processing and what I want to trash, but I rarely process a jpeg.

 

[muzee]

To start with, make sure you understand that RAW is not an acronym. It literally refers to the raw data from the digital file. The RAW program creates an image you can view from the RAW data, but it has nothing to do with the jpeg. jpeg and RAW are two different files. The reason the jpeg looks different is that the camera has already processed the file to the best of it's ability. Sometimes that's fine, sometimes it ends up a bunch of compromises.

Once the file is a jpeg there' no RAW data left to work with. There is no halfway point. You're either processing jpeg or RAW. Also, with RAW you can keep the original, unedited file and go back to it any time you want. It is a non-lossless format. With jpeg, every time you save you lose the ability to revert (unless you 'save-as' another file name) and, it is a 'lossy' file, meaning you lose a tiny bit of quality with each successive save. Whether that matters or not is a subject of debate, I expect to most people it makes no difference, within reason.

Don't worry too much about not being good at color reproduction or any of that. No one is at first, it's like anything else. I shoot RAW and jpeg because I find it easier to use the MS based photo viewer to decide what's worth processing and what I want to trash, but I rarely process a jpeg.

Thank you.

 

[fredlong]

In Aperture, if you’re importing jpeg+raw you can have it set to stack them with either one “on top" or have them show up side by side. You can always process either one of them. The processing is lossless until export. If you process the jpeg you are starting with an already processed image that’s been reduced to eight bits/channel and compressed in a way that that throws away data that can’t be retrieved. If you want to do anything beyond light tweaking I’d recommend using the raw file.