Rest assured that Lightroom is not perfect. In fact if you would have visited the Lr4 beta forum … or the current Lightroom User-2-User forum, you will see Adobe is having their fair share of issues as well. I am here now because I am very upset and dissatisfied with Lr4 … while the improvements made to ACR/Develop Module in Lr are quite nice … the balance of the app is a wasteland compared to Aperture … the Slideshow module and the new Books module are literal jokes as compared to Aperture 3. So much so, I am extremely close to moving my entire workflow to Aperture 3.

Camera RAW updates are a sticky situation for ALL current RAW processor developers. None of them have a distinct advantage.

Case in point: Currently the shipping version of Lr4 supports the Nikon D4, but not the Nikon D800 … while ACR in PSCS6 public beta supports both cameras … apparently they didn’t have the D800 up to speed when Lr4 shipped … but had it ready for CS6 … though they expect Lr4 to be up to speed in the next update which is possible to appear in the next week or two … Timing is everything when it comes to supporting new cameras … even Apple issued a separate update for the D800 just days after updating for several other cameras. Most importantly … RAW image files, as far as the data structure are a constant moving target, so reverse engineering that data, while at the same time, being careful not to step on the camera maker’s toes when it comes to proprietary data … can be a real can of worms … plenty of blame to go around because it is a constant vicious cycle.

You are correct that by the numbers Lr has considerably more users which is quite understandable considering Aperture is only available on a single platform … but don’t overlook the fact that Apple does so much more than software development … which amazes me why Adobe lags so far behind in the area of functionality for a true complete workflow in Lr … I would expect them to look at Aperture and try to stay a step or two ahead … unfortunately that is not the case …

I can guarantee that if there is an Aperture 4 (fingers crossed) and Apple adds the ability to use a custom camera profile and noise reduction even remotely similar to Lr … I’ll jump over in a heartbeat.

I don’t know if this is still true. It was a couple of years ago and I don’t imagine it’s changed:

Adobe, when adding a new camera to their Camera Raw, would take an existing similar camera, say, generic Nikon and simply add the necessary tags. They may or may not have improved the profile later on.

Apple require the manufacturers to supply them with a camera for 2 months. They then presumably spend the necessary amount of time making proper profiles. Not only that, but their RAW conversion is included in the OS and is available to any developer that cares to dip into it. That is how Hasselblad were able to add 150 cameras to their Phocus software, when they decided to add 3rd party camera support. In reality, they did very little.

Regarding custom profiles. My personal view is that they are not very useful unless you are working in a very controlled environment, for example copying artwork. Myself, I simply use a grey-balance as a guide or starting point. After all, Kelvin’s notion of daylight is not very relevant if you live in Helsinki and it’s October. :)

In Aperture you could cater to custom profiles using Presets at import. E.g., if you feel reds are too strong, make an adjustment on an image using a Color brick, then save it as a Preset and apply it to images from that camera during import. (You could go a long way to replicating a custom dng profile, by using a target and a spectro and building a preset with a Color brick adjustment for each patch, then applying that at import. That would bring you very close to a custom profile.)

gfsymon -

“Adobe, when adding a new camera to their Camera Raw, would take an existing similar camera, say, generic Nikon and simply add the necessary tags. They may or may not have improved the profile later on.”

Nothing could be further from the truth. Thomas Knoll (the guy who first developed Photoshop) is also the creator of Adobe Camera RAW and takes it upon himself to supervise and/or create the Camera Calibration profiles used by ACR and Lr. Though, Adobe has always included several generic profiles that can be applied to Nikon cameras, they also create and tweak sets of camera specific versions as well. They also have updated many profiles along the way.

Of course you can create adjustment presets to be applied on import, but the problem with that is you never have those sliders starting at a “zero” point when you go to make adjustments to individual images … with custom Camera Calibration profiles that contain the color and/or tone adjustments you prefer within the profile itself, All your sliders are untouched when the images are imported.

“After all, Kelvin’s notion of daylight is not very relevant if you live in Helsinki and it’s October. :)”

The main reason for a custom camera profile is it allows the users themselves to decide how they want their images to look and not depend upon the eye or perception of the software developer. Rendering a true 100% accurate color may not always be what the user desires. I gave up on Nikon’s Capture NX long ago … while the app offered great image quality for tonality … the color rendition for skin tones was way off the mark … in “my” opinion.

Using the DNG profile editor, I was able to fine-tune those skin tones and subtle tonality preferences to what I prefer for the cameras I actually use … not the particular specific camera provided to the software developer … that may or may not differ slightly from my own units. Applying the profiles as default, there quite often is little need for extensive color adjustment once the white balance for the specific image has been established, other than applying creative nuances. This is why I think it would be a great benefit for all involved if Apple would offer a tool for Aperture users to customize camera specific profiles.

I feel like I am talking too much about Adobe products here on an Aperture forum, but there seems to be a lot of misconceptions (on both sides) about the software we use … it’s too bad we couldn’t pick the best portions of both apps and create a truly butt kicking solution … :-)

Butch I know for a fact, that in the past Adobe have not asked for a camera from one manufacturer of high-end backs. But lets not get into that. :) :)

If you were to use Presets on import as a ‘faux’ profile, you don’t need to use those bricks during the editing process … just add a new one as needed. Unfortunately you can’t name bricks/layers so it might get complex, but you’d probably get used to the top 3 being ‘faux profile’ and anything below being image specific.

I understand the reasons behind profiling, but I also have in mind what the project head at Jenoptik told me once about their backs, which was that they had never seen a profile that was as good as their own. But don’t get me wrong! I want all this stuff in Aperture and would very much like to see the possibility to assign profiles to tiffs etc. in there too.

In the meantime though, if it’s a question of creating the look you like, another approach you might take would be to emulate your custom profile in r,g and b curves in LR then copy those curves in Aperture and apply that as a preset. (Curves being far more versatile than sliders). There’s nothing magical about colour profiles. They simply apply values across the tonal range. They’re great because they are non-destructive … but so is Aperture. You can re-create any colour look you want with curves. Here some examples of film-look curves from a high-end back … so starting point is totally flat/linear. (Note how warm RVP is in the shadows)

100VS
EPP
RVP