Aperture worries...

Discussion in 'Mac Apps and Mac App Store' started by thomasp, Oct 19, 2005.

  1. thomasp macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2004
    Location:
    UK
    #1
    I've just watched the QT demo of Aperture, and something very worrying has just occured to me: it appears that Aperture uses the same way of storing files as iPhoto :eek:

    It appears that Aperture stores files by year, and therefore I assume store images in lots of date folders. This strikes me as a very bad way of doing things, especially if a photographer (my dad is one) has two different jobs on in one day.

    My dad prefers to store files in folders (usually on the desktop.....) organised by client name and/or job title - will this still be possible in Aperture, or will it be as unflexible as iPhoto with regards to organising files?
     
  2. nylon macrumors 6502a

    nylon

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2004
    #2
    Could you post a link to the QT demo of Aperture please. Thanks.

    EDIT: Nevermind, I found them. Thanks anyway.
     
  3. Josh macrumors 68000

    Josh

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2004
    Location:
    State College, PA
    #3
    Don't worry mate:

    http://www.apple.com/aperture/quicktours/?management

    Seems it will let you organize any way you wish.

    Edit...but I do have some worries of my own.

    First, the $499 price tag. C'mon...photographers aren't loaded. That's a little high, I think.

    Second...the system specs of a recommended system :eek:
     
  4. Mavimao macrumors 6502a

    Mavimao

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2005
    Location:
    Lyon, France
    #4
    I wish iPhoto could scroll as fast at Aperture...

    BOO HOO HOOO!
     
  5. mainstreetmark macrumors 68020

    mainstreetmark

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Location:
    Saint Augustine, FL
    #5
    I see it's nearly official that Apple doesn't need to conform to their own GUI standards. Looks like Aperture has it's own new interface. Even the open/save dialog looks all grey.

    It looks cool as hell, I wish the entire OS would look that nice.
     
  6. kainjow Moderator emeritus

    kainjow

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2000
    #6
    You don't price a product based on how much your expected customers make from their job. You price it based on how much it costs to create!!
     
  7. kainjow Moderator emeritus

    kainjow

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2000
    #7
    Let's hope 10.5 brings a more unified interface.
     
  8. Josh macrumors 68000

    Josh

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2004
    Location:
    State College, PA
    #8
    I know that...but you can't create a program that is beyond the financial reach of the audience the program is designed for.

    A sweet PowerMac with 2 gigs of ram recommended + $499 for the app is beyond what most photographers could afford.
     
  9. peterj1967 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2002
    #9
    The System Specs

    There isn't too much detail on color manegment or color profiles for output to print. That would be a nice thing to see.

    It's doesn't look like it would run on my Power Mac G4 Dual 1.25 either. That's a drag.

    But being new to RAW there aren't many good tool. Bridge isn't bad, but it could be much better.
     
  10. eva01 macrumors 601

    eva01

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Location:
    Gah! Plymouth
  11. Superdrive macrumors 6502a

    Superdrive

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Location:
    Dallas, Tx
    #11
    Wont run on my 12" Powerbook. What if I have it maxed going to another display? Oh well Apple, this wont make me buy a new computer. Maybe cut me a deal when I buy my intelbook, even that $249 edu price is a little steep. I'd rather put my money towards a new lens.
     
  12. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #12
    Some time in the future, apparently.
     
  13. lom8104 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2005
    #13
    So how does this affect Apple's relationship with Adobe?
     
  14. njmac macrumors 68000

    njmac

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    #14
    Not shipping for 6-8 weeks. I wonder why they announce products so early.

    The recommeded specs are pretty steep too.
     
  15. bousozoku Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    Gone but not forgotten.
    #15
    Well, considering that Extensis Portfolio is $199 and, for me the Olympus Studio software for processing native RAW images is $149 (and it's slow), $499 seems not that bad overall. It's the requirements that hurt. Right now, I do a lot of processing while I'm out somewhere in-between whatever is happening. Obviously, the current PowerBooks are not going to be happy running it, loaded with RAM or not.

    mainstreetmark:

    Of course, it looks like the other professional applications and no, Apple doesn't follow its own rules. It will end up changing the rules rather than fixing all of the interfaces. Isn't creativity a bad thing in the hands of a mad man? Van Gogh, Dali, Picasso--they all had different thoughts. :p
     
  16. thomasp thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2004
    Location:
    UK
    #16
    I imagine Photoshop can do a lot more than Aperture can - I haven't really studied the movies in detail, but does Aperture have the various filters and blurs that CS2 has?


    I'm still not totally convinced about how the files are saved - I think we'd have to try a demo before buying (and also, get a G5 :D)
     
  17. JDar macrumors 6502a

    JDar

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2003
    #17
    From what I have read on Apple's site

    it looks as if Aperture has almost the capabilities of PS Elements 3 and 4 for the price of PS CS: such as levels but not curves, with an advantage of perhaps easier handling of RAW files.

    I see no Aperture capability listed for direct scanning into the program, either. No doubt the program will grow and mature, but at present isn't worth the price to me

    Lot's of hobbyists buy Photoshop CS but Aperture will have to work hard to sway them from Elements or CS, imo, and seems much less appealing at this point to professional photographers.

    It's worth watching.
     
  18. mrichmon macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2003
    #18
    For color filtering/correction, levels manipulation, bluring, sharpening, noise removal, touching up to remove dust and so on, the answer is yes. There is also an interesting sounding tool refered to as mesh cloning which should help with the problem of blending large cloned areas for large dust or damaged negative repair.

    It appears that aperture has all the photoshop tools/filters that I've ever used in photo pre-production for purely the photographic work. What Photoshop has that Aperture appears to lack are the more illustration related tools -- overlaying text, filters that simulate lens flare and clouds, embossing, solarization and the like. (Although Aperture clearly has some text handing support.)

    Aperture apparently has some tools for correcting image warping and perspective issues, whether these tools are as flexible as the photoshop image warping tools remains to be seen. Although I can imagine ways that Aperture could implement similar warping tools to those in photoshop but put tighter constraints on the ways that images can be warped. These tighter constraints could potentially limit the radical warping that is possible in PS but in the process make it easier to perform the more subtle warping that can help correct images while still resulting in something that is photographically based rather than illustration based.
     
  19. Bear macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Sol III - Terra
    #19
    In this case, they got to announce new hardware and software and will be able to show them off at a major photography show.

    That's why the longish leadtime. Then again on the "Pro" applications, there's often a 3 to 6 week leadtime from announcement to shipping.
     
  20. XNine macrumors 68040

    XNine

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2005
    Location:
    Why are you wearing that stupid man suit?
    #20

    Photographers don't make money... HA! ha ha! roflmfao

    Please. People (not professionals) bitch about how much Photoshop costs. But one good photoshop job could pay for the entire suite.

    Professional photographers WILL pay thsi kind of money and not worry about it. Are you a student? Then you get what? 50% off of Apple Software? For what this does and how powerful it is, it's not pricey at all. It's actually priced just right.

    It's the same interface as all of the pro apps. Final Cut, DVDSP, Soundtrack, Motion. All pro apps use this type of grey interface.


    EDIT: I don't think this is meant to replace photoshop. I think it would be a tool for more possibilities when dealing with photography related business applications, such as dealing with clients, etc.
     
  21. Bern macrumors 68000

    Bern

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2004
    Location:
    Australia
    #21
    Here in Australia Aperture will cost $699 as opposed to Photoshop which is $1,238.

    Considering 8 of 10 photographers I know in Sydney usually buy the entire Adobe suite ($2,449) I think the price point of Aperture for them will be negligible. The only issue I guess is that not all photographers use Macs that are the minimum specs it needs to operate.
     
  22. Lacero macrumors 604

    Lacero

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2005
    #22
    What kind of photographers are we talking about here? This is definitely geared towards the pros.
     
  23. Josh macrumors 68000

    Josh

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2004
    Location:
    State College, PA
    #23
    Yeah...photographers DON'T make much money. What's funny about that?

    Photography is not a lucrative profession. It is a rewarding one, yes, but the rewards are not in monetary value.

    Average income for a photographer rarely exceeds $40,000 in the US. Start subtracting $8,000 for a camera, $15,000 in lenses, etc etc...and you quickly see that at the end of the day, photographers are not rolling in cash.

    Sure - Photoshop may make someone's career, and easily pay for it'self. But why would I stop using Photoshop and start using this? What will make pro's stopping using CS and start using Aperture?

    Not a $499 price tag, that's for sure.

    This has a lot of nice features - but these features go nicely in ADDITION to Photoshop, not in place of it. The feature set of Aperture does not warrant such a price tag just yet.
     
  24. XNine macrumors 68040

    XNine

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2005
    Location:
    Why are you wearing that stupid man suit?
    #24
    I doubt this. And I also doubt a Digital SLR camera costs 8k. And if it does, how in the hell is it any better than the 8 mega-pixel Canon and Nikons? The rest of the features would be fluff at that point.

    Profesional photographers make a sick amount of money. 40k? Maybe for those that aren't highly requested (not to be rude to you), but it seems the photographers in most fashion mags, design mags, etc. are making at least twice what you're stating.
     
  25. Bear macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Sol III - Terra
    #25
    Keep looking at Digital-SLR prices. The top end Nikon is $5,000 US and is 13megapixels and can shoot 5 frames a second.

    The top end Canon is in the $7 to $8 thousand range.

    Yes, the professional digital SLRs have more features and produce better pictures (presuming a competant photographer) and they are also more rugged and weather resistant.
     

Share This Page