ACR faster than Aperture

[G.T.]

Hi,

As I type this, the search engine is temporarily disabled for upgrades. I did have a look earlier but most threads are lightroom vs aperture.

I know there are a lot of threads on how slow people find Aperture. I am finding this too, more so since I have changed my workflow. I used to use Aperture just for organising, and would only use ACR mostly since Aperture 2 didn't support my RAW files. Anyway, I now feel I should really take advantage of Apertures non-destructive editing. So since using Aperture more I notice how much slower it is for me than ACR. I was wondering if people know why? I think it generating previews a lot doesn't help.

When working at 100% it has to load the RAW file, but if I make it so previews are not limited, will it then use a jpeg to show me how the edit is going, and would this speed up the time since the jpeg will be smaller in size than the RAW?

I have done a few things to improve on speeds, such as reduce project sizes etc. I only have 4GB of RAM, would 8GB really make a lot of difference?

Thanks for any help people can give me

 

[kevinfulton.ca]

Hi,

As I type this, the search engine is temporarily disabled for upgrades. I did have a look earlier but most threads are lightroom vs aperture.

I know there are a lot of threads on how slow people find Aperture. I am finding this too, more so since I have changed my workflow. I used to use Aperture just for organising, and would only use ACR mostly since Aperture 2 didn't support my RAW files. Anyway, I now feel I should really take advantage of Apertures non-destructive editing. So since using Aperture more I notice how much slower it is for me than ACR. I was wondering if people know why? I think it generating previews a lot doesn't help.

When working at 100% it has to load the RAW file, but if I make it so previews are not limited, will it then use a jpeg to show me how the edit is going, and would this speed up the time since the jpeg will be smaller in size than the RAW?

I have done a few things to improve on speeds, such as reduce project sizes etc. I only have 4GB of RAM, would 8GB really make a lot of difference?

Thanks for any help people can give me

It's strange that you say that Aperture 2 didn't support RAW since, as far as I can remember, Aperture always has, but maybe it came with an update. Regardless, which version of Aperture are you using? If you're still using 2 I'd recommend using 3 (it's faster).

A RAM upgrade to 8gb would also make a pretty big difference since it's a RAM hungry app.

I'm not sure how the previews worked for Aperture 2, but in 3 the thumbnail that is generated for the RAW file by the camera is used for the previews when exploring your photos. Once you open the photo to work on it the first image you'll see is that same preview while the RAW file loads, then the RAW file once it has loaded. When applying the effects or adjustments you are seeing changes to the actual RAW file (not necessarily the original. I believe the "master" remains tucked away somewhere). They are not using any jpeg preview for the adjustments, so what you see is what you get. The thumbnails will update once you've made your adjustments. From what I understand this is how things in Aperture work, but I'm sure that somebody may correct me here and there. Hope this helps!

 

[G.T.]

It's strange that you say that Aperture 2 didn't support RAW since, as far as I can remember, Aperture always has, but maybe it came with an update. Regardless, which version of Aperture are you using? If you're still using 2 I'd recommend using 3 (it's faster).

A RAM upgrade to 8gb would also make a pretty big difference since it's a RAM hungry app.

I'm not sure how the previews worked for Aperture 2, but in 3 the thumbnail that is generated for the RAW file by the camera is used for the previews when exploring your photos. Once you open the photo to work on it the first image you'll see is that same preview while the RAW file loads, then the RAW file once it has loaded. When applying the effects or adjustments you are seeing changes to the actual RAW file (not necessarily the original. I believe the "master" remains tucked away somewhere). They are not using any jpeg preview for the adjustments, so what you see is what you get. The thumbnails will update once you've made your adjustments. From what I understand this is how things in Aperture work, but I'm sure that somebody may correct me here and there. Hope this helps!

Okay that's good, when I was reading online about it, the way it came across was that when you were at 100% then the RAW file would be loaded. I think christmas calls for a RAM upgrade especially since I look to go to South Korea and Japan after and will be edit lots of pictures. I suppose that's why the lift and stamp tool can be so handy.

Regarding Aperture 2 not supporting my RAW files. I should have specified that my camera is a GF1 and RW2 is only supported from 3 onwards. So I would always edit with ACR and find it a breeze, then export a TIFF for Aperture.

 

[mulo]

your machine is a dual core too isn't it? from 2008?

I'm cruising with quad core 16GB ram and an SSD, never found aperture slow either

 

[G.T.]

your machine is a dual core too isn't it? from 2008?

I'm cruising with quad core 16GB ram and an SSD, never found aperture slow either

Yeah, it's showing it's age a bit as I find myself doing more intensive work on it :/ I was tempted to get the retina mbp, but I think I'm going to wait till the second revision of it. This is still working ok for me just now, and a RAM upgrade should help. I'm half tempted to replace the HDD again but for an SSD instead. If it gets any slower still and 8GB doesn't give me much improvement since the CPU and GPU won't have changed, I'll just have to go back to ACR since it is much faster.

 

[mulo]

more memory and an SSD (you could put your HDD in an optibay) should speed things up greatly