New Aperture 4 announcement for June 10th?

swordio777 said:

Does your camera shoot raw + jpeg? It would mean you'd fit fewer images on a card, but you could just use the jpeg 99% of the time and still have access to the raw file that other 1% when you really want to make dramatic edits.

Click to expand...

Of course. But I don't see the point: either I shoot RAW or I shoot jpg. RAW+jpg in almost all circumstances is a waste of space. There are some situations where it is useful, but in many cases people are just afraid to »lose something« when they shoot jpg, so they want RAW. But on the other hand, in reality, they never look at the RAW file anyway and just use the jpg.

IMHO the better solution is to make a conscious solution to shoot either RAW or jpg.

OreoCookie said:

Of course. But I don't see the point: either I shoot RAW or I shoot jpg. RAW+jpg in almost all circumstances is a waste of space. There are some situations where it is useful, but in many cases people are just afraid to »lose something« when they shoot jpg, so they want RAW. But on the other hand, in reality, they never look at the RAW file anyway and just use the jpg.

IMHO the better solution is to make a conscious solution to shoot either RAW or jpg.

Click to expand...

That's fair enough, but if fivedots is not prepared to fully give up on raw just yet then shooting both for an interim period makes an easier transition. If he shoots raw + jpeg for a month and realises that he's never once looked at the raw files then deciding to make the full switch to jpeg should be easy. If, however, he takes a few shots that he'd really like to push in an editor then he won't be cursing the fact that he stopped shooting raw.

I'm not saying raw + jpeg is right for everyone, but if you're sitting on the fence about switching it does give you the best of both worlds and can help you make the right decision

@fivedots - certainly don't mean to single you out, just using your situation as an example

whiteonline said:

My preference is to use OOC JPEG with my X-Pro 1 when with the family taking candid photos and such. For my art, it's RAW.

Click to expand...

OreoCookie said:

Shooting RAW only makes sense to me if you want to use the latitude that gives you during edits. However, if you expose properly and you're happy with the custom film simulation conversion of your choice, shooting RAW gives you no advantages and just yields more work.

Click to expand...

swordio777 said:

Does your camera shoot raw + jpeg? It would mean you'd fit fewer images on a card, but you could just use the jpeg 99% of the time and still have access to the raw file that other 1% when you really want to make dramatic edits.

Click to expand...

OreoCookie said:

Of course. But I don't see the point: either I shoot RAW or I shoot jpg. RAW+jpg in almost all circumstances is a waste of space. There are some situations where it is useful, but in many cases people are just afraid to »lose something« when they shoot jpg, so they want RAW. But on the other hand, in reality, they never look at the RAW file anyway and just use the jpg.

IMHO the better solution is to make a conscious solution to shoot either RAW or jpg.

Click to expand...

swordio777 said:

That's fair enough, but if fivedots is not prepared to fully give up on raw just yet then shooting both for an interim period makes an easier transition. If he shoots raw + jpeg for a month and realises that he's never once looked at the raw files then deciding to make the full switch to jpeg should be easy. If, however, he takes a few shots that he'd really like to push in an editor then he won't be cursing the fact that he stopped shooting raw.

I'm not saying raw + jpeg is right for everyone, but if you're sitting on the fence about switching it does give you the best of both worlds and can help you make the right decision

@fivedots - certainly don't mean to single you out, just using your situation as an example

Click to expand...

@whiteonline - Yes, that is definitely a good plan. No one wants to spend time processing casual shots.

@OreoCookie - Fully agree. I just haven't been able to take the leap of faith yet.

@swordio777 - I actually do shoot RAW+JPEG now. Typically use the RAW out of habit. I wish Lightroom support flipping between the JPEG/RAW masters that way Aperture did.

Overall, I feel digital photographers are overly obsessed with RAW the same way they are with gear. Most of us are adding unnecessary hassle to our lives and I think we could all use less time in front of the computer. I am just as guilty myself.

OreoCookie said:

Of course. But I don't see the point: either I shoot RAW or I shoot jpg. RAW+jpg in almost all circumstances is a waste of space. There are some situations where it is useful, but in many cases people are just afraid to »lose something« when they shoot jpg, so they want RAW. But on the other hand, in reality, they never look at the RAW file anyway and just use the jpg.

IMHO the better solution is to make a conscious solution to shoot either RAW or jpg.

Click to expand...

I disagree... or better put... "Space is free".

I shoot RAW+JPEG nearly 100% of the time. When I import my photos in A3, I choose to import RAW+JPEG as a pair... but I choose "JPEG as Master".

So the next question should be "Why"? Well, unprocessed, out of the camera, JPEG generally looks better than RAW. So my library looks great with JPEGs... and that is good for >90% of my photos (maybe 99%).

However... Aperture let's you switch between "JPEG as master" and "RAW as master" at will on a photo by photo basis. So anytime that I want to do "more"... I have the option to use the RAW. It is like having the negative (or not) with film photography.

The only downside is that my library is growing at 6X the pace as if I was shooting JPEG-only. Who cares? Space is free. My entire A3 library is 400GB. At HDD prices... that is about $20. Even at SSD prices, it is only a few hundred bucks. It is immaterial.

/Jim

I also shoot RAW & JPEG 100% of the time. The JPEG goes into Aperture on my laptop and the RAW goes into my "vault" on my server/desktop. If there si a aparticular image that I want to work on I'll pull only that image from the server and work on it. Put the PSD back on the server as a backup and the "new" jpeg gets added to Aperture. Otherwise my Aperture libruary would also be getting rather fat now. Full RAW and small JPEG 100% of the time, but everybody's workflow is different.

Now in Software Update: Digital Camera RAW Compatibility Update 4.07
It adds support for:

• Panasonic Lumix DMC-G6
• Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF6
• Sony Alpha SLT-A58

Eric007 said:

Rumors have Aperture 4 coming between September and December 2013...

Click to expand...

With Apple's soon to be released new Mac Pro beast and the new Maverick X OS and the announcement of the release of Logic Pro X, it does make sense that a newer version of Aperture should be in the mix. BTW, the "minor" 3.4 free upgrade really had a substantial number of newer and upgraded improvements that could have easily been a new number version of something like LR, IMO.

Eric007 said:

Rumors have Aperture 4 coming between September and December 2013...

Click to expand...

My guess would be mid-August. Before the September event and far enough away from the Logic release to sustain the chatter in the news cycle.

fivedots said:

@whiteonline - Yes, that is definitely a good plan. No one wants to spend time processing casual shots.

Click to expand...

What is the big deal? I shoot 100% RAW only. I have my LR set up such that I can get the results I want in little to no time. I rarely need to spend more than a minute on a photo. Just the other day, I spend maybe a couple of hours to cull and process 400 photos from a trip I took. I don't spray and pray, so while they're not all master pieces, they do tell part of the trip's story so that's a lot of photos to edit, but still, a couple of hours it all it takes.

throttlemeister said:

What is the big deal? I shoot 100% RAW only. I have my LR set up such that I can get the results I want in little to no time. I rarely need to spend more than a minute on a photo. Just the other day, I spend maybe a couple of hours to cull and process 400 photos from a trip I took. I don't spray and pray, so while they're not all master pieces, they do tell part of the trip's story so that's a lot of photos to edit, but still, a couple of hours it all it takes.

Click to expand...

I can do the same thing with Aperture and I've read that Adobe is slow with the RAW updates for newer cameras. LR is superior to Aperture with lens correction and other features, so it would be nice for those of us who prefer the file management system of Aperture to have some of those features. So many of us are hoping for a newer version release and have been patiently (or not so patiently) waiting and hoping!

Razeus said:

If there's no announcement during the event, I think you guys can finally write off Aperture as abandonware. Sure you can keep using it, but LR will have more features out of the box.

Click to expand...

Finally we see a glimpse and a hear in today's Keynote that Aperture 4/X is coming…. Hopefully by February...

MAFAv8r said:

Finally we see a glimpse and a hear in today's Keynote that Aperture 4/X is coming…. Hopefully by February...

Click to expand...

No we didn't.

When speaking about professionals who have been using the Mac Pro, Phil Schiller made reference to photographer Lucas Gilman using a new version of aperture. And he was - Aperture 3.5. Gilman has confirmed this himself.

You can upgrade today to the same version he was using.