Aperture 3 Reportedly Causing Hangs and Memory Leak Issues for Some Users

[smearedblue]

Ha, Lightroom.

9,000 image library. Updated flawlessly.. probably because it isn't corrupt. I keep my professional library very tidy, and organized.

Lightroom and aperture are like the same program. You guys can argue about which is better all day but it just makes you look like amateurs. I prefer aperture. It makes for easy backups, really fast performance, and super simple automation. My clients seem to like me going through their photos in it as well

 

[Stu Allen]

I had a few hangs early but that was mostly me trying to check out some of the new feature while aperture was still churning away updating and doing face detection on 5000+ files.

In all i'd say its a great and much needed upgrade. ( I was this close to going to lightroom ) Faces alone makes this the best of the two for the prosumer. For Pros its still a toss up, but being able to do faces on a per project basis -- lets say I shoot 1000 shots at a wedding (I have) then you go into aperture and say show me all the shots with the father of the bride and BAM. That could sell a lot of people right there. The same with places for nature and landscape shooters.

I haven't had time to use the new adjustment brushes but I think they could save me 80% of my trips to photoshop. (why the hell can't PS open JPG 2000 files=lossless)

Note I'm running fine on a 1.6 Ghz mini with 2 G ram If your having problems I doubt its a hardware issue

No it won't make any difference to pros. Already aware it is not very good as it is based on the iPhoto system. It has a very bad habited of making mistakes and a lot of them so then you have to check everything or you will miss files when you search. You then have to correct the mistakes. In the end it is quicker to do it yourself in the first place.

As for 'places' most pros that need this feature are already aware that there are better free plug-ins made for Aperture and Lightroom that have been available for some time that do the job much better.

 

[Stu Allen]

9,000 image library. Updated flawlessly.. probably because it isn't corrupt. I keep my professional library very tidy, and organized.

Lightroom and aperture are like the same program. You guys can argue about which is better all day but it just makes you look like amateurs. I prefer aperture. It makes for easy backups, really fast performance, and super simple automation. My clients seem to like me going through their photos in it as well

Corruption is not the issue because some people have loaded only 5 pics into AP3 and it still does the same thing. There is far more to it than that.

 

[hatcher002]

Told you

Did I not post a bout this a week ago I was thinking it was just a large file issue,

 

[cocky jeremy]

Corruption is not the issue because some people have loaded only 5 pics into AP3 and it still does the same thing. There is far more to it than that.

Same here. Mine imported my AP2 library and completely freezes my system and i have to restart. My AP library is only about 30 pictures.

 

[mrkgoo]

Just thought I'd chime in with my experience. I am upgrading from iPhoto, which itself has been upgraded with every version since 5.

Aperture would invariably crash when importing my library. The onl way to resolve this was swithong to 32-bit mode.

After that the import took days, but was mostly fine. Given that the iphop library ha multple modified versions each handled differently depending on high version of iPhoto was used to modify it, I'm surprised tha it handled it well and imported 95% correctly. Finding the other 5% is of course, a nightmare. Any location data for images before iPhoto 9 were not brought across. Some edits on my images were not transferred or some edits under the aperture engine were completely different.

Since then, aperture atleast opens. I cannot play around too much with the iPhoto library folder as it causes aperture to hang, even if I just rename the folder (maybe it just takes a long time). I've had dozens of freezes hangs, crashes or force quits.

I'm eagerly awaitig a stability update.

 

[steve-p]

I didn't have any problems with the import of around 15,000 images, nor is it using huge amounts of RAM. It is making the fans go wild and frequently crashing a lot though. I've had more crashes in two days than with Flash in two years If you deselect an adjustment and then reselect it again (or a different one) while it's still building the preview it does crash quite often. Hopefully this will be fixed fairly quickly, but you wonder how it ever got to release in this state. What was that about Adobe being lazy again

 

[rhomsy]

I think A3 is a fantastic release. Yes it has some bugs, but if you don't want to deal with bugs, why are you getting a x.0 release? I knew what I signed up for when I purchased A3. I could have waited a few months, but I didn't want to.

I also don't think the problems with A3 are universal to everyone. I had no problems updated a library on an iMac, but it crashed on my MBP. After having used A3 on both systems for a weekend, I can honestly say that I'm fine with the overall speed. I'm looking to upgrade the memory in both machines from 2 gig to max, but this is what I expected.

I also think that A3's new RAW processor is outstanding. Photos reprocessed with the new processor seem some much more detailed, and have so much more pop than the previous version. In fact, I always thought LR did a better job at RAW processing. After A3, I think Apple just took the lead.

I also think the new feature set in A3 are extremely useful. Localized adjustments and presets, although present in previous versions of LR, are a godsend now for Aperture users. I also think the ability to quickly and easily switch between multiple Libraries is a great move. Overall, I think Apple hit it out of the park with A3. I'm confident that the bugs will be ironed out over the next few months. I'm also confident that A3 will help to improve my photography.

 

[pondosinatra]

Looks like it's not just their Hardware QA that's in the toilet...

 

[jettredmont]

you can do this..you just use referenced masters, which is what I use. aside from the fact that I have nearly 2TB worth of images that wouldnt fit on a desktop hard drive, i'd never trust my masters to be sitting inside some library that I need a program to access..i see so many people saying managed masters is a better workflow, but not me. i reference all my masters immediately upon import...had i not done that, i would have lost a huge client this past weekend who was demanding images while i was unable to even access my aperture library because i was experiencing the memory hang issue.

Note that even without referenced masters, you have full access to the original masters by using the magical "Show Package Contents" option on the Aperture Library package.

People talk like Aperture is putting your master *.crw or whatever files into a huge database; the master files are just copied to a (simply structured) folder on disk and pointed to by an entry in the database. Other than the copying of the file to a "managed" folder, the referenced masters option operates identically.

So, if referenced masters saves your butt by allowing you to get to the original master images, then you can get the same effect in non-referenced masters by finding the file on disk. On the other hand, if you want the cropped/adjusted version of that file, neither option will help you (you will need to open Aperture and export the version you want).

If it needs to be said again: the exact same is true in LightRoom. The only difference is that LightRoom defaults to referenced masters while Aperture defaults to a managed library. In both apps, it's simple to change to the other style. In both apps, your "referenced" masters will simply never contain all your edits and you'll need to fire up the application to get something usable with your edits.

 

[ChrisA]

Works well for me. I had not problems on my 24" white iMac. I have about 10,000 images in the library. Yes I did notice the swap was at 5GB at one point but that goes away. It takes a while to convert the library and then I let it run a couple hours for face recognition.

The first thing to do is make a copy of the old Aperture 2 library and put it away someplace safe. Then you convert the library to 3 and let it run for a while

I'm a software developer, not a pro photographer. I can tell you one thing that is hard to do with software like Aperture 3. Reading input files where everything is "perfect" is easy. But many times huge sets of files like an Aperture library have things wrong with them. Smal bits of file corruption possibly introduced by an old buggy version of Aperture years ago. The file converter has to deal with this kind of thing. The problem is that corruption is unpredictable. You can't know what you might see in a messed up library. You can't just stop with a error. what's the user to do them? It's very hard to write software that can deal with these kinds of problems

Years ago in school I had a computer science professor who said that the first level of correctness is when your application produces correct output when given correct input. The second level, that is much harder to achieve is when your application does the "right thing" when given garbage input. Today, I'd say the bulk of my code handles unexpected errors.

 

[Gradivus]

No problems for me.

I've 32,000 images stored on an external hard drive (referenced masters).

Updated from Aperture 2 to Aperture 3. Took a long time (6 hours to upgrade the library then 12 hours to find all the faces) during which time my Macbook Pro was effectively unusable.

But since then I've had NO problems at all. Aperture 3 certainly takes longer to launch, but in all other respects it works just as before - perhaps very slightly faster.

[BTW. Please, please, do not whinge that it's slow on your old hardware. Either buy a new machine or stick with Aperture 2. Technology moves on; live with it.]

 

[msh]

First Snow Leopard, than Aperture... Apple is realllly neglecting its software. Making nice hardware isn't going to compensate for that!

I don't like Aperture anyway, I hate that it copies all of your photos into its own folder structure... Why can't it just leave them where they are dammit? I want to be able to manipulate my photos from the Finder as well... What if I want to send them to someone on Skype, or upload them on the web, I can't do that from Aperture, because draging and dropping only drags the freaking preview file, which is scaled down. I want to own my photos, I don't want my software to own them.

AP3 (as did previous versions) gives you the option to reference photos rather than import them into AP3's library. Do some research before you post.

 

[robogobo]

more reason to stick with lightroom. i never liked the "photo library" scheme that apple does, I want to be able to easily get to my photos in finder.

Are you serious? The option to reference files outside the library was added to Aperture over 2 years ago. Since you obviously haven't tried it since then, you have no ground to speak of it.

Good lord, did Adobe just release the trolls in the past hour?

Aperture 3 has been flawless for me. I've been driving it hard since release day with only a few minor graphical glitches.

 

[DARKJ3DI]

Why do some people seem to have so many software issues? Aperture 3 works like a charm, iTunes uses little ram, Mail never crashes, and Safari 4 is really snappy. I have lots of little 3rd party apps and stuff installed and nothing hangs at all. Why can some Macs be so different???

 

[bluefox9er]

lightroom is still ahead by a zillion miles and counting...

 

[Digital Skunk]

Compared to Lightroom, Aperture's RAW support is pathetic.

Only if your camera is pathetic.... No seriously, as long as Apple keeps up with the major camera bodies most people won't care. The GF1 was a mistake to miss, (as far as I know Apple hadn't added support for it yet) but it's not a huge deal IMHO. If you're shooting with a new Pentax body then that's just too bad, it's a wonderful camera indeed, but you can either get another camera, or grab another piece of software.

more reason to stick with lightroom. i never liked the "photo library" scheme that apple does, I want to be able to easily get to my photos in finder.

I love you pal! But I hate to break it to you, it's 2010, not 2006.

I will not buy it until this issue is resolved. Hope Apple is quick to fix it. How something that serious could slip through testing is upon me.

I agree, and I am still going to wait for the Lightroom 3 to move out of Beta, although I am still in the Aperture camp.

Unlike most posters, I am using both apps extensively and have been a double switcher since Beta... going from LR Beta to Aperture 1, to Lightroom 1, and settling on Aperture 2 completely.

So far, Lightroom 2 was the only app to pull me from toning in Photoshop, now Aperture 3 has pulled me from Lightroom.

If Lightroom has the multimedia features of Aperture 3 or better yet Premier CS4 then it would be good competition for Apple. And Adobe really needs to put album design (via InDesign) features in LR and stop treating us like children with their modules.

lightroom is still ahead by a zillion miles and counting...

Please go deeper.

 

[sladey]

Best GPS Track Maker

As for the new features... I LOVE places, especially the way it handles GPS tracks. I have about 5 years worth of GPS tracks that I save whenever I do a shoot. I had used Mapature plugin, but the built in GPS handling in Aperture 3 trumps the plugin easily.

How do you generate your GPS tracks? Do you use a standalone GPS tracking device? If so, what is it?

 

[abbstrack]

9,000 image library. Updated flawlessly.. probably because it isn't corrupt. I keep my professional library very tidy, and organized.

Lightroom and aperture are like the same program. You guys can argue about which is better all day but it just makes you look like amateurs. I prefer aperture. It makes for easy backups, really fast performance, and super simple automation. My clients seem to like me going through their photos in it as well

sorry but this isnt about who keeps their library tidy vs. who doesnt. i've never done anything to my libraries OUTside of the of options provided by aperture since version 1.5...however my libraries were indeed corrupted, and rebuilding, repairing, consistency checks etc could never get them back the way they were..so this is an issue that is outside of our control...

All most of us really want to do is have this software work as advertised. not a lot to ask fro. maybe we should have 'beta' paid them for the upgrade, since they issued a 'beta' release...

 

[zedsdead]

I haven't had either of these issues yet, but The Aperture Library is unseen by any other Apple app. The Media Browser, Screen Saver, and Desktop Background do not display Aperture at all. It is a problem that many are having, I looked it up on the Apple forum.

I am really sick of the Apple releases lately. Apple needs a VP of quality control and that person needs to fire some people. This has been an ongoing issue with Apple since 2007.

I miss the stability of the Panther/Tiger days.

 

[Glideslope]

Runs perfectly on my early 08 Dual 2.8 MP with 8g.

Rebuilt libraries prior to upgrade. Took an hour or so to complete the imports, and changes. Rebuilt Vault after processing was complete. Have Faces off. Love Places. Absolutely flies compared to V2.

Only one complaint. Need to run in 32bit for my Nik Plug-Ins to function. Seems just as snappy as 64bit. Strange.

No memory leaks that I can detect.

OS 10.6.2

 

[cgc]

You'd think Apple's internal beta testers would catch these problems. They're prolly too busy testing iPhone/iPad/iPod/iTunes crap instead since it's a bigger cash cow.

 

[zedsdead]

You'd think Apple's internal beta testers would catch these problems. They're prolly too busy testing iPhone/iPad/iPod/iTunes crap instead since it's a bigger cash cow.

They don't do a great job on that front either, remember the iPhone 3g launch with OS 2.0?

 

[degger]

Some serious uninformed BS...

I've just registered here to clean up this ininformed mess...

I don't want to be rude, but you clearly do not know much about Aperture. It's a very simple and straight forward process to set up your file structure for your photos. They can be made to reside where ever you like, from the computers HD to an external hard disk.

That is simply not true. The "library" must be on a HFS(+) formatted drive, maybe AFP will work, too but any of FAT32/NTFS/NFS/CIFS will not work.

The same holds for any referenced master if you want to be able to delete it for instance. Plus, you can't reference masters directly on a memory card which you certainly can in LR.

So effectively, if you don't keep your files on HFS(+) formatted drives (or maybe AFP remote storage) or don't have enough space on such a drive to keep the catalog, you loose.

This is a huge dealbreaker for me and others e.g. working on a NAS or having a strong desire to keep their files OS agnostic; also for those who appreciate the LR possibility to sort out bad pictures directly on their memory card instead of being forced to "import" them (possibly as referenced masters to a non-HFS filesystems and thereby losing the ability to get rid of them later).

I tried a full two days sorting out how to make this work including reading all of the A3 manual but to no avail. That included even finding a spare external drive formatted to HFS+ with room for at least one 8 GB memory card and the library but even that kludge did not work as satisfactory as LR does.

NB: For those who haven't noticed: A3 lacks the ability to export files with *overwrite* of existing ones instead of inventing phantasy names with "(n)" added. This is another dealbreaker at least for those who shoot JPEG+RAW and keep both (and use JPEG unless the JPEG needs some correction).

You post those type of comments and you mislead people that don't know the program (like yourself) and might be considering it.

I don't believe that's the case. In the same sense that spreading misinformation like in your post or other childish other posts help promoting Aperture.

PS: I wanted to use A3 instead of LR because it has its flaws, too. That's why I spend big time money (in terms of time) to make it work. But A3 is so buggy, slow and just does not the slightest cooperate with my long time established workflow (about 8 years, when I didn't even have Macs) while any other RAW processing application on the Mac like LR, SilkyPix, RawTherapee, RawPhotoProcessor works just fine. It also crashed 8 times on me in only a few days of operation; that's 8 times more than LR ever.
PPS: If you really are interested in discussing these issues instead of uselessly denying or flaming them I invite you to take part in the discussions in the dpreview "Micro Four Thirds Talk" Forum where I've detailed many (and not even all) of the problems I found.


--
Servus, Daniel

 

[degger]

Only if your camera is pathetic.... No seriously, as long as Apple keeps up with the major camera bodies most people won't care. The GF1 was a mistake to miss, (as far as I know Apple hadn't added support for it yet) but it's not a huge deal IMHO.

IYHO. Alone the fact that the popular G series from Panasonic has been around for well over a year and that even older cameras like the *very* popular LX3 were added only recently show that you're dead wrong about this. Also the Olympus counterparts are *still* absent.

There are many people who cared, some of which are now LR users, others stayed with SilkyPix or looked at another solution.

Just the idea that I might buy a piece of non-Canikon hardware and not get support for another 1,5 years makes me *not* want to invest any dollar in Aperture.

And then, the resently added support is rather halfassed, too. I wouldn't be too surprised if that's the reason for some of the performance problems people are seeing.

--
Servus, Daniel