lovelyleica Posted March 24, 2010 Share #1 Posted March 24, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) Here is a comparison between Aperture 3 and Lightrrom 3 with raw from our precious M9. Looks like Aperture is still in development. Moire is simply so present and so difficult to get rid of. Sorry Apple but Lightroom is way better for our Leica M9 raw processing. Bye bye Aperture 3, absolutely not on par with Leica's image quality - Welcome to Lightroom 3, so good at Leica M9 raw processing !!! Top = LR3 beta2 Bottom = Aperture 3.0.1 Leica M9 raw image 100% crop, default adjustments Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 24, 2010 Posted March 24, 2010 Hi lovelyleica, Take a look here LEICA M9 + Aperture 3 = Forget It ! Welcome to Lightroom 3 !. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
mole73 Posted March 24, 2010 Share #2 Posted March 24, 2010 Definitely WRONG! Since more than three months i use the DNG-Files of the M9 with Aperture 3 and since then NO REGRETS. (For me) It is the perfect tool to work with DNG-files. Robert Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitalfx Posted March 24, 2010 Share #3 Posted March 24, 2010 Definitely WRONG! Since more than three months i use the DNG-Files of the M9 with Aperture 3 and since then NO REGRETS. (For me) It is the perfect tool to work with DNG-files. Robert Nobody is using CS4? I prefer Photoshop over Lightroom. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
2Bébèrt Posted March 24, 2010 Share #4 Posted March 24, 2010 just try LR3 ßeta-2 Adobe Labs - Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted March 24, 2010 Share #5 Posted March 24, 2010 The colorful moire on those windows in Aperture file is not good. The Lightroom file would be my choice for this example. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty Posted March 25, 2010 Share #6 Posted March 25, 2010 This post claims the exact opposite. Anyone care to explain? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Englander Posted March 25, 2010 Share #7 Posted March 25, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) I don't know why there is the difference in results between this post and the one I uploaded. Moire is usually from high frequency pattern interference and those window dividers aren't that small. As I said in my post, I used the default settings which included Ap3's automatic moire reduction. Perhaps the OP in this thread disabled Ap3's automatic moire reduction? I haven't had any cases where Ap3 showed moire and LR3.2B showed none at all. Based on his example, I too would be disinclined to use the Aperture product, but that hasn't been my experience. I will note, however, that LR3.2B certainly has very, very nice noise reduction. Joe Joe Englander Photography Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
arminw Posted March 25, 2010 Share #8 Posted March 25, 2010 I don't understand why your image shows so much moire .... I am using Aperture 3.01 and leica M9 on a daily basis but haven't come across anything like that. I wonder if there is anything else causing that ... ??? Armin Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ted W Posted March 26, 2010 Share #9 Posted March 26, 2010 Try it with A 3.0.2. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vanhulsenbeek Posted March 26, 2010 Share #10 Posted March 26, 2010 Definitely WRONG! Oh dear! Someone's sore toe was stepped on:eek: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lovelyleica Posted March 26, 2010 Author Share #11 Posted March 26, 2010 Same crap with Aperture 3.0.2 concerning Moiré. Noise reduction too has definitely taken huge advance in Lightroom 3 beta2 and guess what : it is a BETA version. Other big concern = gamma rendering is just wrong : too flat images produced by default (G1.7 or so). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiPHe Posted November 6, 2010 Share #12 Posted November 6, 2010 I would recommend to assure the photo needs as little as processing as possible. Digital processing is tricky business: Software (AP3 or LRxx.beta, gamma or whatever) displays the photo differently, same with the used monitor, and all of this impacts the final stage of printing in which the printer (or any other device) again has a it's own way of interpreting the 0&1's (bits&bytes) of the digital image. So whatever application you use, the end result is depending on much more than this alone. Another way of limiting the processing is to take decent pictures but that's all in the eye of the beholder, no? ;-) i love my M9 just because it's the closest thing to the old film cameras I used. But the digital processing is dreadful and sometimes frustrating. No matter which app you use. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted November 9, 2010 Share #13 Posted November 9, 2010 I downloaded all the available processing progs onto my mac as trials and all have now been deleted except the current version of Aperture which produces the best rendering of DNG in my eyes. I've never come across any moire or abnormal colour casts that could be attributable to Apertures rendering of Leica DNG. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 9, 2010 Share #14 Posted November 9, 2010 I would recommend to assure the photo needs as little as processing as possible.Digital processing is tricky business: Software (AP3 or LRxx.beta, gamma or whatever) displays the photo differently, same with the used monitor, and all of this impacts the final stage of printing in which the printer (or any other device) again has a it's own way of interpreting the 0&1's (bits&bytes) of the digital image. So whatever application you use, the end result is depending on much more than this alone. Another way of limiting the processing is to take decent pictures but that's all in the eye of the beholder, no? ;-) i love my M9 just because it's the closest thing to the old film cameras I used. But the digital processing is dreadful and sometimes frustrating. No matter which app you use. First calibrate your monitor, then calibrate your workflow. You'll find postprocessing far more predictable... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted November 9, 2010 Share #15 Posted November 9, 2010 Another opinion: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/digital-post-processing-forum/150223-too-bad-about-lightroom.html I hold no brief for Aperture over LightRoom or vice versa - but I do wonder whether these results are based on the BEST each program can do (in the hands of a skilled user), or the default minimum that each program can do. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuxBob Posted November 12, 2010 Share #16 Posted November 12, 2010 I've been an Aperture user for about three years, before that I used Elements and PS. I am certainly not part of the Apple Zeal Club but if I understand this correctly this is one test of one feature and no explanation of the basis of the test. It would take a lot more than that on a longer term basis for me to jump. These two products have been playing leap frog for years and it is pointless trying to stay ahead on the feature game. Aperture has an excellent management system for one's images, a non-destructive edit and a smooth flow through many features but I have no doubt that LR is just as good. Only when undertaking complex manipulations do I need to go to PS, otherwise I can fix just about everything in Ap3. You pay your money, you make your choise. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiPHe Posted November 12, 2010 Share #17 Posted November 12, 2010 First calibrate your monitor, then calibrate your workflow. You'll find postprocessing far more predictable... Very true, and make sure you're monitor is up for the task too ;-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.