What makes Aperture better than Photoshop?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by lamina, Aug 17, 2006.

  1. lamina macrumors 68000

    lamina

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2006
    Location:
    From Canada, living in Seoul
    #1
    I have tried Aperture for photo editing, and have found it pretty much useless. Keep in mind that I have never really used it much before, and have years of experience with Photoshop.

    So, what is it about Aperture that would make someone consider it better than Photoshop?
     
  2. FleurDuMal macrumors 68000

    FleurDuMal

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Location:
    London Town
    #2
    From what I gather, Aperture is more of a photo management software rather than an editing suite. It's useful if you have a large workflow as it saves you a lot of space compared to iPhoto, and has great dual monitor features. However, Photoshop will always remain king in the editing department.
     
  3. snap58 macrumors 6502

    snap58

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2006
    Location:
    somewhere in kansas
    #3
    What?

    Aperture is not meant to compete with Photoshop, in fact it is set up to allow you to open an external editor such as Photoshop. I bet almost everyone that uses Aperture, also uses Photoshop for editing. You may want to check out Apples Site, they have some nice QT's on Aperture and what it is designed to do.
     
  4. Clix Pix macrumors demi-goddess

    Clix Pix

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2005
    Location:
    8 miles from the Apple Store at Tysons (VA)
    #4
    Aperture is NOT "better than Photoshop," it complements PS and in some instances can be used instead of PS. If I've gone out and shot 100 images, I can come home, stick the CF card into the card reader, open Aperture and upload them right into Aperture, then review the images and immediately rank them. Say I've got 25 that are really outstanding from this bunch, I shift them to a separate folder within Aperture and then if they require a little modification, can check the exposure, sharpen a little, maybe adjust the saturation a little, possibly crop if I feel the image would be improved by doing that, then immediately can output to a folder on my desktop, ready to be uploaded (correctly resized and all) to my SmugMug account or shared with friends in email. This can take significantly less time than in CS2 or Bridge. Now if I've got an image or two that I'd like to do more editing on, while within Aperture I can open up CS2 and work in that program as well.

    I tend not to do much manipulation of my images -- I prefer to shoot them right the first time in the camera rather than depending too much on fancy footwork in CS2. I rarely use layers or filters. I have found that 99% of the time I can use just Aperture to post-process my images, and that it is a great time-saver, but I would not give up CS2 and use only Aperture.
     
  5. Grimace macrumors 68040

    Grimace

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2003
    Location:
    with Hamburglar.
    #5
    Depends on what you mean when you say "edit".

    If you want to do a lot of post-processing and batch post-processing of RAW images, Aperture is great. It can easily change the white balance, saturation, exposure, color balancing, metadata data, copyright info, KEYWORDS, exporting to web directories, and more -- for a lot of photos at once. It is similar to iPhoto in that you house the photos in albums directly in the program.

    This is important for some workflows that require you to sort through thousands of images by the aforementioned categories. I have tens of thousands of images and frequently need to find specific images by categories -- even sorting by which camera I used for the shoot.

    Photoshop has layers. That makes it a whole different type of editing. Many photographers who use Aperture don't want to manipulate the image in the way that Photoshop can, so that the image stays a little more "pure". Adjusting overall levels isn't considered to be "doctoring" the image as much.

    Different programs for different uses. Some things overlap, but I wouldn't consider them competing programs.
     
  6. YS2003 macrumors 68020

    YS2003

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2004
    Location:
    Finally I have arrived.....
    #6
    Isn't Adobe Bridge similar to Aperture? With Bridge's plug in for Camera Raw, you can do the basic image adjustment (less destructive than Photoshop).
     
  7. FrankieTDouglas macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    #7
    I use Bridge, but get frustrated that it always has to reload the preview images of all of my raw files each time I reopen a folder. Is there a way to avoid this?
     
  8. ChrisA macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    Location:
    Redondo Beach, California
    #8
    Aperture is not better than PS. They do different jobs
    Aperture is not an image editor. It's purpose is to streamline workflow and catalog images
     

Share This Page