Yes that works until you realize that ALL the Apple Pro apps saw a significant price decrease when they hit the Mac App Store.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Scott Bourne to ditch Aperture?
- Thread starter steveash
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yes that works until you realize that ALL the Apple Pro apps saw a significant price decrease when they hit the Mac App Store.
My first reaction is this: who is Scott Bourne and why should I care what he thinks? Does Aperture work for you? If so, great! Keep using it. If it doesn't meet your needs, switch to LR.
I realize my post is somewhat negative. I can live with that. I'm just tired of the herd mentality within photography. Do what works for you. Be independent. It spurs creativity.
That is all...
I realize my post is somewhat negative. I can live with that. I'm just tired of the herd mentality within photography. Do what works for you. Be independent. It spurs creativity.
That is all...
Fair enough.
---------
Like many discussions on MR, this one is also kinda pointless. People should use the tool that works best for them, and in this case the difference in retail pricing between the two packages shouldn't be enough to sway someone who is really serious about their photography. If someone can afford the gear/computer to be a serious photographer then the $70 difference in retail pricing shouldn't make that much difference. I paid for and use both. I use Lr for majority of my work because I like how it works, and I find the noise reduction is superior for my images... however I make books with Aperture because I prefer Aperture's book interface.
I think there is a saying that applies, about Scott and the reactions. Something about a teacup and tempest.... eh?
One of his complaints is that Adobe renders RAW images better than Aperture. I have to admit that I haven't used LR much, but I have compared Aperture to Canon's own (and almost unusable) DPP RAW software, and Aperture's RAW handling is indistinguishable from DPP's. I can't imagine there's a lot of "interpretation" of RAW data involved... either you know the formatting of the bits in the RAW file and can produce the image, or you don't/can't. What's to interpret? Anyway, I probably just don't understand it. However, given Aperture's output looks identical to Canon's, if Adobe is doing something different like adding saturation, sharpness, or contrast, that's not a good thing in my mind - I shoot RAW so I can control that.
His other dislikes of Aperture are the shadow and highlight recovery... and if I understand it correctly, LR4 just caught up to Aperture 3 in this regard by adding shadow and highlight sliders? Or am I missing something here? At any rate, a few folks tried some extreme shadow recovery on a 5D3 RAW file in different RAW processing apps and all were successful in some very effective shadow recovery - if you know how to use the various tools involved.
He says the LR Clarity Slider is "AMAZING"... what is that exactly? Is that enhancing local contrast? Is it like Aperture's Definition? or Nik's Structure? What am I missing out on?
He would have got me on his side if he said the noise reduction in Aperture sucks, but strangely this is not one of his complaints. Thankfully I've solved this through a Nik plugin.
Anyway, just because Aperture 3 is getting a bit long in the tooth, doesn't mean it's not just as effective at photo management and adjustments as the day it was released. It may be in danger of getting eclipsed by other tools, but most would say that happened some time ago, and if you were only ever concerned about who had the richest tool set you would never have started using Aperture in the first place. Aperture users, I believe, value usability, simplicity and flexible photo library management along with very capable adjustment tools. That hasn't changed as Aperture 3 ages.
His other dislikes of Aperture are the shadow and highlight recovery... and if I understand it correctly, LR4 just caught up to Aperture 3 in this regard by adding shadow and highlight sliders? Or am I missing something here? At any rate, a few folks tried some extreme shadow recovery on a 5D3 RAW file in different RAW processing apps and all were successful in some very effective shadow recovery - if you know how to use the various tools involved.
He says the LR Clarity Slider is "AMAZING"... what is that exactly? Is that enhancing local contrast? Is it like Aperture's Definition? or Nik's Structure? What am I missing out on?
He would have got me on his side if he said the noise reduction in Aperture sucks, but strangely this is not one of his complaints. Thankfully I've solved this through a Nik plugin.
Anyway, just because Aperture 3 is getting a bit long in the tooth, doesn't mean it's not just as effective at photo management and adjustments as the day it was released. It may be in danger of getting eclipsed by other tools, but most would say that happened some time ago, and if you were only ever concerned about who had the richest tool set you would never have started using Aperture in the first place. Aperture users, I believe, value usability, simplicity and flexible photo library management along with very capable adjustment tools. That hasn't changed as Aperture 3 ages.
RAW processing (and therefore the initial image) can differ slightly from application to application depending on a number of factors, but a crucial one being the demosaicing algorithm being used (there are numerous). I'm not sure if Adobe and Apple use different algorithms but could be a contributing factor in what Scott thinks he's seeing. A great article on RAW by Thom Hogan....
Thanks for that. It doesn't change my opinion that Aperture does a perfectly fine job with RAW processing, but it certainly explains why Adobe might look different.
Both Alex and Virtual make very good points. The file management system and the basic needs of adjustments are all there. I personally really don't see the need to change to LR and re-learn a new system all over again and transfer all of my photos there. I have vault back ups, my specific filing system, smart albums, etc It works for me. It may not for others and that's Ok, too. If I do need to fine tune or change a photo, I, too,have NIK complete and that works just great for me. I have access to PS elsewhere for the rare extra special treatment I can't get from A3 and NIK. I'll wait for A4 and hope that it has more muscle on the adjustment side of things, but the file management is my main concern and what I like about Aperture.
Definitely agreed! Being an "enthusiastic amateur" as they say (i.e. no cash exchanges hands, except from me to others
), I've allowed myself the luxury of exploring multiple RAW processors like Aperture, Capture One, Bibble/AfterShot, DxO and LR - definitely subtle variations and worth exploring if you can and aren't stuck on a particular one. My main work though is done in Aperture.You are missing something because LR3 has shadow and highlight recovery - as for as I know LR2 had it also.
Almost all raw converters convert slightly differently. A few years ago when I did comprehensive testing, none of the hand full I tested even converted the same pixels! My converter of choice (RPP) does floating point math, most others do integer math, which affects tonality for instance. ACR's camera per-sets used to heavily influence things per-camera model. I only use ACR for quick & dirty conversions now, so I haven't tested it in a while. Convert a single image with four or so converters, then compare side-by-side and on top of one another at pixel-peeping sizes and differences will show up. Sharpness, alignment, contrast and graduations will differ.
I'm always hoping to get time to test a handfull of converters- if I do, I'll probably post some results. But it gets complicated once you go off the default settings to quantify the results.
Paul
