I tried to post this as a reply to “a neat trick for uploading photos from Aperture” but it must have been too long..
Ok. this has peaked my interest as I have just come over to Aperture.
I do have a question at the very end…
For work, for various reasons I shoot in all combinations of Adobe RGB and sRGB as well as Raw only, Jpeg only. And I use both Nikon and Canon files as well.
From the limited time spent in Aperture I have picked up some “theories” for want of a better word. I only use Aperture at home so I could be wrong and someone will probably correct me but here goes..
Aperture works itself in Adobe RGB (or a profile it calls that, - or something similar with the widest colour profile you have on your Mac.) Everything magically gets converted into that colorspace. Makes sense, you want to be working in the biggest colour space you have on your computer.
If I “get info” on a NEF file sitting on my drive it always lists it's colour profile as Adobe RGB even though technically it hasn't got one yet as it's still an unopened file.
Dumping or importing any files into Aperture and then dragging them out of aperture takes it's version from inside the Aperture version. (The pseudo “Adobe RGB” version obviously ignoring my original colorspace if different/smaller)
Thus the Adobe RGB version is created in Aperture.
When exporting if I choose “use source profile”, even if my file was a jpeg shot in sRGB, the new file lists the profile name in preview as Adobe RGB. Makes sense as I exported the source from my theory “Aperture working in Adobe RGB.”
The exif in preview will still tell me sRGB as it should because that's the original colour space it was shot in.
(open this new file back in aperture again and metadata says Adobe RGB - because it is now in Aperture and open the file in preview and exif still shows sRGB like it should be from the original, and profile in preview shows Adobe RGB as it should)
If I export and edit the preset to change the colorspace, (not dragging) I can control what I want, if I choose a different colorspace there - for example sRGB or any profile I have or need.
For Nathan Smith above who didn't have a colorspace listed I'm guessing you viewed a NEF shot in camera in Adobe RGB and viewed in preview. View a Jpeg shot in Adobe RGB and the colorspace should list as uncalibrated. (use the original Jpeg file not a NEF converted to JPEG by Aperture if you have one)
Shoot a jpeg in camera with sRGB instead of Adobe RGB and it will show that like your phone did.
Hence from the above my theory Aperture runs in pseudo Adobe RGB makes sense to me.
Exif in preview will show what it was, Metadata in Aperture what it is now.
But my curiosity still gets the better of me.
I understand how it works and why it works like it does…..
But where or how is Aperture defining the “use source file” ??
Is the “use source file” just the largest colorspace I have on my Mac that Aperture can use and is using - my pseudo Adobe RGB ??
Bit of internet searching and no answers for the definition of ” use source file.” is found.
Is it Aperture is not using a defined colorspace as such, but just calling it Adobe RGB because that's the biggest my Mac has listed ??
Anyone know - sorry if this is obvious for long term Aperture users.
I've just switched
I would guess that Aperture’s internal space is considerably larger than AdobeRGB (which doesn’t actually encompass an HP large format printer).
If you export a Master than doesn’t have a profile embedded, then none will be embedded on export. This is as you would expect.
I suspect that an exported version having AdobeRGB embedded, is a bug. It should not be happening.
I would guess you have some larger spaces than AdobeRGB on your Mac, unless you’ve manually removed them You most probably have the Nikon and Canon profiles, which include large spaces. LAB is installed by the OS and is gigantic.
Wish I was on the beta team for Aperture. There are too many of these bugs slipping through.
Simon & gfsymon,
Great observations. I don’t have all the answers but I’ll do what I can, and I have questions for you.
I would expect the “Use Source Profile” to be using whatever was on the photo when it was imported. If you import a RAW file which has no profile, then it should probably get Adobe RGB. If you import a TIF or JPG that has something embedded, custom or not, then that should stay with it. So your importing a camera-shot JPG at sRGB that’s being exported with Adobe RGB seems like a bug to me.
Then again, I don’t understand the difference between the Profile Name and the Color Space. I mean, I guess I do in theory, but I don’t see why (looking at yesterdays examples in my post follow-up), the images with sRGB profile get an sRGB color space, but the ones with Adobe RGB profile get an “uncalibrated” color space. Can you explain the difference in this case?
My understanding and recollection from my days at Apple on the Aperture marketing team was that the color space that Aperture uses while editing is a floating point color space, so way, way beyond what Adobe RGB can offer. 16-bit, or even higher perhaps, if I recall. Remember though that I’m not an engineer so when conversations turned that way, my eyes usually glazed over and I said something like “right… so, um, what do I tell the audience then?” ;-) I feel the same way today whenever the conversation turns towards color space. The problem is largely because no one seems to agree, and there are arguments all over the place as to what’s best. I think this is largely why it’s invisible to most Mac users; in true Apple fashion, they hid the ugly bits and make the image look as good as possible for the vast majority of users.
I don’t thin you can export a photo without a profile embedded, even if you imported it without out. There’s no “none” option in export, and even if you chose “source” I think it’d add that Adobe RGB.
The question still remains as to why the default for export is sRGB and hard-coded option for dragging out is Adobe RGB. I still, from my limited understanding, believe that either these should be reversed, or that they should both be Adobe RGB.
@PhotoJoseph
— Have you signed up for the mailing list?
This gets confusing but this is what I have found, and it agrees somewhat with the others. Color Source in my opinion should be the profile that is attached to an image on the original import, or if no profile is embedded then it stays null, No Profile embedded. I feel that is a bug BUT, right now AP uses the Preference export, export editor, as the Color Source. You can change this to srgb or adobe98 or the largest Pro photo. I read somewhere that they use a 16 bit color space like Prophoto to use for adjustment and when exporting it ends up as your choice. Just like Lr, hope Im right and I believe it is so.
Im not sure what is meant by hard coded for export = srgb. The export presets can all be change and I have re-named some of them with “50% original size Adobe98” or “Srgb” in the name so I know by looking at the preset what my outcome will be.
There are problems in importing images and I have notified and exchange file with Apple. Its been a week with no answer and probably a few more weeks to come.
David
davidbmoore@mac.com
Twitter= @davidbmoore
Scottsdale AZ
i’ve always viewed taking a picture and post like buying and servicing a car, stay with me here.
once i’ve decided on a brand of car (canon,nikon etc) i need to decide what model to buy. so the guy in the shop says do you want a big car or a little car.
Big car is a raw file - it has everything, and the little car is a jpeg.
If i buy big car (raw - i have the whole lot, size and all the extras, and according to preview it’s built by Mr. Adobe RGB anyway)
but if i choose the small car, i need to decide if i want one with everything
still, built by Mr. Adobe RGB, or a model with no extras - built by Mr.sRGB who only builds small cars.
Decisions … Decisions.. What if it needs repairs.
Only Mr Adobe can fix a Mr. Adobe car whilst anyone can fix a sRGB car even including Mr Adobe
So i buy a car..
After the car has been driven eventually it will need a service.So off to the service centre.
The service centre is Aperture.
Now, they need to be able to fix nearly any car ever made.
So once inside they hook it up to all the tuning machines.
Mr. Adobe RGB is head of the service department. He comes over to work on my car because he can fix anything.
If i bought a big RAW car Mr. Adobe RGB can tune it anyway I want and it’s still a genuine car.
If i bought a small Adobe RGB jpeg car he can fix that too, he built it as well.
What happens If i bought a small sRGB jpeg car.
Aperture only has MR. Adobe RGB in the service department.
Mr. sRGB only works on the production line. That’s cool Mr. Adobe RGB tells me he builds small cars too and can tune it, which i know, and if i still want Mr.sRGB can look over it before i take it away / export it as well.
So MR Adobe RGB tunes my cars..
My RAW tune up - everything is still there and it’s tuned.It’s still the same car. I don’t remove any of the extras it came with I just tune them.
My little Adobe RGB jpeg car is tuned, it’s the same too.
But my little sRGB jpeg car has been tuned by Mr. Adobe RGB.
That has to be listed in my log book. If Mr. sRGB looked at it after that, it needs to be listed as well.
I figure if i’m sick of waiting for the tune up and drag it out of the workshop before Mr. sRGB checks it, it now has to be listed in my service record that it was tuned by Mr. Adobe not Mr.sRGB. makes sense. (just dragging the file out of aperture before anyone has signed off on it.)
If i want to keep it a genuine sRGB car i need to specify that Mr sRGB check it before it leaves the workshop. (i do that in export)
If i say i don’t care who works on it, as long as they are in charge, just tell me when i pick it up, that’s “the use source file”. the guy who was working on it in the Aperture Workshop. (mr. Adobe RGB)
i think how Aperture does it is correct.
given that preview lists a raw file as Adobe RGB before it’s opened, (even though it may be something bigger than Adobe RGB) they need to call it something, for my log book, in case i take it to another dealer to service, so they call it Adobe RGB so another dealer has a ball park to know how to service it.
No matter what car I have Mr Adobe RGB can work on anything. He can fix anything. That’s the Aperture workshop.
Mr sRGB is a bit of a specialist. but he can still check it if i want
So why would i want a car built by Mr sRGB then. Surely one built by Mr Adobe is better.
Not always. Maybe i want a nice simple car that all my friends can drive. one that will fit in any garage. one that can take any fuel. Thats a sRGB car. Your Adobe car is your sports car. But not everyone can work on it. Not every fuel station has the right gas. If i’m going for a drive but i don’t know where, I’ll take the sRGB car everytime. It’s the safe bet.
for the above questions.
i think the default for export being sRGB is the right one.
It’s like tuning your car to be able to go anywhere safely.
And the word “export” should as a preset, be able to go anywhere unless i modify it to only go to certain places. (all other colour spaces etc.)
In Aperture Mr Adobe ( he is probably a super hero version of Mr Adobe) has been working on my Pics. but mr.sRGB signs of unless i say otherwise when i export.
My pic could go anywhere, if i know where its going i’ll specify that in the tune. Dragged out Mr Adobe is the last person to work on it - it hasn’t been signed off.
i agree with gfsymon it’s probably bigger than Adobe but Aperture has to call it something. I don’t think it’s a bug if i use “choose source file” that it ends up as Adobe - that’s how the garage works.
when files get dragged out - uncalibrated for me is listed when the original jpeg was shot in adobe RGB. The raw has none listed in exif.
both files were working in adobe inside aperture and the raw wasn’t listed when dragged out because it hasn’t been calibrated into anything else.
it was working in Adobe.
the sRGB was changed as it was working in Adobe and it lists that.
My view is exif is like the photos birth certificate - it lists day one specs. metadata in aperture is what is current. A bit more like your current ID. tells you how things are now.
the colorspace in exif is what it was shot in.
the colorprofile in general is what worked on it.
but after understanding all this i still don’t know exactly what “use source file” is. all the above makes sense but i still want to know exactly what the “use source file ” is as it just seems to be Adobe to me…..
Joseph,
yes I agree. Source profile should be the profile that is embedded in the image at time of import.
I don’t believe you can get a raw into Aperture without a profile. This is set in camera. If there is some way, then it should definitely NOT have AdobeRGB arbitrarily embedded, or any other profile for that matter.
Profile name is just name of a profile that represents a ‘colour space’. The colour space is an actual physical space. The profile is a file that can be used to have an image’s colours contained within that space. You should open the ColorSync Editor and have a play around. Open AdobeRGB, then from the teeny drop-down triangle, choose to ‘hold for comparison’. Then choose sRGB from the list and it will be super imposed on AdobeRGB. Click and drag on the graphic and you can spin it around.
I think there is more than one Colorsync bug in Aperture. AdobeRGB being described as ‘uncalibrated’ may well relate to the bug I reported when importing a Tiff in AdobeRGB. Aperture is not seeing the profile and/or is assigning a different one (which to me looks like a 4-colour space).
Yes, Aperture has a very large colour space internally. This is a good thing. I would imagine it is 16bit, but who knows, it might be 32bit.
The problem with large colour spaces, is quantisation. If the ‘steps’ between colours are too large, you can get banding. It might be micro-banding, but it’s likely to be there. So in the days when photographers were all working in 8bit and adopted ProPhoto, believing ‘bigger is better’ usually because they thought this would avoid clipping (an easy enough concept to understand and indeed true) in fact, if the range of colours in the image were limited (like every single fashion photographer on the planet 5 years ago … desat ‘de rigueur’) then those colours would be getting overly stretched. This was worse if they were printing and using relative or absolute conversion because the colours were getting very squeezed in ‘relative’ to the huge space. So stretched out to start, then squeezed in to finish and thus … damaged/banding. 16bit has largely resolved these issues, but of course, web use is all 8bit, so not totally resolved.
You can export an image without a profile, if it is a Master and had no profile when it was imported. I believe the sRGB on export/AdobeRGB on ‘drag’ export thing is a bug. Certainly it makes no sense to me, so if it is ‘expected behaviour’, it’s pretty weird.
I agree and follow the above comments.
I did a little more fiddling with files and Aperture.
used 4 images and read in 2 viewers.
1 raw and 1 jpeg shot Adobe Rgb and
1 raw and i jpeg shot sRGB
exported all as Masters, Version (use source file) and dragged out.
as expected Masters all had no colour space on raws and the jpeg had color space Adobe RGB and sRGB as appropriate.
the versions and dragged both read the same.
color profile description - all read Adobe RGB
color profile name - all read unnamed colour profile
color space - only the jpegs had this - the Adobe Jpeg was “uncalibrated” and the sRGB said sRGB
colorsync profile all read Adobe RGB
and another viewer - profile name all read Adobe RGB
all this is even getting a bit hard for me to interpret.
but it still appears on dragging or use source file Adobe RGB is coating / covering everything that has been worked inside aperture.
gfsymon I can see how these Aperture perceived “uncalibrated ” or “unnamed” profiles could be creating hiccups on Tiffs if all this is going on in jpegs.
i’m glad i hardly ever use tiffs or these profile variances could make my head explode..
just learn’t i have to tell aperture exactly what i want and how to get it i guess and then i do get exactly what i want
but overall i am really liking my switch to Aperture - it all sort of makes sense if i think like Apple…
Simon
I stand corrected on my earlier statement. Spoke before testing. Choosing the external editing profile is only good for when you are “Round Tripping” within AP. When dragging a image out of AP the new embedder profile is Adobe98. So If you want srgb or Pro-photo you need to export it with a preset for that profile.
All of that is fine with me I have learned how they want me to play. Its the importing of wide gamut tifs that is broken and that effects me big time. AP4 where are you?
davidbmoore@mac.com
Twitter= @davidbmoore
Scottsdale AZ
DBMoore,
You said “Im not sure what is meant by hard coded for export = srgb.”. What I said was “and hard-coded option for dragging out is Adobe RGB” meaning that if you drag a Preview photo out of Aperture to the desktop and open it in Preview.app, you’ll see that the color profile is Adobe RGB. You can’t change this anywhere in Aperture, therefore, it’s hard coded. Export, on the other hand, allows you to select whatever profile you want.
-Joseph
@PhotoJoseph
— Have you signed up for the mailing list?
gfsymon,
I was sure I’d read somewhere that color profiles on RAW are irrelevant and that while you can choose sRGB or Adobe RGB in the camera’s settings, that only really applies to JPEG. Maybe I’m wrong though, because I just looked at a RAW file in the Finder and I see that it has the Adobe RGB profile attached to it.
-Joseph
@PhotoJoseph
— Have you signed up for the mailing list?
Geezuz my head hurts. This is why I keep avoiding this topic ;-)
-Joseph
@PhotoJoseph
— Have you signed up for the mailing list?
Joseph,
you may or may not have a profile embedded in your raw file. I choose on my Nikon files, to have them handled in AdobeRGB. This is a setting in camera. But whether or not you see anything resembling a profile in Aperture, Lr or whatever else, doesn’t matter. The raws contains the information that is necessary for a raw processing software to process its files. That means it is using some sort of colour profile and so … it is colour managed.