Out with Aperture; In with Lightroom

Being completely underwhelmed by Apple's new Photos application, I grasped the nettle and bought the new version of Lightroom, Lightroom 6, as a download from Amazon. I strongly resented having to do so because the seamless link between Final Cut Pro X and Photos or Aperture for moving stills into video is (was) something I use often. With Aperture having been discontinued and withdrawal of support in the offing, my hopes were resting on Photos having plug-in routes to Photoshop and Nik Software etc. But no, the dumbed down, noddy-in-toyland Photos has no such feature. That may come in the future but given such a poor start I cannot see many photographers bothering to wait. And if it is planned to have features added in the future, why release the program now? Have Apple learnt nothing from the incomplete-at-launch Final Cut Pro X debacle?

I had Lightroom 6 downloaded and installed in under 15 minutes (we do have pretty fast broadband here). I tried the automatic Aperture to Lightroom transfer but I did not want the file structure being set up, cancelled the process, deleted the photographs in Lightroom and the files in Finder. and started all over again—this time manually. A rough estimate was that it took 12 hours to export each event from Aperture to a new file and to then import the contents of that file into Lightroom.

I am getting to grips with Lightroom. Thus far I have not encountered any problems, other than the internet link to Help being dead. The lens correction list appeared to be measly until I found the way of finding and downloading other lens corrections profiles. This I did for two of my much-used Nikon lenses.

I have Photoshop Elements as the main external editor and Nik Software plug-ins installed. There is a choice of secondary external editors; I have Nikon Capture NX2 at present because it provides my secondary means of channel swapping infrared photographs.

To sum up so far. Can I do all I wish to do with normal (i.e. non infrared) photographs or scans? Yes. Can I use workflows from Lightroom to process infrared images using either Photoshop Elements and Elements+ or Capture NX2? Yes. Can I apply lens corrections in Lightroom 6 that I previously used PTLens* to achieve? Yes. Can I use the noise reduction software in Lightroom or the Nik suite to improve scans of prints on 1950s textured paper that I previously used Neat Image to achieve? Yes.

The only feature I have lost is the direct import of stills into Final Cut Pro X. For that I shall use, in part, the new video plus stills import option in FCPX. For convenience, I will have to export some stills from Lightroom and import them either into Photos or Aperture.

Changing from Aperture to Lightroom does offer the opportunity to use LRTimelapse instead of my current workflow (which does involve steps in Aperture) to make Timelapse videos using my Nikon D700. The procedure looks powerful if a little complicated but if LRTimelapse works as well as is promised, then the move to Lightroom will bring an added bonus.

So, Aperture now lies unused in my Applications Folder while Lightroom 6 joins Photoshop Elements, Final Cut Pro X and Motion in the Dock. After a quick look, is Lightroom 6 better than Aperture 3? In many ways it is but in some ways, Aperture had the edge.

*PTLens and other programs can be used as the secondary editor if needed, as can other well-known image-editing software.

Infrared Colour Conversion: A Workflow in the Mac using Aperture, Photoshop Elements plus Elements+, and Nik Software

As followers of this blog may realise, I have been playing with infra-red converted cameras over the past year. I have been trying to achieve a protocol or workflow that includes the channel mixer step to swap the red and blue channels as well as to provide local as well as local control over what appears in the final image.

Over the past few weeks, urged on by the acquisition via eBay of a 590 nm cut-off filter in a Nikon D80, I came up with the following protocol. Last year I bought a 715 nm-converted D70. The 590 nm is the ‘Super Color’ filter of Lifepixel; the 715 nm is the ‘Standard IR Filter’. Incidentally, for those wanting to get into colour infra-red photography, the videos on the  Lifepixel website are the best I have come across.

The protocol is not perfect because it does not move the original raw files between applications and the channel swapping is done at 8 bits, not 16.

The starting point is a raw NEF file in Aperture 3. This workflow uses Aperture to store and stack the converted images. However, since Aperture will not be supported by Apple in the foreseeable future, it is important to note that no essential steps are taken in Aperture.

In Aperture Preferences, export files are set to PSD with Photoshop Elements as the External Editor (TIFFs could also be used). Nik Collection’s Viveza 2 and Sharpener Pro 3 Output Sharpening are plug-ins from Aperture.

I am not giving details of what I do within each piece of software. Topics like channel-swapping and how to use Nik software control points are very well covered elsewhere.

The raw file is imported into Aperture. This is what it looks like:

No Adjustments are made to the image in Aperture. Using ‘edit with Adobe Photoshop Elements.’ the image then opens in Photoshop Elements with Elements+ incorporated. That’s where the red and blue channels are swapped. After saving and replacing the image that arrived in Elements, the channel-swapped image arrives back in Aperture alongside and in the stack of the original version. This is what it looks like at that stage:

Then, using ‘edit with plug-in’, the image is opened in Viveza 2. There, the world is your oyster because the level of control is immense. I first do global adjustments using mainly the Levels and Curves panel. I then make control points to control the colour, saturation, brightness and contrast  of individual areas. For example, I can make the foliage colour more golden (from the 590 nm filter) or I can desaturate it completely to white. Nik’s U-point technology really comes into its own for sort sort of work. I then press Save and the image reappears in Aperture.

In Aperture I using the retouching tool to take out any minor imperfections. A bird, for example, in the distance may look like a black speck.

The I sharpen the image, either in Aperture or in Sharpener Pro 3 Output Sharpening, accessed again as a plug-in. Sharpening the whole image can bring unwanted texture into the sky, for example. However, control points can be set to then reduce that added sharpening in the sky. Indeed, the sky can be de-sharpened independently so far that the image can be made to appear as if a long exposure was used with the edges of the clouds merged into the sky. After pressing Save, the image again appears back in Aperture.

Finally, I straighten and crop the image if necessary in Aperture.

This is what the output can looked out, bearing in mind that a very wide range of ‘looks’ is possible from a basic infra-red end of the spectrum image.

So that, for the moment at least and until I come up with something better, is my standard protocol.

Post Updated: Infrared camera conversions and channel swapping. Can files be processed in the new Nikon Capture NX-D?

I have found out more on continuing to explore NX-D. I have therefore modified yesterday's post on this topic.

Infrared camera conversions and channel swapping. Can files be processed in the new Nikon Capture NX-D?

With Nikon Capture NX-2 now discontinued, I had heard dire rumours of the very much downgraded but free ‘replacement’ Nikon Capture NX-D. Gone have those features like Control Points that made Capture NX-2 such a powerful bit of software. I was keen to find out if NX-D could be used for infrared colour conversion like NX-2 from cameras, like my old D70, having a suitable filter over the sensor (mine has a 715 nm filter).

At this stage I should say that I have two methods of ‘channel swapping’ on my iMac. The first is via the channel mixer in the add-on application to Photoshop Elements, Elements+. I do that step from Aperture with Elements selected as the external photos editor. I also add a hue adjustment layer there, adjust the R,G and B channels if necessary and then go back to Aperture for the final editing.

My second method is the one involving Capture NX-2. I use Catapult to move the files to and from NX-2 (see my post of 25 August 2012). The reason for using this method is that I found that I could get different appearances from the same initial image.

The method I use in NX-2 was described by Jeff Meyers in a post on the Nikonians website. You can follow the link to see his full description but the key part—equivalent to channel swapping in Photoshop—are these steps:

4. Now, here's the cool part. Click on the "New Step" button. Select "Color" and then "LCH" from the pull down menus.

5. Click on the pull down menu that says "Master Lightness" and choose "Hue." That will bring up a colored hue box. Below the box there's another pull down menu. Click that and select 180. Notice that the hues have all slanted.

6. Go to the triangular slider on the right side of the box. Slide it about two-thirds of the way up until the red and blue channels are switched. Watch your image. You'll want to experiment with the best place to put that slider. The red sky has now become blue.

So, can you do that in Capture NX-D? The answer is yes. Here are screen grabs showing the appearance of the control before and after swapping the channels; with the latter the sky has turned blue. With my filter and white balance I move the slider on the right all the way to the top.

I have found something odd with NX-D that prevents the straightforward use of Catapult between it and Aperture. If you right click on a raw Nikon image and choose Open With, NX-D does not appear (NX2 does). If you then force that by choosing All Applications from the box, a message appears stating that the file format is not recognised by Capture NX-D. That is rubbish because by choosing the same file from within NX-D, the file is recognised. 

I think it is for this reason that Catapult cannot open NX-D as it can NX-2. However, in coming up with the error message when trying to export to NX-D from the latest version of Catapult the image usually appears in NX-D anyway!

Catapult uses a scratch folder with two folders within it: Drop Folder and Pickup Folder.

From Aperture with the image selected, I choose Photos - ‘edit with plug-in’ - Catapult

In the Catapult box’s upper (export) panel I untick the ‘open with’ box but leave Drop to as Drop Folder. I then press Export, then Done which quits Catapult.

In NX-D I then open the file from Drop Box, do the necessary editing and then save it to the Pickup Folder as a tif jpg (BUT not the raw nef). In Aperture, selecting the same image as before, I again choose: Photos - ‘edit with plug-in’ - Catapult. This time I import the edited image from Catapult to Aperture. Catapult adds that version to the stack for that image and places them together.

There is no doubt that NX-D is a major downgrade from NX-2 shows how careless Nikon have been again with their software and its customer base, many of whom have not forgotten the desertion of their software for Nikon scanners.

There are all sorts of things I want to try in NX-D, like batch processing. However, although it can be used for infrared processing, sadly lacking are the Control Points of NX-2. However, for those with an infrared-converted camera, processing is possible with the free NX-D. The full Photoshop or Elements plus Elements+ are not necessary for the channel-swapping stage. However, NX-D would still not be my preferred editing software for infrared conversions. I find Aperture and the Elements/Elements+ combination much easier to use and the attraction of control points has gone. However, there are other possible combinations I have to try and should I no longer be able to use Capture NX-2 either as operating systems are upgraded or cameras appear which aren’t covered for raw files, I shall still have several ways of getting the look I want from photographs taken with different IR filters.

I am now left with concern over how much of a downgrade Apple Photos will be as a replacement for Aperture 3…but that’s for the future.

Added Note: I have found that White Balance can be changed in NX-D by using the grey point method (as in NX-2) so that the result using the LCH, Hue 180 etc step can be modified by going back to changing the grey point in white balance, just as in NX-2.

Scans from Prints on Textured Paper

Why on earth did we do that? That, in this instance, being printing on textured paper like 'white fine lustre'. The texture, so popular in the 1950s, destroyed detail in the print and brings a groan to anybody scanning a print from that era. We did all we could to avoid grain in the negative and then added graininess at the printing stage.

Scans of 1950s prints on textured paper are often highly unsatisfactory. I scanned all the old photographs from two families, dating back to about 1860. Not surprisingly, the least satisfactory were those on textured paper from the time I started in photography. Many were my own prints.

For some time I searched for a solution reasoning that noise-suppressing software should enable a regular pattern to be at least toned down. Then I came across a report that Neat Image was the answer. So I downloaded the free trial version. I was so impressed that I paid for it immediately and dealt with all the scans of prints that I had. Mine is the Mac version that plugs into Aperture. Of course, it cannot restore what is not there and if overdone (the automatic setting worked fine for me) detail is smoothed over and lost.

These are before and after extracts from scans of prints on textured paper:

Before

After

Before

After

In the 1950s the various paper manufacturers had a wide range of textured papers. This is a Kodak advertisement from 1959 that shows the Bromesko (a very popular chloro-bromide paper):

Most of our photographs, particularly in the smaller sizes of paper, would have looked much better on white smooth glossy paper. So why did we not print on that all or most of the time. The current fashion was partly the reason. 'Proper' photographers used 'arty' textured paper. The second reason was that glossy paper had to be glazed by hand. By the late 1950s I had two chromium-plated steel glazing plates which fitted on a print dryer. These plates had to be cleaned, otherwise the dried prints would stick to the plate. After washing the prints were immersed for a few seconds in 'Glazing Solution'. The active constituent of this solution was ox gall; yes, the contents of the gall bladder of cattle killed in abattoirs (or slaughter-houses as they were then known). It is still used by artists as a paper wetting agent.

The wet print was then flattened onto the 8 x 10 inch glazing plate using either a flat rubber squeegee or a rubber roller, making sure that all the air was removed from between the print and the plate. Then the plate was held on the heated drying surface by a canvas cover until the dried print separated from the plate. After that palaver you had a glazed print. Badly glazed prints with air bubbles or specks of dirt looked horrible and had to be resoaked. Unglazed glossy paper had a dull but not quite matt. appearance. Commercial developing and printing houses had automatic, rotary glazers and drying drums.

So, it is perhaps not so surprising that textured papers were popular even when the quality of the final image was compromised.

Neat Image is at:
http://www.neatimage.com

Scanning 35mm Slides...If Only They Were All Kodachromes

As well as the 4 x 4 cm Superslides I have written about previously, I have scanned thousands of 35 mm full frame (24 x 36) and half-frame (18 x 24) transparencies, dating from 1956 to 2002.

Whenever I read an account of slide scanning, the writer has concluded that Kodachromes had survived the passage of time in better condition than any other transparencies. I can only agree. But many of us were tempted by the home processing of Ferraniacolor or the marketing that promoted Agfacolor CT18, for example.

My Ferraniacolors have actually survived well. The colour is maintained including the yellowish tinge they had originally. They now look better scanned with their colour corrected than they ever did projected when newly processed.

Two films stood out as poor. The first, the old film of the two, is Agfacolor CT18. A few slides have turned a purplish shade over the years but the main problem is ‘grain’. I have put ‘grain’ in inverted commas because the term seems to cover a multitude of sins. Scanning the films, I noticed a very great difference between films. In other words, the degree of ‘graininess’ was similar in slides of a similar subject taken on one film but different on a different film. Thus, ‘grain’ varied from acceptable to dreadful. Such a difference clearly indicates a difference in manufacture or in processing.

The effect was particularly noticeable in half-frame transparencies because the size of the grain was greater in proportion to the image.

In an attempt to get better scans, I searched for more information. What is the ‘grain’ and are there hardware/software solutions to getting better scans?

In colour film, ‘dye clouds’ rather than ‘grain’ is a better term for the final result of film development. Is the scanner, though, simply picking up what is there or is what is there being exaggerated by the optical scanning process? The latter is known as ‘grain aliasing’ and there has been some discussion of this phenomenon (see below for links to websites). I do not think the problem with the Agfacolor CT18 slides at the poor end of the apparent graininess spectrum lies with grain aliasing. There was no apparent change in structure or position at different scanning resolutions or in different scanners. There was no effect of changing the scan direction across the slide. Furthermore, the same structures could be seen in the transparency under a microscope. By now, I was convinced that the ‘grain’ had a physical presence that was not being increased by the scanning process.

I tried several standard grain-reducing bits of software including Nikon Scan (when Nikon supported the software for their scanners), VueScan and Epson Scan during the scanning process. There was a little improvement but not much. If the graininess apparent in the scans was really there, were there any software solutions to remove it. Because graininess is a form of noise in the image, I tried the standard noise reduction controls in Photoshop and Aperture with little effect.

Then I then came across an article by Norman Koren on Grain and Sharpness in Scans and Enlarger Prints (website address given below). He recommended Neat Image and showed some examples of grain reduction in scanned images. Within minutes, I had loaded the trial version, installed it as a plug-in in Aperture and tried it on a few scans. The result was that a few minutes afterwards I paid for it and had the software in operation. I can only describe the effect as amazing. Only the worst two films still show obvious graininess and they were really bad to start off with. Even with them there has been a significant improvement, the worst effects of graininess being apparent in areas of sky.

So far I have been dealing with Agfacolor CT18. The other poor but more modern film was a Fuji transparency film (not Velvia) I used in Botswana in 2001. That showed a similar problem. Again, there was considerable improvement using Neat Image.

With the Agfacolor CT18 scans, I have never been completely convinced that the problem was in the emulsion per se. The appearance I can best describe as a reticulation (not the old burst blister appearance of reticulated film but think of the pattern of a Reticulated Giraffe) could have been in the base layer. I even wondered if the films had been varnished after processing and rubbed one over with alcohol to see if any coating could be removed (there was no effect). Then I came across a 2002 article by Nick Rains on Fuji 'Pepper Grain' The Mystery Resolved (website address below). The problem, as Fuji apparently admitted, was in the film base, not the emulsion. The effect was not apparent with wet, drum scanning, only with dry. Since the effect could be removed with Digital ICE technology (mine could not) we clearly are not dealing with the same phenomenon but I don’t think we can eliminate the film base from consideration entirely with the 1960s CT18.

This following is a comparison of enlarged images of a scanned full-frame  35 mm transparency taken in 2001 on a Fuji transparency film before (A) and after treatment with Neat Image (B). You should be able to see the difference. Finally, the best I could get out of this slide and, really, you do not want to see the untreated version.

A Scanned 35 mm Fuji transparency before and B after application of Neat Image.
The full frame version of B is shown below

Returning to where I started, why did we not take everything on Kodachrome? Well, Kodachrome was more expensive and it was slower. In the mid-1950s and using film speeds published in the BJ Almanac, Kodachrome was only 10 ASA. To put that figure into perspective, the ‘standard’ ASA setting on my Nikon D700 is 200 or more than 4 stops faster than the old Kodachrome. Ferraniacolor was 1 stop faster at 20 ASA and Agfacolor CT18 (18° DIN) was 50 ASA — more than 2 stops faster than Kodachrome. The next version of Kodachrome at 25 ASA brought that difference down to 1 stop.

For half-frame films, processing by Kodak was a hassle, whereas other processors, like Agfa, offered mounting in card or plastic after processing. My wife with her Olympus Pen FT avoided Kodak for that reason.

I think I have now finished with trying to get the best possible scans from my old slides. There will be one more article in this series but that’s it for 35 mm and 127 film Superslides. Somebody asked me the other day whether I would like to go back to colour film from digital capture. The answer is: NO! Only the luddites (and the real luddites at least had the excuse that their livelihoods were at stake) don’t realise that we have never had it so good. That’s my view on colour; to monochrome I shall return another day.

Website Addresses

Norman Koren Website (follow links there to earlier studies on grain aliasing): 

http://bit.ly/15vRclv

Fuji ‘Pepper Grain’ on The Luminous Landscape

http://bit.ly/ZfG2Nx

Neat Image Website†
http://www.neatimage.com

†I had an unexpected benefit from using this software which I will cover in a future post.

Apple Aperture 3 and Nikon Capture NX2

During the past year I have imported all my old photographs to Aperture 3. I had edited photographs either in Photoshop or, for Nikon Raw, Nikon Capture NX2. I was so impressed by Aperture 3 for both organisation and editing that I started to import Nikon Raws and to work on them there. However, I was struck that they seemed much flatter and darker than when imported into Capture NX2 and needed more work to produce a basic image.

On a Google search, I found others had noticed the difference, for example, this excellent website:

http://www.andymumford.co.uk/blog/archives/1278

If one uses Capture NX2 from within Aperture, the useful Nikon picture controls are lost because the Raw NEF file is not exported to NX2.

To illustrate the difference, I show below a photograph I had taken out of the back door to test a lens on my D700. I imported the raw file into Aperture 3, Capture NX2 and the Adobe Raw converter. I then had to export jpgs in order to upload the photographs shown.

Aperture - As shown at import of NEF Raw File

Nikon Capture NX2 - As shown at import of NEF Raw File

Adobe - As shown at import of NEF Raw File

Aperture plus Nikon Raw Preset from AppleAperturePresets

I also show above, the effect of the appropriate Nikon Raw preset from:

http://www.appleaperturepresets.net

Even that does not come close to the initial view of a Raw in Capture NX2.

However, I then found Catapult, a plug-in for Aperture 3 that does allow the export and re-import of the original Raw file from Aperture to Capture NX2. Although one has to remember the various 'save' steps to make sure the process works properly, Catapult works and is highly effective. All the controls of Capture NX2 are retained while the files are managed in Aperture.

Catapult can be downloaded from:

http://brushedpixel.com/catapult

The full version costs $29 and the 'lite' $9 (no batch processing with the latter).

I also have PTLens installed as an Aperture plug-in. This is an excellent piece of software that corrects lens pincushion/barrel distortion, vignetting, chromatic aberration, and perspective using the characeteristics of the lens read from the metadata (now called 'Info' in the upgraded Aperture 3).

http://epaperpress.com/ptlens/index.html

Capture NX2 will also do that, of course, but if it is not necessary to use that software, PTLens adds to the adjustments available in Aperture.

Andy Mumford (link given above) explains the pros and cons of Capture NX2 well. I have used it in both Windows and Mac. It is not so slow as it was but the user interface and method of working on an image are not intuitive. The controls — through control points and U-point technology — are highly impressive. It really does need a major upgrade though. Either that or Nikon should enable Apple and Adobe access to its Raw handling data while selling the advanced features through the Nik effects plug-ins.

If you are thinking of using Nikon Capture NX2 the User's Manual is essential and the book by Mike Hagen, Nikon Capture NX2 After the Shoot (Wiley, Indianapolis, 2009. ISBN 978-0-470-40926-8) is also very useful.

Aperture 3, along with a lot of the Apple software for the iMac, is a bargain and I can do more than 90% of what I need to do using it alone. I wonder if Aperture 4, on which the usual Apple rumours are rife, will have better initial handling of Nikon Raw files.

Finally, apart from occasional comparisons of software in some of the magazines (Advanced Photographer, for example), the whole emphasis in video editing is given to the full and highly expensive version of Photoshop and, sometimes, Lightroom. One imagines that magazines do not have to pay for their software and that the marketing department of Adobe is not backward in promoting its wares. Far better information is available from websites.