Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Aperture 2
- Thread starter Patdt13
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Nope I don't think you need Aperture. I think if you want an image editor you can use Photoshop Elements with iPhoto. I would use iPhoto as a photo manager and allow PSE to be your editor. Or you can go with other apps like The Gimp (free) or Pixelmator (around $60). Alternatively if you only shoot raw (which I doubt) then you can use Raw Photo Processor, also free.
I agree. I use Aperture, primarily for its ability to handle huge quantities of photos living on a NAS instead of my hard drive, but if you're not a professional or serious amateur with a large photo library, you're better off with iPhoto.
I'm going to disagree - I like Aperture and wouldn't be without it even though I only take maybe 1,000 pictures a year. I previously used Photoshop Elements for years and much prefer Aperture to that. How about downloading the free trial and giving it a test drive?
Completely non-destructive editing in RAW and the ability to change any part of the post-processing for a picture at any time without redoing all of it, and no need to store anything other than RAW when you can make every other format from it when needed. The retouching tools work just as well for my needs as Elements, and I've never felt the need to do other things like add text, and rarely used layers. Aperture integrates with iPhone and Apple TV, and Mac's screen saver.
I would download and try aperture. I'm going to buck the trend abd say it would be a great tool for you
You don't need to be a professional or someone who takes 10,000 pictures a month to leverage the functionality of aperture. It's extremely well integrated to apples other apps. It's organization, categorization and non destructive editting can be useful to anyone who takes pictures
d/l the trial version and see if it suits your needs. Apple also has a ton of online guides where you get to see the power and flexibility of aperture
You don't need to be a professional or someone who takes 10,000 pictures a month to leverage the functionality of aperture. It's extremely well integrated to apples other apps. It's organization, categorization and non destructive editting can be useful to anyone who takes pictures
d/l the trial version and see if it suits your needs. Apple also has a ton of online guides where you get to see the power and flexibility of aperture
I am leaning to getting Aperture for my new 27" i7 iMac. I have been a casual user of iPhoto for a while using our MBP and MBA... but I do not keep a lot of photos on them. Instead, I have been keeping the "master copy" of our photos on desktop a PC with 30" monitor... and it is getting decommissioned to make room for the iMac. I have used a number of photo editing programs including Photoshop elements... which I am not too crazy about.
I am probably on edge of needing Aperture instead of iPhoto. My picture collection is about 75,000 pics, and I tend to add about 4,000 - 8,000 pics per year.
The iMac gets opened on Christmas morning... and I am trying to plan how to migrate my pictures into Aperture. I also heard that Aperture and iPhoto can share a common library. Is that a recommended approach?
My current organization on the PC is using Windows explorer in folders by year, and subfolders by event. If I was to stay with iPhoto, I think that I would drag them into iPhoto one directory at a time, so that each would become separate iPhoto events. Would I do something similar in Aperture?
We also have a lot of "common events" that span years. For example, we have made many family trips to Disneyworld... across several years. It would be nice to be able to keyword those so I could open all easily.
Finally... I have heard rumors that Aperture may be upgraded to Aperture X this year... or as late as May. Any update on those rumors? I would hate to buy it and then have to upgrade right away.
/Jim
I am probably on edge of needing Aperture instead of iPhoto. My picture collection is about 75,000 pics, and I tend to add about 4,000 - 8,000 pics per year.
The iMac gets opened on Christmas morning... and I am trying to plan how to migrate my pictures into Aperture. I also heard that Aperture and iPhoto can share a common library. Is that a recommended approach?
My current organization on the PC is using Windows explorer in folders by year, and subfolders by event. If I was to stay with iPhoto, I think that I would drag them into iPhoto one directory at a time, so that each would become separate iPhoto events. Would I do something similar in Aperture?
We also have a lot of "common events" that span years. For example, we have made many family trips to Disneyworld... across several years. It would be nice to be able to keyword those so I could open all easily.
Finally... I have heard rumors that Aperture may be upgraded to Aperture X this year... or as late as May. Any update on those rumors? I would hate to buy it and then have to upgrade right away.
/Jim
I would suggest, that you take a look at the Aperture tutorials. They answer about every of your questions with neat little video tutorials.
Best regards
Coffee-Drinker
Coffee-Drinker,
Thank you for the thorough reply. I have started looking at the tutorials and they seem pretty good. I think that I will just get it and open it Christmas morning. If a new version comes out, it will probably only be $100 to upgrade.
Are there any of the iPhoto features that you miss? I like the way iPhoto can make a really easy slideshow with various themes. So far I have had limited success with faces. However... the real thing is that I have not even used iPhoto very much... because I do all my real photo organization, scanning, editing, etc on a desktop PC rather than a laptop. I have already converted my laptops to Mac... but that didn't require a change in approach. Obviously... moving my desktop to an iMac changes everything.
Thanks again.
/Jim
I just ordered Pixelmator and Aperture 2 from Amazon... This should just about guarantee that a new version will be announced soon after I open the package.
/Jim
actually everyone is expecting aperture 3 to be released by apple in December or January. Lots of "noise" of the upgrade on the intarwebs indicate a release is forthcoming
In terms of fancy slide shows, iPhoto is your better choice. In terms of organizing and processing large amounts of photos Aperture is more suited. The slide show feature in Aperture is kind of less fancy. Think of iPhoto for your holiday photos and Aperture for professional photography.
Just to be clear to the OP, Aperture and Photoshop are very different programs with different purposes:
Aperture - primarily used for managing large image libraries, performing basic edits and advanced edits on RAW files (such as exposure control and better white balance)
Photoshop - primarily used to EDIT photos (take out a dog, add a non-basic filter), merge photos, etc.
My advice is that if you have either a large library or RAW images which you want to do edits on then get Aperture. Also get it if you want to store files in a library remotely (on an external HD - usually the case with massive libraries on laptops)
If you want to do photo EDITING then I would get photoshop elements regardless of your need for Aperture as they have independent uses.
Aperture - primarily used for managing large image libraries, performing basic edits and advanced edits on RAW files (such as exposure control and better white balance)
Photoshop - primarily used to EDIT photos (take out a dog, add a non-basic filter), merge photos, etc.
My advice is that if you have either a large library or RAW images which you want to do edits on then get Aperture. Also get it if you want to store files in a library remotely (on an external HD - usually the case with massive libraries on laptops)
If you want to do photo EDITING then I would get photoshop elements regardless of your need for Aperture as they have independent uses.
I have been using Aperture 2 for over a year and it rocks. I also have PSE, but very rarely ever use it. If Aperture 3 adds layers and maybe curves, I will have no use for PS at all. The plugins for Aperture keeps betting better all the time, too.
This is the primary reason why I've migrated to LightRoom over Aperture.
While I don't have layers in LR, I do have superior non-destructive editing within LR, so much so that it precludes the need for any sort of plugins to fill the void. I suspect aperture 3 will continue to maintain a meager set of editing tools but perhaps update its archetecture so that plugins will no longer be destructive edits but non-destructive.
In LightRoom (which the new version is rumored to be out by March/April) I have almost zero need to go into PS, it can handle all of my photo editing/touching up.
Aperture is a good program, and I miss how well it integrates with OSX, iPhoto, iWeb and all of Apple's other products but all in all I feel the editing capability and like the LR better.
Although I cannot deny the advantages of Lightroom, I detest the shabby service Adobe has given its Mac users during the last few years. I would count that in when deciding.
@jbg232
Thank you for the clear words. I second your opinion: Aperture is basically for beautifying photos but not altering. Photoshop Elements, Photoshop CS4, Photoline, Pixelmator, GIMP, ... are for altering photos, like making hips smaller than the head (see here).
@jbg232
Thank you for the clear words. I second your opinion: Aperture is basically for beautifying photos but not altering. Photoshop Elements, Photoshop CS4, Photoline, Pixelmator, GIMP, ... are for altering photos, like making hips smaller than the head (see here).
