The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

GF1 RAW and Aperture 3

kevinparis

Member
if you are looking at Aperture 3 and a re dismayed with the lack of GF1 support then check this out

http://facefullofbees.com

I altered a little app i had created and used for my e-p1 files to make aperture 3 read GF1 RAW files

It is a hack and probably doesn't do everything that a properly supported compatibility would give... but it works here and now

cheers
K
 
T

thearne3

Guest
Nice! :thumbs:

Any idea if your app works with Aperture 3.0 script capability? I've ordered the update and am anxious to 'integrate' your app in the work flow.

Best,
Tom
 
M

Marty L.

Guest
As of today Aperture 3 supports the GF1. This comes by way of an update from Apple.
 
M

matmcdermott

Guest
As of today Aperture 3 supports the GF1. This comes by way of an update from Apple.
It does? Software update tells me no update is available, nor is the documentation on RAW support on the Apple site changed from what it was when A3 launched?
 

kevinparis

Member
OK

think there is some confusion here...

There was a Camera update that went live at the same time as Aperture 3 - offering support for the G1, GH-1 and LX3.

If you install the Aperture 3 trial then these profiles are installed automatically

If however you dont install the trial the update appears in software update so that the compatability is available for iphoto and preview.

remember RAW compatibility is a function of the OS not an individual application.

As far as i know there is still no GF-1 compatibility

K
 

roanjoh

New member
HA!! Figures!! Apple is too slow supporting newer cameras. Tried LR3 beta to work on my GF1 files and the results are amazing!!! Might seriously consider switching to LR from Aperture (though I am so used to using Aperture). shucks!!
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
HA!! Figures!! Apple is too slow supporting newer cameras. Tried LR3 beta to work on my GF1 files and the results are amazing!!! Might seriously consider switching to LR from Aperture (though I am so used to using Aperture). shucks!!
Why not use C1?

Has most times the new profiles before all the others.
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
This will probably keep me on the LR3 upgrade path. I like Aperture a lot but I won't buy it if they won't support what I own or will own down the line that isn't a Canon or Nikon product.
 

jonoslack

Active member
Why not use C1?

Has most times the new profiles before all the others.
Because it isn't a DAM - which means that you have to use it within an organised workflow - whilst Aperture and Lightroom ARE your workflow.

Of course, you might prefer it that way:)
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
Because it isn't a DAM - which means that you have to use it within an organised workflow - whilst Aperture and Lightroom ARE your workflow.

Of course, you might prefer it that way:)
Well you are right, BUT I figured out that I need additional SW anyway, as PSCS4 or others. Printing for example does not work appropriate from Aperture or LR either.

Any serious WF has to contain at least 2, if not 3 SW packages - this is what I learned painfully over the past years.

Would love to have the only "ONE WF" SW but not found anything till today and also the latest incarnations of LR and Aperture seem not to change this.
 

jonoslack

Active member
Well you are right, BUT I figured out that I need additional SW anyway, as PSCS4 or others. Printing for example does not work appropriate from Aperture or LR either.

Any serious WF has to contain at least 2, if not 3 SW packages - this is what I learned painfully over the past years.

Would love to have the only "ONE WF" SW but not found anything till today and also the latest incarnations of LR and Aperture seem not to change this.
Well Peter - I've been printing for clients and exhibitions from Aperture 2 - and Aperture 3 looks much better.(It took a little time to get it right, but it certainly works properly - and I'm certainly not alone).

If a serious workflow needs 2 or 3 packages, then mine isn't serious, it used to be serious, but these days it's not . . . .

It makes control of versions so much easier, uses much much less disk space and saves me huge amounts of time.
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
Well Peter - I've been printing for clients and exhibitions from Aperture 2 - and Aperture 3 looks much better.(It took a little time to get it right, but it certainly works properly - and I'm certainly not alone).

If a serious workflow needs 2 or 3 packages, then mine isn't serious, it used to be serious, but these days it's not . . . .

It makes control of versions so much easier, uses much much less disk space and saves me huge amounts of time.
Well, then I must have done something wrong with printing from Aperture. I know that a number of options are available, but for special requests as eg RIP like printing I did not find Aperture to be only partly as capable as PS4 with plug ins. Or maybe I just did not firn the plugins.

Also consider that I am using Hasselblad as my MF system, so I have the need for using Phocus anyway, as Aperture does support only basic 3F files, but not all extensions which do automatic lens corrections for example. Plus also the color rendition is far better in Phocus for Hasselblad 3F files - but I think that is nothing new and was discussed to death here and in other places already.

So this is what I meant with "serious" - at least for me it turned out there is no way around PS4 - wether I like it or not. But meanwhile I got so used to it that I do not dear it any longer :D

I do agree for someone using a "standard" camera with support of RAW files in Aperture or LR these 2 packages are great. Although I always preferred Aperture and would personally thus not start using LR again - but this is just my personal preference.
 

jonoslack

Active member
I do agree for someone using a "standard" camera with support of RAW files in Aperture or LR these 2 packages are great. Although I always preferred Aperture and would personally thus not start using LR again - but this is just my personal preference.
Well, I think we agree then - my cameras area all 'standard' . . . although Aperture doesn't support them all without Kevin's help!

My use of CS3 (I haven't even bought CS4) had diminished to almost nothing these days - I occasionally use it for perspective correction, but nothing much else. I do use the NIK software plugins (vivezza and silver efex pro), but Aperture 3 largely removes the need for these as well.

all the best
 
S

speedyK

Guest
Can anyone with experience of these things please give a "guesstimate" as to how long we may have to wait for Aperture 3 to support GF1 raw files?
 

Terry

New member
Can anyone with experience of these things please give a "guesstimate" as to how long we may have to wait for Aperture 3 to support GF1 raw files?
It shouldn't be as long as the 16 months it took to get the G1 supported. :D
 

ustein

Contributing Editor
Because it isn't a DAM - which means that you have to use it within an organised workflow - whilst Aperture and Lightroom ARE your workflow.

Of course, you might prefer it that way:)
Lightroom supports new cameras when Camera Raw does (nothing to with DAM). Just that the big software companies are slower in terms of new updates. Overall I think ACR/LR are quite fast in supporting new cameras. Their support is close to be complete for all sorts of cameras. Apple only supports cameras they find relevant :).

Get me right Aperture is an excellent application but camera support is not it's strength.
 
Top