PDA

View Full Version : Aperture: Photoshop Is Invulnerable No More


MacBytes
Oct 20, 2005, 05:40 PM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: 3rd Party Software
Link: Aperture: Photoshop Is Invulnerable No More (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20051020184000)

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug

gekko513
Oct 20, 2005, 05:42 PM
What's Aperture Express?

jsw
Oct 20, 2005, 05:47 PM
What's Aperture Express?
I believe it was the author's predicted follow-up consumer version.

maya
Oct 20, 2005, 05:51 PM
What's Aperture Express?

Seems only natural of Apple. ;) :)

the "iApps" get the beginner a taste of what and how to use the application on the Mac side. Then express and the pro version make it official, while Apple still making a profit on each version. :)

BenRoethig
Oct 20, 2005, 07:00 PM
I've said this before and I'll say it again Apple needs to tread lightly. If Apple plays its cards wrong it may be a situation where thy win the battle with Aperture, but end up losing the war.

ipacmm
Oct 20, 2005, 07:47 PM
I've said this before and I'll say it again Apple needs to tread lightly. If Apple plays its cards wrong it may be a situation where thy win the battle with Aperture, but end up losing the war.


I agree, but from how the software looks...it looks really good and I can't wait to try it out. Also, I am sure we will see the express version priced at 249 or 299, just like Logic or Final Cut Pro.

Monk Edsel
Oct 20, 2005, 08:12 PM
I was driving home from work and this very notion occurred to me. I was also thinking photography seems to be the last digital media frontier for Apple. They're making headway in every other category so why not try this one. With the Stacking alone I imagine Apple with be very successful. And certainly, a photo editing app will follow.

RacerX
Oct 20, 2005, 09:04 PM
After having spent a little time on Apple's Aperture page I think that anyone thinking that this is in anyway a Photoshop replacement is getting way ahead of themselves.

First, there are tons of tools out there that have done many of the same types of image manipulations that Aperture does... and none of them qualify as Photoshop replacements. The tools Apple has provided are a handful of the standard tools needed by photographers... and notice that I used the term photographers and not graphic designers. There is a big difference in what tools they need for their trade.

Most of my photographer clients are very please with what this app offers... most of my graphic design clients really don't see a point to the app.

Really what Apple has done is give photographers the same type of tools for their work that Photoshop, Illustrator and QuarkXPress/InDesign provide for the graphic design community... a way of working in a computer environment in a way similar to how they would have worked with these elements in the real world (... and I know that many people out there have never done graphic design without a computer, but the real pre-computer world techniques are what most those apps were originally based on). There hasn't been anything like this until now for photographers, so up to now, they have had to use tools designed for other purposes to use computers in their work flow.



It just looks to me like a lot of people are trying to make this round peg fit into a square hole to create some type of drama between Apple and Adobe.

I may be a big fan of Apple, but Aperture is about as far from replacing Photoshop on my systems as... well, Painter.

highres
Oct 20, 2005, 09:37 PM
After having spent a little time on Apple's Aperture page I think that anyone thinking that this is in anyway a Photoshop replacement is getting way ahead of themselves.

First, there are tons of tools out there that have done many of the same types of image manipulations that Aperture does... and none of them qualify as Photoshop replacements. The tools Apple has provided are a handful of the standard tools needed by photographers... and notice that I used the term photographers and not graphic designers. There is a big difference in what tools they need for their trade.

Most of my photographer clients are very please with what this app offers... most of my graphic design clients really don't see a point to the app.

Really what Apple has done is give photographers the same type of tools for their work that Photoshop, Illustrator and QuarkXPress/InDesign provide for the graphic design community... a way of working in a computer environment in a way similar to how they would have worked with these elements in the real world (... and I know that many people out there have never done graphic design without a computer, but the real pre-computer world techniques are what most those apps were originally based on). There hasn't been anything like this until now for photographers, so up to now, they have had to use tools designed for other purposes to use computers in their work flow.



It just looks to me like a lot of people are trying to make this round peg fit into a square hole to create some type of drama between Apple and Adobe.

I may be a big fan of Apple, but Aperture is about as far from replacing Photoshop on my systems as... well, Painter.


I agree, not even close to replacing the CS suite for designers, this app might shave off a small slice of Photoshop users who are photographers, but as far as designers this is far from being a replacement for Photoshop, especially since Photoshop is part of the Creative Suite and is integrated with InDesign, Illustrator, Acrobat and ImageReady.

Besides much of the print and magazine industry is invested in the Adobe process (.pdf, etc.), I don't see Aperture making much headway in the output or pre-press industries.

nagromme
Oct 21, 2005, 10:21 AM
Its purpose and its strenghts are completely different from Photoshop.

VERY few Photoshop users would have the same needs met by Aperture.

VERY few Aperture users would have the same needs met by Photoshop.

That means there's room for BOTH, despite some overlap.

If Aperture solves real-world problems in ways much better than was ever done before, then it's a great thing that Apple has done. The idea that Apple shouldn't strive for greatness because mediocrity is better business is one I can't support. I prefer competition.

If Adobe was planning on doing something as useful and elegant as this, they should have done it. If they didn't, why should users do without?

Besides, Aperture is meant to work WITH Photoshop if you wish. The two can connect directly together.

bousozoku
Oct 21, 2005, 10:57 AM
Considering how I use Photoshop 90 percent of the time--to edit my new photos--this is terrific, in contrast to Photoshop. However, for having less functionality on the editing side, it's got huge system recommendations. I'm running Photoshop well on both a dual G4/800 and a 1.33 GHz PowerBook. It can even run adequately on a G3/800. If Aperture runs as well on the PowerBook, I'd be surprised, and Photoshop 7 should run a lot better, except that Adobe patched it to run on Mac OS X.

Photoshop has certainly seen a few competitors: LivePicture and Aldus PhotoStyler, which became Macromedia xRes and remains in some form as FireWorks. Even though they all had specialities, Photoshop continues to grow but it's a pain to get in and out quickly and to apply the same kinds of edits to multiple photos...ugggh. They show Aperture doing this by dropping the "style" on each thumbnail. That's a time saver. I haven't seen that kind of innovation since Samna added drag and drop styles to their Ami Pro word processor on Windows in the early 1990s.

Here's to a little co-opetition.

Lacero
Oct 21, 2005, 10:59 AM
However, for having less functionality on the editing side, it's got huge system recommendations.Aperture needs to hefty system requirements because it can work with 16MP RAW images lightning fast. SPEED is the number one feature of Aperture. I know several celebrity wedding photographers who are seriously considering going to digital because of Apple's latest software app.

Blue Velvet
Oct 21, 2005, 11:04 AM
...Photoshop continues to grow but it's a pain to get in and out quickly and to apply the same kinds of edits to multiple photos...ugggh. They show Aperture doing this by dropping the "style" on each thumbnail. That's a time saver. I haven't seen that kind of innovation since Samna added drag and drop styles to their Ami Pro word processor on Windows in the early 1990s.


Photoshop has had 'droplets' to do a similar kind of batch processing using actions for some time now.

bousozoku
Oct 21, 2005, 12:17 PM
Photoshop has had 'droplets' to do a similar kind of batch processing using actions for some time now.

I've not had much luck getting actions to work but I'll try again.

iGary
Oct 21, 2005, 12:22 PM
Already ordered.

otter-boy
Oct 22, 2005, 05:18 PM
The more I think about it, even though Aperture does not compete directly with Photoshop, it still might take a significant chunk of business away from Adobe.

A couple of ideal environments for Aperture seem to be newsrooms and photography studios, places where you might want to adjust images but not necessarily edit them (i.e. it does nothing positive for the appearance of journalistic integrity if you add or subtract people from a photo). In these situations, photos may need to have their colors adjusted or red-eye reduced, but the general work of framing, cropping, constructing the image is already done by the photographer. Maybe a few people in the organization need Photoshop to put together images, but the majority of people would benefit from faster times being able to choose and adjust images.

Aperture seems ideal for people taking photos and outputting photos, but not for people wanting to seriously edit them. Until now, people wanting to adjust the color remperature of a photo may have used Photoshop, but now they may do this and other similar tasks faster and cheaper with Aperture. Really, most professional photographers spend the majority of their time doing the things included with Aperture, and if they can do those things quicker with it, they will probably choose it. Some of these photographers will continue to Photoshop for those other tools that it has, but some will end up using Aperture alone or keeping an old version of Photoshop around but not upgrading.

Yvan256
Oct 23, 2005, 06:53 PM
Now, Adobe was certainly on the lookout for competition from Microsoft--what with Metro taking aim at PDF, Sparkle setting up shop to compete with Flash, and the Acrylic drawing program and Quartz Web Designer competing with other core apps.

Is there really anyone out there who plans to dump PDF (already supported on many platforms) in favor of Metro? (a possibly closed format that will likely only run on the next Windows?)

Chacala_Nayarit
Oct 23, 2005, 06:58 PM
I bought Photoshop 7 a few years ago and have no reason to upgrade or buy Aperture. However, I may be interested in an 'express' version. :)