Hi There
I don't use Lightroom, but Aperture CERTAINLY DOES SUPPORT THIS. Simply set PSD as your default in photoshop, edit in external editor, the PSD file shows in aperture, and can simply be reloaded in photoshop.
I may be completely wrong, but I get the distinct impression that many haven't really examined the functionality in these programs - if you're still using multiple file exports then I really think that's the case.
Of course, maybe I'm just being stupid?
Jono,
We are a bit skew on our discussion. I use Aperture myself for tons of things, including the cataloging of those "finals" I keep for clients. No problem there. And I do export stuff as 16-bit PSD files, so I agree, that works very nicely. What I was talking about was having an image that gets several layers of adjustments, say using Nik software tools like Viveza, Color Efex, Dfine and Pro Sharpener. While one could just flatten the layers for the final, I preserve several of them, especially the sharpening layer, as it differs with size of image and media to which you may print. So, I could do a 5x7 glossy of a shot, or a 24x30 canvas of the same adjusted shot, and have each sharpened properly, while also having all the color adjustments made and preserved as layers. This is particularly important if one does selective area work and "paints" things in at different opacities, etc.
So far, Aperture has not been able to allow any adjustments to the layers, even though it is able to preserve them. So, I keep the "final" versions of these sorts of files on their own drive, much as Guy mentions, and import them into Aperture as referenced files. The nice thing there is it still lets me send emails, post galleries, export to someplace else, etc. The only thing I cannot do is work on the individual layers again unless I go back into PS.
This is a bit different need than just having a RAW file, making the adjustments in Aperture and leaving it at that, unless I keep separate versions of each image with different adjustment layers. That is not so practical, nor space saving. Keeping the RAW and its original set of adjustments is excellent, but layers do not work so well there.
It is not like thousands and thousands of files (though the number is growing), so keeping the "final" versions of things with layers preserved is not too onerous for those important files. For everything else, I am very comfortable generating a newly processed image as needed in Aperture. For files that I do not intend to change, I can just flatten the layers and save it that way.
I know this got off-topic a bit, as this was about the benefits of shooting RAW over JPEGs originally, but I do see one of the biggest benefits of RAW being the ability to keep coming back to an image file and working it however you need to non-destructively, plus having so much more information to work with from the start. I shoot sport event stuff, and have only shot JPEGs one time in my entire digital career, mainly because at the time I was running out of cards at an overly long event and had to switch to JPEGs just to finish capturing things. (This was early on before I knew to carry 30-40GB of card storage all the time
)
The only other point I had is that RAW files do need some adjustments, even before converting them to JPEGs, and that is the extra step that some complain about, especially if they need to shoot of several files quickly. I still do not think that is as big and issue as folks make it out to be. Working with RAW files becomes very second nature and one can produce a superb image file reduced to JPEG for exporting very quickly, and in Aperture, it is truly simple.
LJ
