WOW! - I thought this was a joke or a question - just downloading it now.
Well, I must say I am favourably impressed so far. Thanks Apple, you got there in the end, and 100 times better than the god awful Adobe effort was way back.
I must say I am impressed with the RAW converters from Apple. I would say I like it better than what I see from Adobe .....
Life is an ever changing journey
Not an Aperture user but this is great news. I hope it is better than Adobe and further spurns them to improve that product.
Funny. Looks to me that latest LR version is way better than Apple's rendering ...
See below and observe carefully the red diagonal of the light. It's small but it's there. There's a bit of red crawl into the yellow.
LR 4.4 left, Aperture Right.
1 Member(s) liked this post
Aperture also doesn't have the odd smearing issue that LR has. Trees in the distance often look smeared in LR, even without pixel peeping. Aperture does have its own weird, chromatic issues going on in trouble areas, but that's a worthwhile tradeoff, IMO, as it isn't usually as noticeable.
I just posted this on another forum, but LR still seems pretty far behind the other converters when it comes to some areas of fine details, like foliage, although all of the converters have occasional issues with other things, like artifacts. I'm becoming convinced that I'm seeing issues with foliage in LR at pretty modest sizes, not just large crops.
Below is a test shot of the whole scene. This was just a throwaway shot, and obviously not meant to portray absolute sharpness, since it is in a moving vehicle through a windshield, but it has a lot of different areas that can show issues, and I think it is still a good photo to use in for a LR vs. Aperture comparison:
Below is a crop from LR 4.4 at "screen" size. In this case, it would be a crop from an image that would fill about a 20" monitor, so not all that huge. The settings of this are all default, except for sharpening, where I changed the detail to 8 (there's a lot of opinions about what the best LR sharpness settings are, but they all look pretty similar at this size.)
Same crop from Aperture at default settings:
And now a 100% LR crop:
There's a pretty striking difference in foliage at 100%, but I think there's even a difference in foliage detail at a "regular" screen size, too. The Aperture crops seem more detailed in the foliage, and they don't have that painterly look. They look more normal.
What do you think?
1 Member(s) liked this post
Ha! Don't worry, I don't even answer my phone when I drive. I just had my camera next to me and fired a couple of quick shots aiming forward without aiming, just curious if the AF would lock. I'm certainly not driving around taking photos regularly. LOL
Leica: IIa sync conversion, M6 TTL Millenium, Fuji X-E1;
BTW, new update for Iridient Developer is available that supports X-trans via the Apple RAW library, so I guess the images will look similar to Aperture.