|Dec 14, 2005, 02:22 AM||#2|
I'm disappointed that Ars had to do this. I'm not ignorant of the Mac "enthusiasts" out there and what happens when they feel a firecracker has been lit under their @$$, but I didn't expect the typcial knee-jerk reaction to an Ars article. Those guys are very thorough, very even handed, and write well to boot. By responding to the barrage of hate mail they probably received, Ars just brought the dirty zealotry of Apple users back into the spotlight.
Maybe someone needs to rein in the Mac crowd and remove the blinders....but I know I sure as hell am not going to be the one to do that.
|Dec 14, 2005, 09:21 AM||#3|
Yes, but. . .
Their basic assumptions of Aperture were in direct opposition to its stated uses (i.e. they judged it as a Photoshop competitor), they didn't talk about its main innovation (the workflow) without which there would be little reason for Aperture, and they used a very limited set of tests (few images on two camera models) to make sweeping generalisations about the product. Frankly, it should have been in the Ars blog section and not listed as an article.
This article seems a little better but he still misses some of the basics of this type image processing: "this isn't a test of which image is most pleasing or which is true to the original (a hairy debate) . . . but the fidelity of the RAW conversion [which] is not something that can be re-injected" Isn't fidelity an image being true to the original?
Also, in this article, when he tries to show the comparative strengths of each RAW importer, he only posts photos that have already had filters applied to them. Why not just give us the basic files. Applying the same filters to each imported RAW image will of course give better results for certain importers, especially if you choose one to start from and obtain your best image from that one. You may have to tweak your settings to get the best final image from files outputted from different RAW importers.
I could go on, but the main reason people were mad at the first article and probably will be upset with this one is that the author makes many unfounded assumptions about the best way to work or what setting should look like or how tools should act, and he also states things as fact that he fails to provide evidence for (giving pictures without the settings used to create them does not constitute usable/testable evidence). These are basic argumentation errors that would cost my Freshman Composition students one or two letter grades.
I'm sure Aperture needs work and that it could be polished up, and if that is how Dave Girard feels, he should just say so. He does very briefly mentions some, what he calls show-stopping, issues; I just wish he had focused on those as his main concerns and not Aperture's lack of being Photoshop.
|Thread Tools||Search this Thread|
|thread||Thread Starter||Forum||Replies||Last Post|
|New Aperture: Phil Shiller leaks Aperture 4 on stage!||ipedro||Digital Photography||41||Jul 23, 2014 03:41 PM|
|Downgrade Aperture 3 Library to work with Aperture 2.0?||macnerd93||PowerPC Macs||2||Feb 4, 2013 03:44 PM|
|Aperture library to iPhoto, No longer own Aperture.||utahusker||Mac Applications and Mac App Store||2||Oct 2, 2012 07:22 PM|
|Retina MBP with Aperture/LR/Photoshop review?||cupcakes2000||Digital Photography||2||Jun 29, 2012 06:01 PM|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:00 AM.