I'd love to see this review. I'm quite certain that all processing happens AFTER Raw conversion on a rendered image, pixel based image. This isn't as far as I know parametric editing happening in the Raw pipeline.
I read it here:
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_p...cid=7-9308-9356Specifically:
"First, an image editing plug-in can request and receive the RAW image from Aperture: when you select a RAW photo and choose an image editing plug-in, the plug-in can ask for RAW data rather than a finished TIFF or PSD. Yes, this means what you think it means: Apple has provided a mechanism for alternate RAW converters to be used within Aperture. It's still not possible to send from Aperture a RAW file in its RAW form to an external RAW converter, such as Camera Raw in Photoshop. But it now is possible for someone else's RAW converter to live and work within Aperture. This is potentially very cool, but the coolness of this will be realized only if developers choose to implement RAW converters as image editing plug-ins for Aperture, and as of this writing there are none announced that we know of."
My development skills are rusty, and my OS X development skills with Cocoa are { }
However, this is mentioned (if _extremely_ briefly) in the Developer Document for Aperture plug-ins:
http://developer.apple.com/documentation/A...perture_001.pdf"<key>supportedRAWExtensions</key>
<array>
<string>cr2</string>
</array>
<!-- Optional. If your plug-in reads the RAW master data from images
but only supports certain raw formats, providing a list of file name extensions
here will disable your plug-in if the user has selected any images that
aren't RAW or are RAW but do not have one of the extensions listed here.
Note that Aperture will still pass images that do not have any extension at
all to your plug-in, regardless of the extensions listed here. -->
"
So in theory a plug-in should be able to read the RAW master data in, and then save it out as a TIFF file. So I'd think you could, say, build an edit plug-in for a Foveon-based camera and jam it in the pipeline, though it might be ugly.
Also, since there aren't many (any?) examples of these types of plug-ins in existence... maybe the demand isn't so good or writing them isn't so easy.
And it's not an edit brick that can operate seamlessly and non-destructively, which again is what I'd like, and is the advantage to LR's local corrections over Aperture's dodge & burn right now.