I agree these are needed additions. Also needed is enough of a staff to stay on top of the new cameras and lenses that are introduced and to address these in a timely manner.
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 4 Out Soon?
- Thread starter SayCheese
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I agree these are needed additions. Also needed is enough of a staff to stay on top of the new cameras and lenses that are introduced and to address these in a timely manner.
Well, that's a disappointment.
I was really hoping that Apple would release Aperture 4 alongside the new iPad. However all they've done is update iPhoto. Is that it? Are they forgetting all about Aperture? I hope not or it's LR for me.
I was really hoping that Apple would release Aperture 4 alongside the new iPad. However all they've done is update iPhoto. Is that it? Are they forgetting all about Aperture? I hope not or it's LR for me.
I agree. I've been holding off on purchasing Aperture in hopes that an update was soon to come (one has come in Feb in '08 and '10). So with no update in sight it's looking like LR4, especially now with the reduced pricing.
Lens correction is near the top of my wish list; I have to use a PTLens plugin on some images and then open the resultant Tiff file in Photoshop to make a more compact version (PTLens is saving 16-bit Tiff files). I'd love to be able to avoid that! (Yes, Photoshop can correct the images too).
My relationship with Aperture is also a love/hate relationship due to its performance and resource use problems.
I chose Aperture over Lightroom for a variety of reasons, including Faces, the user interface, and Photobook integration. I also hoped that transition my iPhoto library would be smoother than if using LR. The demo of LR3 was however noticeably more efficient, but I just didn't like the interface as much.
However, Aperture has turned out to be extremely resource intensive: Despite having a referenced library on an external FW800 drive, the Aperture library is massive, eating up 30 gigabytes of HD space so far just for thumbnails, and that's with Previews turned off. Lightroom, even though I didn't have so many photos imported when I was trialling it, didn't create a massive library. And its performance on my 2008 iMac with 4Gb was smooth, whereas performance of Aperture is variable, sometimes grinding to a stuttering halt. Having consumed a large proportion of my spare HD space, I'm having to shift more and more things to an external drive, and hence have another drive to back that up. So lack of HD space at various times is one issue with smooth performance, as with Photoshop it consumes a lot of temporary space. My 2008 iMac is maxed at 4Gb (not sure if it can unofficially take more), otherwise more RAM would be a consideration. But really, 4Gb should be plenty of RAM, and it shouldn't consume so much HD space with all its thumbnails! I'm a little disillusioned, and now that LR4 is out, the clock is ticking for them to come out with an update very soon to address some of these issues! I know I'm not the only one seeing this massive resource usage. I understand why they wouldn't want to clutter their iPad event with an Aperture announcement, they often want to keep the focus and have a separate announcement for something like this, and hopefully it will be soon! 30Gb just for thumbnails is ridiculous!
My relationship with Aperture is also a love/hate relationship due to its performance and resource use problems.
I chose Aperture over Lightroom for a variety of reasons, including Faces, the user interface, and Photobook integration. I also hoped that transition my iPhoto library would be smoother than if using LR. The demo of LR3 was however noticeably more efficient, but I just didn't like the interface as much.
However, Aperture has turned out to be extremely resource intensive: Despite having a referenced library on an external FW800 drive, the Aperture library is massive, eating up 30 gigabytes of HD space so far just for thumbnails, and that's with Previews turned off. Lightroom, even though I didn't have so many photos imported when I was trialling it, didn't create a massive library. And its performance on my 2008 iMac with 4Gb was smooth, whereas performance of Aperture is variable, sometimes grinding to a stuttering halt. Having consumed a large proportion of my spare HD space, I'm having to shift more and more things to an external drive, and hence have another drive to back that up. So lack of HD space at various times is one issue with smooth performance, as with Photoshop it consumes a lot of temporary space. My 2008 iMac is maxed at 4Gb (not sure if it can unofficially take more), otherwise more RAM would be a consideration. But really, 4Gb should be plenty of RAM, and it shouldn't consume so much HD space with all its thumbnails! I'm a little disillusioned, and now that LR4 is out, the clock is ticking for them to come out with an update very soon to address some of these issues! I know I'm not the only one seeing this massive resource usage. I understand why they wouldn't want to clutter their iPad event with an Aperture announcement, they often want to keep the focus and have a separate announcement for something like this, and hopefully it will be soon! 30Gb just for thumbnails is ridiculous!
I missed that. I really wanted Aperture 3 to be better- I really like the workflow and the features, but Lightroom's noise reduction and lens corrections make for much better image quality than Aperture offers, and in the end, that's the feature that matters most.
Maybe Aperture 4 will be better when/if it appears but I'm done switching.
I guess A4 will be released with new MacBook Pros
Seeing that iPhoto for iPad was released yesterday all I can assume that A4 will be available along with new MBP or OS X Mountain Lion.
I am also looking forward to A4. LR 4 is very nice and does excellent job but I would prefer to stick to A4. The workflow feels more natural to me.
Seeing that iPhoto for iPad was released yesterday all I can assume that A4 will be available along with new MBP or OS X Mountain Lion.
I am also looking forward to A4. LR 4 is very nice and does excellent job but I would prefer to stick to A4. The workflow feels more natural to me.
This really exposes the limits of Apple's PR policies. As much as I like Aperture, not knowing where the hell it is headed makes me think more and more that I will switch to Lightroom especially given the recent price drop. I don't really like Lightroom's file management, but it's editing functionalities are way ahead now, and not knowing if Apple cares or not is a pain.
That sums up my position quite nicely. My frustration with Apple's PR policies on this one is at a new high. I can see the silence on iPhones and crap like that, but c'mon...
Agreed. I am mostly a Photoshop/Bridge user that picked up Aperture 3 last year due to the attractive price and my switching to Mac a year earlier. I do like Aperture and use it for presentations... However, the road apple takes is too vague - where are they heading in photography, anywhere, nowhere...? It's been two years since the last update and perhaps a new update will be next month or even next year. They may even change things around like they did with Final Cut and we all know how they want everything to be centered around consumers not Pro's. What are they doing with the Mac Pro? Keeping or getting rid of it? The path is unclear and that reliably makes those that use it concerned.
I have always passed on LR because the price was disgusting and an insult to those, like myself, that pour good money in the mother product, Photoshop. LR should be a $99 product for current users of Photoshop but instead they have keep the high price fixed. With the price drop to $149, along with my 15% NAPP discount, perhaps it is time for me to think about LR4 since I know that this product is devoted to photographers and mates with PS. Aperture mates well with Macs but I think Apple resources are more focused on providing image editing for an iPad than serious software for Professional users. I do like Apertures interface much better and always disliked the LR interface but soon I must make a decision and it seems like LR is the safe bet - especially now that it is finally competitively priced. I'm in no rush as I never pick up the first version of any software - let someone else work out the bugs.
Bottom line, I am leaning towards LR4 if there is no word from apple on the aperture or the direction they want to go. But, first I will give LR a test spin when I have the time to devote to learning something new.
I have 13 days left on my free trial of Aperture3, so I have to make a decision soon. I'm using it on a 13" w/ 4 GB of RAM. Its a little slow, but useable. I'm considering the switch to LR4, does anyone know if it would be faster than Aperture?
LR 4 / AP 4 & IPhoto for IPad
Check out the video of yesterday's unveiling of "New IPad". Late into session they present IPhoto with the touch capility added into IPhoto and the UI improvements, I think one can begin to envision the direction Apple seems to be heading. While IPhoto was always several steps below AP, I can see the new AP4 being far more modularized for very efficient workflow and highly customizable. The current crop ofe plugins will fit our individualized workflows -- not the way it is now. While AP4 will not have touch, the IPhoto on IPad app shows a good deal of out side the box development.
While one never knows a release, the fact that LR4 is out, cannot help but impact their timing, and as with other pro apps, Apple does not.necessairly connect a release with other Apple major events. I do seriously hope that Apple spends sufficient cycles with third party developers so that most issues about integration and connectivity are fixed.
Check out the video of yesterday's unveiling of "New IPad". Late into session they present IPhoto with the touch capility added into IPhoto and the UI improvements, I think one can begin to envision the direction Apple seems to be heading. While IPhoto was always several steps below AP, I can see the new AP4 being far more modularized for very efficient workflow and highly customizable. The current crop ofe plugins will fit our individualized workflows -- not the way it is now. While AP4 will not have touch, the IPhoto on IPad app shows a good deal of out side the box development.
While one never knows a release, the fact that LR4 is out, cannot help but impact their timing, and as with other pro apps, Apple does not.necessairly connect a release with other Apple major events. I do seriously hope that Apple spends sufficient cycles with third party developers so that most issues about integration and connectivity are fixed.
I, for one, sure hope they bring the iOS version of iPhoto's photo journal concept to Aperture... that's a great way to share vacation or event photos.
Longtime aperture user here and just a few points I want to make:
1. Aperture performance is STRONGLY correlated to library size. If you want aperture to scream, in addition ao a dedicated GPU and RAM, you should make multiple library files. This is a new addition with A3 and highly beneficial
2. Aperture was completely rewritten with A3 so there really is NO need for a COMPLETE rewrite.
3. When A4 comes out I predict it will have features to compete with LR (ND filters, noise reduction, etc) and to make it more "photo-shoppy" - it seems to do that with every new version.
As an aside: I tried LR way back when but now I'm pretty ingrained in Aperture and it does what I want to as a prosumer easily so I see no reason to necessarily switch... although I did try the 30 day trial of LR2 and LR3. The aperture vs lightroom debate is beyond the scope of this post
1. Aperture performance is STRONGLY correlated to library size. If you want aperture to scream, in addition ao a dedicated GPU and RAM, you should make multiple library files. This is a new addition with A3 and highly beneficial
2. Aperture was completely rewritten with A3 so there really is NO need for a COMPLETE rewrite.
3. When A4 comes out I predict it will have features to compete with LR (ND filters, noise reduction, etc) and to make it more "photo-shoppy" - it seems to do that with every new version.
As an aside: I tried LR way back when but now I'm pretty ingrained in Aperture and it does what I want to as a prosumer easily so I see no reason to necessarily switch... although I did try the 30 day trial of LR2 and LR3. The aperture vs lightroom debate is beyond the scope of this post
So where *IS* Aperture 4?
Adobe seem to ramping up their Photography Suite with new editions of Lightroom and now PS Beta.
I've been on Apple's side for a while, loyally sitting in and expecting a significant update. In the mean time my professional competitors are experiencing faster workflows and better RAW conversion.
If you take in hand some of the sheer vitriol from a few of these forums, you can see that Aperture professional users are feeling more and more left behind without even a hint at when or even if we will see a worthy update.
Personally, I've written to Apple with suggestions of what I'd like to see in a new edition. The usual stuff, but the stuff that everyone wants and needs.
Nothing, not a peep. Not a rumour on a website, not a 'Roadmap' of where Aperture's headed. Nothing.
No-one's expecting Apple to EOL Aperture, and the threats of 'jumping to Lightroom' probably don't even dent the surface. It's more telling than that, I think: It shows us that as Apple bloats and grows, the need to pander to their professional users narrows and wanes. Photography, film, and graphics professionals have long been loyal to Apple, but with no two way dialogue and no feedback those same users are having to make decisions based on longevity and their bottom line. If a competitor's software is more efficient and more modern it will save the user time, ergo it will save money. Suddenly loyalty isn't a priority.
...Still no Aperture 4
Adobe seem to ramping up their Photography Suite with new editions of Lightroom and now PS Beta.
I've been on Apple's side for a while, loyally sitting in and expecting a significant update. In the mean time my professional competitors are experiencing faster workflows and better RAW conversion.
If you take in hand some of the sheer vitriol from a few of these forums, you can see that Aperture professional users are feeling more and more left behind without even a hint at when or even if we will see a worthy update.
Personally, I've written to Apple with suggestions of what I'd like to see in a new edition. The usual stuff, but the stuff that everyone wants and needs.
Nothing, not a peep. Not a rumour on a website, not a 'Roadmap' of where Aperture's headed. Nothing.
No-one's expecting Apple to EOL Aperture, and the threats of 'jumping to Lightroom' probably don't even dent the surface. It's more telling than that, I think: It shows us that as Apple bloats and grows, the need to pander to their professional users narrows and wanes. Photography, film, and graphics professionals have long been loyal to Apple, but with no two way dialogue and no feedback those same users are having to make decisions based on longevity and their bottom line. If a competitor's software is more efficient and more modern it will save the user time, ergo it will save money. Suddenly loyalty isn't a priority.
...Still no Aperture 4
So where *IS* Aperture 4?
Nicely stated and nuff said.
I hasten to add that Apple never, ever, makes product announcements before that product hits the market. I guess the engineers in the Aperture Team are enjoying watching their customers, flapping in wind, turning themselves inside out waiting, waiting, and waiting some more before something happens, and who knows what it will be and will it be a competitive response to Adobe.
I agree that a lot of us are approaching our loyalty boundary - that is, unless you possess infinite patience and pavlovian tendencies - which I personally do not possess.
LGH
Nicely stated and nuff said.
I hasten to add that Apple never, ever, makes product announcements before that product hits the market. I guess the engineers in the Aperture Team are enjoying watching their customers, flapping in wind, turning themselves inside out waiting, waiting, and waiting some more before something happens, and who knows what it will be and will it be a competitive response to Adobe.
I agree that a lot of us are approaching our loyalty boundary - that is, unless you possess infinite patience and pavlovian tendencies - which I personally do not possess.
LGH
The secretive treatment is left over from Jobs who put the cone of silence over everything. In time, Apple will probably loosen up a bit on some things where secrecy actually hurts them.
Longtime aperture user here and just a few points I want to make:
1. Aperture performance is STRONGLY correlated to library size. If you want aperture to scream, in addition ao a dedicated GPU and RAM, you should make multiple library files. This is a new addition with A3 and highly beneficial
2. Aperture was completely rewritten with A3 so there really is NO need for a COMPLETE rewrite.
3. When A4 comes out I predict it will have features to compete with LR (ND filters, noise reduction, etc) and to make it more "photo-shoppy" - it seems to do that with every new version.
As an aside: I tried LR way back when but now I'm pretty ingrained in Aperture and it does what I want to as a prosumer easily so I see no reason to necessarily switch... although I did try the 30 day trial of LR2 and LR3. The aperture vs lightroom debate is beyond the scope of this post
I much prefer Aperture's methodology for some reason from the limited trial I had with Lightroom 3, even though even then I recognised Lightroom was much less resource intensive on my 2008 iMac (Adobe has a lot of experience and optimised code from Photoshop). But as I was transferring from iPhoto and liked the workflow and the ability to make Photobooks, I chose Aperture, and have put up with performance frustration.
I've decided I probably should split my library, but even then I want to keep certain categories together, which would still leave a library of maybe 15,000 photos. I managed to clean up the 30Gb massive Thumbnails directory, at leas temporarily, by following the advice from a post elsewhere by removing its contents and having Aperture regenerate it. So far it's a fraction of its former size at 700Mb, even if it will grow. I expect they will only be regenerated as needed, so all the photos I haven't used in a while won't have thumbs. I also turned off Previews as I have no great need of sharing in other apps or drag-and-drop support.
Now it's a waiting game, as I feel certain Aperture 4 must be imminent due to Adobe not standing still, the length of time A3 has been out, and continued updates to its prosumer offerings. But the total lack of feedback is frustrating as it is to everyone here.
It had better be "magical" and "revolutionary"
Well, not so much of the latter, we don't need another Final Cut x.I think apple has to do something(finally). I really like Aperture, but some things are incredibly outdated(e.g. noise reduction).
Also, some basic editing options would be nice, blend images onto other images by brushes would be nice etc.
Also, some basic editing options would be nice, blend images onto other images by brushes would be nice etc.
AP3 Performance vs Library Size
I am intrigued by the multiple suggestions made by JBG232 and others about speed/performance vs AP lib size. I currently have approx 11+ libraries on my internal HD, libs are primarily managed files with RAW images @ 18mb.
I decided years ago to maintain a lib size of approx 10gb. I have been maintaining this size threshold since the beginning - V1.5, and while I had no idea that size was an indicator or part of the picture regarding AP slowness, I maintained that size as a comfortable limit given HD space 4-5 years ago. I do store older libs and backups externally. With an internal 1TB drive I can hold many more libs at once, so I have plenty of space to grow.
My experience is no performance impact with libs this size - at least not noticeable to my senses. However, while I am an avid shooter, I know there are pro's using AP3 that have far more demanding requirements, and would think there might be some idea from those pro's who might address the burning question, which is:
"What is thought to be a maximum threshold range for library size that does not impact AP3 performance?
Maybe amongst all us loyal and long term users, we can lock on to some number or range where users begin to experience slow down
thanks
LGH
Longtime aperture user here and just a few points I want to make:
1. Aperture performance is STRONGLY correlated to library size. If you want aperture to scream, in addition ao a dedicated GPU and RAM, you should make multiple library files. This is a new addition with A3 and highly beneficial
2. Aperture was completely rewritten with A3 so there really is NO need for a COMPLETE rewrite.
3. When A4 comes out I predict it will have features to compete with LR (ND filters, noise reduction, etc) and to make it more "photo-shoppy" - it seems to do that with every new version.
As an aside: I tried LR way back when but now I'm pretty ingrained in Aperture and it does what I want to as a prosumer easily so I see no reason to necessarily switch... although I did try the 30 day trial of LR2 and LR3. The aperture vs lightroom debate is beyond the scope of this post
I am intrigued by the multiple suggestions made by JBG232 and others about speed/performance vs AP lib size. I currently have approx 11+ libraries on my internal HD, libs are primarily managed files with RAW images @ 18mb.
I decided years ago to maintain a lib size of approx 10gb. I have been maintaining this size threshold since the beginning - V1.5, and while I had no idea that size was an indicator or part of the picture regarding AP slowness, I maintained that size as a comfortable limit given HD space 4-5 years ago. I do store older libs and backups externally. With an internal 1TB drive I can hold many more libs at once, so I have plenty of space to grow.
My experience is no performance impact with libs this size - at least not noticeable to my senses. However, while I am an avid shooter, I know there are pro's using AP3 that have far more demanding requirements, and would think there might be some idea from those pro's who might address the burning question, which is:
"What is thought to be a maximum threshold range for library size that does not impact AP3 performance?
Maybe amongst all us loyal and long term users, we can lock on to some number or range where users begin to experience slow down
thanks
LGH
Wirelessly posted (iPhone)
I doubt there is a golden number. It will probably be the result of a function that uses the variables of RAM amount, HDD/SSD speed, processor count and speed, as well as RAW size of photographs.
I doubt there is a golden number. It will probably be the result of a function that uses the variables of RAM amount, HDD/SSD speed, processor count and speed, as well as RAW size of photographs.
Well, I have given up waiting for Aperture 4.
I have this morning downloaded a trial of LR4 and if it's ok and all is good after the 30 day trial period then I shall be changing over.
I have this morning downloaded a trial of LR4 and if it's ok and all is good after the 30 day trial period then I shall be changing over.
What is Aperture missing that you are looking for feature wise?
Is it worth the hassle of switching if there are no features in LightRoom that you need? Or is it because LightRoom is 4 is newer than Aperture 3?
This. I can understand switching if there are features that are needed, but SayCheese hasn't stated what's missing from Aperture that they're so hot for.
I'm looking at LR4 for the superior noise reduction and the white balance brush. I'm only willing to wait a couple more months to see if Aperture will be updated and match these features. Luckily my library likely isn't as big as it is for some o the people around here, so if I switch, it'll be easier for me the sooner I do it.
I can se those as being good reasons. However, SayCheese who started this thread hasn't stated anything about what they see in LR 4 that they need over Aperture 3.