Aperture 4

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by tbohlman, Feb 5, 2014.

  1. tbohlman macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2014
    #1
    Does anyone out there believe Aperture 4 will be released. I'm tired of waiting. Any inside scoop?
     
  2. rhett7660 macrumors G4

    rhett7660

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Location:
    Sunny, Southern California
    #2
    You are not alone. I am almost to the point of moving to lightroom. Almost.
     
  3. SandPebble macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2012
    #3
    Ditto. With the release of the nMP, I was looking forward to an upgraded version.
     
  4. swordio777 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2013
    Location:
    Scotland, UK
    #4
    If there were any inside scoop, you would not need to ask about it.

    What exactly are you waiting for?
     
  5. tbohlman thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2014
  6. HantaYo macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2012
    #6
    Right now I am trying out Lightroom and Capture One. Apple has a terrible track record with 3.x. I remember when 3.0 was released; I could hardly use the program due to the numerous bugs. Mostly with the graphic card. I am not sure I want to continue with Aperture even if 4.0 is released. Apple's lack of enhancements with the 3.x line is sure to spell continued mediocre support and development of the software.
     
  7. wannabepcuser macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2013
    #7
    Look at it this way....it has been many years since v3 was released, when/if v4 is released it will be many years before v5 is released. I would go for Lightroom with its freq updates.
     
  8. Jacksonc macrumors 6502

    Jacksonc

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2013
    Location:
    Jony's house
  9. MCAsan macrumors 601

    MCAsan

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2012
    Location:
    Atlanta
    #9
    There are seemingly endless threads on Aperture 4 and ATD 2. Both were expected at the Mac Pro launch. Not. Both are MIA. WWDC is probably the next big opportunity.
     
  10. HantaYo macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2012
    #10
    Moving on with my photo editing life:
     

    Attached Files:

  11. twitch31 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2013
    #11
    I thought I had waited a long time when I only switched to LR in July 2012.

    Switching is fairly easy and it's possible to run them side by side for a while if you are unsure, just run Aperture in referenced mode (ie photos not in a managed library) and then LR can import the same RAW's that you import into Aperture.
     
  12. HantaYo macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2012
    #12
    Did you export your raw files you edited in Aperture to jpegs or did you start from scratch in LR? I have thousands. Luckily the Aperture meta data appears to be fine in LR
     
  13. r.harris1 macrumors 6502a

    r.harris1

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2012
    Location:
    Denver, Colorado, USA
    #13
    If Aperture doesn't satisfy your needs or if Apple's idea of enhancement isn't your idea of enhancement or even if you just want to see major version numbers increment more frequently (with or without major new functionality), there are plenty of other tools out there. If you are looking for DAM, LR is decent, C1 Pro is decent. If your focus is RAW processing more than DAM, the world's your oyster.
     
  14. egis macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2008
    Location:
    Bethesda, Maryland
    #14
    Here are a few ideas to consider:

    Is there no finer DAM than Aperture? - Look behind the UI and I think you will find nothing can match it in terms of capabilities. Yes, speed is not up to par as compared to say Photo Mechanic, but for purposes of DAM I have found nothing finer.

    I tried LR (v4) on a few thousand images, DAM just doesn't come close. RAW processing is good, but even using v. 8.3 it simply cannot handle high ISO and highlights as well as others. The rest of its rather fine set of post processing tools are steps ahead of Apple at this time, so that left me thinking to use the best parts of what Aperture offers, and via its flexible plug-ins use others as necessary.

    For me, what it came down to was raw. Aperture gives you lots of choices about how much post processing you let it do. I do not give Aperture any permissions to do anything but be the DAM, particularly since I find its raw engine severely lacking

    I do batch raw editing as well as JPEG editing in DxO Optics Pro using Catapult as my export and re-import mechanism. (there are many other good raw processing apps that will work with Aperture, so while I depend on DxO, it does come down to individual choice).

    In most cases to bring my images up to my levels of quality is accomplished using raw processing . If more processing is desired I have choices to work off the reprocessed raw (usually a 16-bit TIFF) out of Aperture then into NIK's suite, DxO Film Pak, and PS6 and then back into Aperture.

    So, my workflow baseline is Aperture and via plug-ins everything else just seems to work pretty well and my round tripping is simple. Aperture's stacking capabilities are remarkable in keeping my workflow consistent yet flexible, allowing my versions to be in one place, tracked using great metadata capabilities.

    These are just a few ideas about why when you look at an app as complex as Aperture is (i.e. the user manual is over 500 pages today), it really can't be as simple as some argue.

    Just my $0.02 worth of thinking....
     
  15. carlgo macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    #15
    It might be that there is no clear consensus as to which way to go with Aperture.

    People want this and that, don't care about the other stuff, etc. Too complex for some, never complex enough for others.

    It is an impossible situation.

    How about making Aperture a modular organizer that controls apps written specifically for it? If you want to concentrate on B&W photography, there would be dozens of apps dedicated to that. High end sharpening, retouching, special filters, any number of manipulations...get what you want and only what you want.

    Your version of Aperture would be unique, custom-made by you. It would be constantly updated and refreshed, and changed completely, as old apps are updated or deleted and new ones are downloaded.

    And of course each app is a specialty product and its quality would be generally better than its more generic counterpart that is included in some big program like Aperture or Lightroom. Aperture then would also be the best at whatever it is you want it to do.
     
  16. MCAsan macrumors 601

    MCAsan

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2012
    Location:
    Atlanta
    #16

    That is what the product owner inside Apple does for a living. It is their job to decide the product plan for Aperture. They decided what features/functions to build at what cost, in what timeframe, to achieve the desired market goals.

    While all of us on the outside can have an opinion, the one that matters is the Aperture Strategic Product Manager inside Apple. I wonder whom that person is. :confused:
     
  17. fa8362 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    #17
    Aperture sells so poorly that Apple doesn't even offer a trial version. That's also why it hasn't been updated…no significant revenue or profit in it.
     
  18. talmy macrumors 601

    talmy

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    Location:
    Oregon
    #18
    Which is why it's the 12th top app in volume and 5th in gross sales in the App Store? They stopped the trial when they dropped the price and put it in the App Store -- they don't need the trial anymore to boost sales. There have been updates at least every year, last one was 3 months ago.
     
  19. fa8362 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    #19
    If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you. Apple can list any app as being a bestseller. Aperture sells to next to no one.
     
  20. talmy macrumors 601

    talmy

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    Location:
    Oregon
    #20
    And what are *your* sources?
     
  21. egis macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2008
    Location:
    Bethesda, Maryland
    #21
    Nicely stated product management strategy...and more or less - really more like what I described in "photo user speak"...thanks
     
  22. VirtualRain macrumors 603

    VirtualRain

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2008
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    #22
    I think this would be great and not all that difficult to implement... Non-destructive plug-ins and/or 3rd party adjustment bricks would add to the already available presets to get you close to this ideal.

    Imagine if something like NIK's Viveza was just an optional adjustment brick rather than a round-trip plug-in App or all the SilverEfex were presets with an adjustment brick? It can't be that hard to get there.
     
  23. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #23
    I was at that point for a long time. Then I gave Lightroom a try on some photos that were really high ISO because I heard the noise correction was much better. I haven't looked back. Lightroom 5 is so far and above Aperture when it comes to the actual image editing/adjustments, it's not even funny. It's like comparing the original Asus EEE PC to the brand new Mac Pro. It's not even close.

    I still have all my older stuff in Aperture, but all new photos I shot I'm using Lightroom now. Aperture's just fallen too far behind.
     
  24. Attonine macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2006
    Location:
    Kent. UK
    #24
    I think that many Aperture and users, including those that have moved to LR, do not know that under RAW fine tuning in the Adjustments tab there is in fact a De-Noise slider. I think many will be surprised at Aperture 3's noise handling ability when using this slider.
     
  25. rebby macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2008
    Location:
    MN
    #25
    I've used this adjustment quite a bit and it does wonders for removing noise however, it's not selective at all and I end up with very soft images even when shooting at an ISO as low as 6400. This slider, although a great tool, is not the end-all-be-all of noise removal and has actually left me disappointed more often than not.
     

Share This Page