DPP + Aperture Workflow?

I am totaly new to RAW and always used to shoot only jpg.
With jpg I import directly into Aperture from SD card as references files, then do a bit of minor tweaking and then organize them so I can view slideshows, appletv, etc...

I am now realizing the power of easy whitebalance and using Canon's DPP for DLO, and lens corrections.
Also I do not want to spend hours working on RAW files and I like the "Canon Picture Styles" that come with DPP, which will likely be enough for 90% of my pictures.

So my question is, what and how should I manage my workflow?
Does anyone have experience in using both DPP and Aperture together?

I am thinking:
1. Copy RAW pics from SD to harddrive RAW directory
2. Use DPP to sort through them and rate and discard
3. The ones I keep, apply Canon Picture Style, work on whitebalance, sharpening, DLO, Lens correction etc.. if needed.
4. Export all into TIFF to Aperture
5. Do any further adjustments in Aperture if needed, including TOPAZ DeNoise plugin
6. Export from Aperture as jpg
7. Delete TIFF files from Aperture and re-import jpg into Aperture and organize (mainly to save space since TIFF files are huge)


What do you think?
Any flaws in this? any better or easier way to do this?

This seems like a lot of work just to end up with a JPG. If you want JPG files, you like Canon auto-everything, and you don't like processing RAW files, why not just shoot in JPG in the first place?

Yes this will work; the essential step is #4, making a tif, because, as you apparently realize, there is no other way to carry DPP edits over to Aperture. But perhaps you should reconsider whether you really need DPP. The only DPP editing that Aperture can't emulate or at least approximate is DLO which is a great tool but also has its downsides - it doubles the size of the CR2 file and, as said before, requires the creation of the tif. Personally, I have decided to forget about it for every shot except those destined for large prints where sharpness is more critical. I use LR, but like LR (and DPP, for that matter) Raw images edited entirely in Aperture do not need to be routinely converted to jpgs, only when one is needed for a specific purpose and it can be deleted afterwards.

tzalman wrote in post #15294380
Yes this will work; the essential step is #4, making a tif, because, as you apparently realize, there is no other way to carry DPP edits over to Aperture. But perhaps you should reconsider whether you really need DPP. The only DPP editing that Aperture can't emulate or at least approximate is DLO which is a great tool but also has its downsides - it doubles the size of the CR2 file and, as said before, requires the creation of the tif. Personally, I have decided to forget about it for every shot except those destined for large prints where sharpness is more critical. I use LR, but like LR (and DPP, for that matter) Raw images edited entirely in Aperture do not need to be routinely converted to jpgs, only when one is needed for a specific purpose and it can be deleted afterwards.

I realized the need for RAW after the last time I took pictures at a friends baptism and the lighting was really poor. I was lucky that I took RAW+JPG and then went back to RAW and easily edited the whitebalance and contrast.

If I don't use DPP then I can't use the "Canon Picture Styles". That will make the RAW editing much longer for me.

Unless there is a way to get those Canon Picture Styles in Aperture?

Mark-B wrote in post #15293847
This seems like a lot of work just to end up with a JPG. If you want JPG files, you like Canon auto-everything, and you don't like processing RAW files, why not just shoot in JPG in the first place?

true... But I have recently realized the power of RAW, if I need it.

In Step 3 and step 5 I really do edit the picture if I need. However it becomes much faster when I start with a base (Picture Styles) that I like rather then starting from unprocessed RAW files.

I also thought about shooting RAW+JPG but with DPP it is extremely fast and easy to export all JPGs from RAW based on the picture style so now I am considering just shooting RAW and save some room on the SD card.

Consider this:
http://maccreate.mysho​pify.com …ts-canon-picture-styles-1

tzalman wrote in post #15295345
Consider this:
http://maccreate.mysho​pify.com …ts-canon-picture-styles-1

Thanks! that looks interesting...

So just curious.. you keep all RAW pics in Aperture or LR? I was thinking that after the editing and exporting to JPG to move all RAW to an external backup drive and only leave the JPG's as part of Aperture on my computer.

Makes it faster, with much less space.

What benefit would it be to keep all RAW files on your machine?

Lexar wrote in post #15295549
Thanks! that looks interesting...

So just curious.. you keep all RAW pics in Aperture or LR? I was thinking that after the editing and exporting to JPG to move all RAW to an external backup drive and only leave the JPG's as part of Aperture on my computer.

Makes it faster, with much less space.

What benefit would it be to keep all RAW files on your machine?

My answer to this is from the perspective of a "Raw Workflow", that is, one that focuses on developing my photos in my Raw processing software, whether it be DPP, Lightroom, or (if I was a Mac user, which I'm not) Aperture.

This Raw workflow has been the workflow of choice for me since I got my first DSLR. In fact, it was one driving factor in me getting my first DSLR. At the time I was shooting with jpeg-only cameras, and the occasions where I wanted to do some processing of the shots convinced me that Raw would be beneficial there!

To answer your question, the idea of the benefits of Raw in the "digital darkroom" can be indefinitely extended, because Raw is actually very similar to "undeveloped film" in that it is ready at any time to be "re-developed" into a whole new interpretation of your image, since the original Raw data has not been altered by the Raw processing software.

So, I keep my Raw files all in my (Lightroom) library, although physically anything that I've finished doing my "short term" processing is moved from my internal disk drive to an external "library" drive. But it is still in my active library. So, any time I have the motivation, interest, or need to access and process a shot from, say, '07 (my first full year of Raw shooting), everything is there readily available.

And, as you go, you may find that both your value of Raw processing grows and that, over time the qualities and capabilities of Raw processors grows, and you may get "inspired" to try new things on older images.

I'm not saying that this is the "only" way to work, in fact, a lot of people who are "working" photographers in various fields don't even bother with Raw shooting. They want to quickly get things to a client or an editor or whatever, they make sure they "get it right in the camera" (including White Balance and all in-camera settings) and then they just whip out the jpeg and off it goes.

So, like I said, I'm speaking for myself. When I take a photo, I tend to approach it as if I'm doing it for a large "fine art" print if possible, or at least with the idea of getting the utmost quality from that image, even if I can only end up with a smaller image, such as the photos I took three nights this past week of the moon as it was moving from half-moon to full-moon. The gear I have at hand is a full-frame 5D Classic and a 100-400 lens. The combo produces good images, but the size of the moon in the frame, well...anyway, at least I was able to have good processing "latitude" from those Raw files so that the 100% crops that I posted online could please viewers!

Lexar wrote in post #15295549
Thanks! that looks interesting...

So just curious.. you keep all RAW pics in Aperture or LR? I was thinking that after the editing and exporting to JPG to move all RAW to an external backup drive and only leave the JPG's as part of Aperture on my computer.

Makes it faster, with much less space.

What benefit would it be to keep all RAW files on your machine?

I have no direct experience with Aperture (Windows person), but I assume that it is essentially the same as LR. If I'm wrong somebody will surely correct me.

No photo file is ever "in" LR. They are all in regular folders exactly as they would be if I didn't have LR. LR's Library module is a database catalog, which is really nothing more than an easily searchable text file. It is a long list of all the photos that have been imported (I have always thought that "imported" was a poor choice of words by the designers, "registered" would have been less misleading) and for each photo many parameters are also listed, such as tags and keywords, editing operations to be performed at the time it is exported, and first and foremost the file's location. That location can be on any drive. Personally, I have three copies of every Raw file shot this year, one one my internal HD and another one on each of two externals. At the end of the year all the 2012 shots will be deleted from the internal drive and will be only on the externals. I have two LR catalogs, one called Current which lists all of the files on the internal and another called Old which lists all the files from prevous years on one of the externals. The only jpgs I have are all older than seven years because in 2005 I started shooting only Raws.