Hello,
I am seeking the aid/advice of anyone who has spent a bit of time with both raw processors.
I have just returned from a 14 day photo safari in Tanzania. During the safari I shot over 8000 images. Having been a DPP user since my move to Canon 4-5 years ago, I am very familiar with the program. While I have been generally happy with DPP when compared to Bridge/ACR, I have not been happy w/ either program when it comes to image editing. Both DPP and CS3/Bridge are slow to resolve images.

Enter Aperture: I recently acquired Aperture 2.0. Aperture has a superior interface, especially when it comes to editing a large number of images. My problem is with how Aperture renders a Raw file. I find the Aperture images quite flat/neutral when compared to DPP. Even when DPP renders a 1DmkII file in "neutral" mode, it is much warmer than Aperture's files. In addition, Aperture tends to clip at the highlight where DPP does not. While all of this can be fixed file by file, it definitely slows the work-flow!

Now for the question... is their a way to match Aperture's Raw output to DPP's automatically, or am I stuck?
cheers,
bruce

I'm on the same fence and have boiled the choice down to 1) using a program that uses ICC camera profiles at the start (Capture One, Bibble, Raw Developer and a few others) or 2) using a program that shuns camera profiles and uses calibration procedures (ACR, Aperture, DPP).

After months of testing I'm still on the fence. When I began using a Canon 1Ds3 I noticed the results from Capture One were lackluster. I figured the problem to be the ICC camera profile so I tried DPP. Then ACR, then Bibble, then Raw Developer. So far I prefer the results from DPP but am investing in ColorEyes 20/20 in an attempt to get the best results possible from the ICC savvy programs. Hopefully, I'll know more in a couple of weeks.

I think that quality results can be had from any of the programs once they've been mastered, but in your case of whittling down 8,000 images RAW processing can become a burden and success depends more on patience and perseverance than anything else.

For now, I'm focused more on a program's ability to process the images well than its file organizing qualities.

Thanks for your thoughts Chris,
After a 15 hour investment on my work from Tanzania I feel that I am beginning to get a handle on the Aperture interface and the merits of its use. First, it is quite easy to organize a large number of images, create "stacks" of like images, and rate the work. The use of key commands is logical and they can be easily changed to match my own logic. Furthermore, it is simple to use the Aperture raw processor and the results appear to be non-destructive and positive. Finally, I have learned how easy it is to make a change in one image and transport all or part of that change to other files.

All of this is good... good file management and good image control.
My issue is w/ the initial raw file. For whatever reason, Aperture offers me flat and neutral images as a raw (when compared to the same base image in DPP). While I can make the necessary changes to restore the lost saturation and contrast, this can be tedious and time consuming.

I'd love to hear from others who are using Canon or Nikon files in Aperture. I am currently working with 5D, 1Ds, 1D, 1DmkII, 20D, & 30D canon files (current work), as well as D100, D1x, and D2h nikon files (old work).
cheers,
bruce

Can't the default conversion settings for Aperture be changed?

Ah yes, patience and perseverance.

Yes... but how do you define the new default routine? I guess I want to know how I can get Aperture to import the image using the processing routine defined by the camera characteristics that I have previously set.

regards,
bruce

Aperture won't "Automatically" use Canon's in-camera settings, like DPP will. Typically, no 3rd party RAW converter will do this.

It should be pretty easy to just add +5 saturation or +5 vibrancy or +5 contrast to an image and lift/stamp it to all your images as a starting point. For 8000 images this will take about 15 seconds to get started, and then it'll take a few minutes to cruise through the images. It'll get you closer, but typically the RAW file conversions are a bit flat as a starting point. That's usually by design: More dynamic range at the expense of a little post-processing.

But Aperture should make batch tweaking quite fast -- I do it all the time. Just don't overbake the image you lift the adjustments from, as then you might have to dial it back on the images that were saturated or contrasty out of the camera.

IMO overall you'll save tons of time with Aperture versus DPP. Maybe a bit more work to get the initial "punch" but most of the other stuff is a lot quicker (and IMO more intuitive).

Thanks for your input. I am now on day 4 of processing and I think I now have the hang of Aperture. The Apple software rocks for editing and archiving. I have now think I have a handle on basic changes to the raw files...

All I have to say for now is... goodbye DPP.
cheers,
bruce