[Capslock118]

I use aperture for my photo management.

Recently I've been getting into photoshop and a couple plug-ins that work with both programs (namely, portraiture and topaz denoise). Oh I also have photoshop setup as the plug-in to aperture; it makes my life a bit easier if I want to use photoshop as I do not have to constantly export and import photos from/to aperture doing it this way.

Now i'm not sure how photoshop does it, but basically when you use a plugin in aperture, it makes a copy of your photo as a TIFF, send the tiff to the plugin, then when you are done the tiff is then saved in aperture.

This is kind of pains me because now I have two copies of effectively the same photo rather than multiple versions (an aperture thing).

More concerning is that the TIFFs are generally at least 17mb in size while the original RAW file from the camera is always around 10mb (6mp k100d).

1: why is it that these files are so much larger? this is kind of cramping my style
2: can you see what i am doing here between all the different programs and if so do you think there is a better method?

[twitch]

IDeally Aperture would have an inplace jpeg conversion and discard original function, but it doesn't. So you could export the tiff at original size & quality of 11, then import that jpeg, then delete the tiff.

Or.... just buy a bigger HDD

[Capslock118]

IDeally Aperture would have an inplace jpeg conversion and discard original function, but it doesn't. So you could export the tiff at original size & quality of 11, then import that jpeg, then delete the tiff.

Well. It's more RAW -> plugin -> Tiff -> aperture -> tiff. I wouldn't want to discard the original, that's the whole point of me using aperture i.e. it's non-destructive workflow. Maybe i misunderstood you.

What would be ideal for me is RAW (master) -> plugin -> Tiff -> aperture -> version over master - whatever, that format would be.

just buy a bigger HDD

not an option at the moment. If i had the money to dish out for computer hardware it be more ram...

[twitch]

Well. It's more RAW -> plugin -> Tiff -> aperture -> tiff. I wouldn't want to discard the original, that's the whole point of me using aperture i.e. it's non-destructive workflow. Maybe i misunderstood you.

What would be ideal for me is RAW (master) -> plugin -> Tiff -> aperture -> version over master - whatever, that format would be.



not an option at the moment. If i had the money to dish out for computer hardware it be more ram...

To be clear, by "discard the original" I meant discard the TIFF, not the RAW. So you'd end up with the RAW and the JPEG version of the TIFF which would use up a lot less stoage than the RAW and the TIFF.

[Capslock118]

To be clear, by "discard the original" I meant discard the TIFF, not the RAW.

Ok, thanks for the clarification. Yeah that would be excellent. Too bad I guess, i'll need to ponder this one.

[Capslock118]

Ok, let me run this by all of you...

So I am looking at lightroom - it looks like it is adobes competitor Aperture.

It says that the editor within lightroom is non-destructive - awesome, that's what I like about Aperture and why I use it.

But what about moving files from lightroom to work in photoshop then back to lightroom again for storage management?

Does lightroom act in the same way aperture does i.e. creates a tiff copy which is then sent out to the "plug-in" (i.e. photoshop) and then you end up with two copies of the same picture i.e. 1 raw and 1 tiff?

[philbaum]

Ok, let me run this by all of you...

So I am looking at lightroom - it looks like it is adobes competitor Aperture.

It says that the editor within lightroom is non-destructive - awesome, that's what I like about Aperture and why I use it.

But what about moving files from lightroom to work in photoshop then back to lightroom again for storage management?

Does lightroom act in the same way aperture does i.e. creates a tiff copy which is then sent out to the "plug-in" (i.e. photoshop) and then you end up with two copies of the same picture i.e. 1 raw and 1 tiff?

Yes, and the reason why is this:
a. LR preserves the original file
b. When you send the file out to a plugin, e.g Elements for object removal, Denoise for NR, one is given the option of creating a jpg or that TIFF you were talking about.
c. When the TIFF or jpeg is created in LR, its given a name similiar to the original File, but with "Edit" appended to it. The next time its sent out, its appended to Edit-Edit, etc.
d. When it comes back, one is allowed to group it with the original file, but its treated as a new original file (but with the Edit tag added to the name).

So the short answer to your question is that it appears to me that LR treats it just the same as Aperture. If it didn't, you would lose that original file you started with, which LR and Aperture are sworn not to do. You could delete the original file manually, however.

[Capslock118]

If it didn't, you would lose that original file you started with, which LR and Aperture are sworn not to do

And, even with what you said, I'm still not 100% on the why the process is setup like this. why would i lose the original file?

Consider this:

Aperture and lightroom both swear to non-destructive work flows. Ok - so if I take my RAW file, I can do whatever I want to it, within that application, exposure adjustment, white balance, cropping, whatever. The original file will stay in tact but you still see the changes.

The changes are simply instructions telling aperture/lightroom hey - take this raw file, and do x,y,z to it then display the result. No additional jpeg or TIFF is created in order to do this.

In apertures case, these instructions produce a result it calls a version.

So, why is it that, when you use a plug-in, the result of that plug in is not considered a version i.e. simply instructions for the program to do to the raw image, rather than creating an entirely new TIFF or JPEG?

take raw - do steps x,y,z - display - step z for example would be the things done in the plug-in.
...hmm...actually that might be the answer - if step z is the instructions from the plug-in, the plug in would either have to be reopened anytime the image was to be viewed to make the changes or the instruction set would have to be sent back to aperture...which i would guess is proprietary; if it wasn't then aperture would just be able to do the job i asked the plug in to-do.

ok..



on a related note my RAW images are 10mb in size (6MP), but when I put that file into photoshop or any other plugin for apterture, the resulting TIFF is anywhere between 17MB to 30MB depending on cropping. Why would the result, which if anything I would assume is destroying data, take up more that twice the original space?