A very reasonable approach. Apple has had a gracious plenty of time to get there stuff together regarding a pro photography app.
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
- Thread starter tbohlman
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
A very reasonable approach. Apple has had a gracious plenty of time to get there stuff together regarding a pro photography app.
We can't imagine traveling without our rMBPs. They are not that much larger than our iPads and fit into the back of our Tenba Messenger bags along with all our M43 kits. We travel light thanks to M43, and that still includes our rMBPs.
Dunno what to tell you man, we almost never travel with laptops. I have my E-M5 and a couple of primes, iPad, two phones and a Kindle. The rest of the electronics stay at home.
We each carry our rMBPs, E-M1s, and 3-4 lenses. The rMBPs let us do culling and editing every night. For our 2-3 weeks trips we need the horsepower and storage of our rMBPs. We can easily each shoot 30GB+ per day shooting wildlife. For our workflow the iPad does not have the storage, apps or plugins we need.
OT post:
I gotta smile every time I see Terry White's name.
Had my first Mac in Sept-1984, the original 128k Mac.
I joined Michigan based Ann Arbor USER GROUP Mactechnics in 1986, and joined MacGroupDetroit (Terry's group) in 1988. Was active in both till 1995...Terry's a great guy, always passionate.
This is meaningless.C1PRo is a great RAW converter and it has some powerful tools, but it's not the best application. It's very capable.
"Design[ed] for professional photographers by professionals" - what? Marketing speak much? You think Adobe, or Apple just threw this stuff together on a whim?
"Uh, I dunno, I guess photographers might need to change some exposure settings or sumfink..."
The last time I looked "Mass consumers" were taking more pictures than ever before, and in a large photographic company like Nikon or Canon the consumer market props up the professional innovation. e.g.. Nikon make more profit on a load of D3300s than they do on considerably less D4s'.
It took Phase One ages to realise that professional photographers could use their software outside of the few cameras that were initially supported. Capture One was essentially tied to the studio for years. Apple knew that photographers were using Macs in the studio, but not Apple software - they knew what photographers were crying out for and released Aperture.
Adobe then got in on the game. And continue to add powerful and competitive tools to their ecosystem.
So Capture One were "first"? First at what? First to lock photographers into a proprietary system, or way of shooting? Or last at building a Catalogue/Library system into their software?
Sorry, but I've lived through the "Capture One Pro is the software that professionals use ergo I'm a professional because I use it too" rubbish.
Capture One is just perfect for studio and Phase One backs.
Lightroom is about the best for Canon RAW conversion, but sucks with Fuji X-trans.
Aperture wins hands down for Nikon NEF and Fuji RAF files and wipes the floor with both of "the other two" when it comes down to library/asset management.
So depending on how "professional" you need your image quality or workflow to be, can you please tell me which one of these is more consumer grade or more professional than the next one?
Are we still defining "professional"? - It's 2014 FFS!
What makes you say that Aperture wins hands down for Nikon NEF files? I'm very interested to hear your opinion on that as I'm still running it with the hope for new release.
Good post! I agree with most of what youve said, however I do not think Lightroom is the best raw converter for Canon cameras Aperture can get draw more information from a CR2 file than lightroom can (I covered this in a post in the Aperture Vs Lightroom thread several months ago. Anyone interested can find a full explanation there).
Raw conversion should not be considered a subjective variable. Raw files are not images they are information. Therefore the best raw converter is the one that can gather the most information from a raw file and turn it into an image file. Apertures conversion algorithm can recover blown out highlights and clipped shadows from raw files that Lightroom simply cannot this is not my opinion, it is fact.
If you prefer the look of a raw file in Lightroom or Capture1 then thats fine. However thats completely subjective - just because you prefer it does not make it the best.
This thread is simply turning into a clone of the Lightroom Vs Aperture one, but now were throwing Capture into the mix as well. Bottom line: if you want to get the most information out of your raw files then convert them using Aperture. If editing tools are more important to you than the quality of raw conversion, then use either Lightoom or Capture. There is no right or wrong tool here there is simply the one which best suits your personal needs. So can we all please, please, please stop trying to define one programme as "the best" or "more professional" than the others?
Cheers guys
Hopefully the above answers your question
Cheers
Sssshhh! I was just trying to be kind to Lightroom users!
Only kidding (a little) there. Personally I use Aperture. I've used all of them, and I know plenty of people who simply don't trust Aperture, perhaps in perpetual fear of Apple turning it into iPhoto X or whatever. Which they won't.
For me it's all about workflow and managing large libraries and Aperture does that just right for me. It might not be just right for everybody, and that's the beauty of choice.
My point was that; Yes - you can look for and find differences in image quality in the RAW "conversion" or "extraction of data" but it would be hard (not impossible) to tell the difference between a file edited in any application at the results stage. So what really matters is how the application works for the person using it, leaving the admission that essentially any of the above three are in fact equal. Workflow is king.
I too can't be bothered with the "vs" rants that will inevitably go on forever. A thorough and cyclical waste of time.
Last edited:
This more than anything (though I agree with your other points as well). There are advantages and disadvantages and "what you're used to" for every tool.
No and No.
"IF" it ever comes out, we can assume the next version of Aperture will be available exclusively through the Mac App Store. There have never been any upgrade options through the MAS.
The most likely result is that the new version will cost the same as the current version, and any users of Aperture 3 who want to upgrade will have to pay the full price.
Cheers.
Not necessarily as bleak as this. The MAS has no upgrade options other than free, so it could end up being free. Note that the store calls the product "Aperture" not "Aperture 3".
And even if they do charge for Aperture 4, there is some comfort in that the current price is less than the upgrade price used to be.
FWIW; Taking FCP and Logic as cues it's probably a safe bet that Aperture X (being part of the trinity of "Pro" Applications) will indeed be a paid upgrade.
However, the last time I looked Aperture was considerably less than the competition. Why should it be free?
I don't know about Logic, but the move from FCP to FCP X occurred simultaneous to moving it to the App Store. The only Apple-branded products I know that have had paid upgrades since the App Store have been Mountain Lion (but not Mavericks) and Server.
Hulk2012
Please can you reply to me via the board rather than private messages. It's more help to other members if they can see the discussion.
You mention in your messages how great you think C1Pro is and talk about how you are a professional and get paid for your photography.
A couple of things.
'Getting Paid' doesn't justify the use of any application over the other. It just doesn't qualify a tool as professional or not. I have been paid for polaroids and for medium format digital work. Which one is more deserving? Which one makes me more professional?
I want to re-iterate that neither of the DAM applications define or expose a difference between a 'professional' and a 'consumer' or 'amateur'. Why are you so hung up on these things?
You talk about the amount of tools that one application might have over another as a reason to use C1Pro, but it doesn't matter! Photographers get the results they need with the tools they choose. An argument might be 'Why buy a multi tool when you just need a screwdriver' - OK, it's not the best analogy but there you go.
A LOT of people will get the image in camera with minimal post necessary. And then move on. For all the tweaking there are more clever programs than any of the import/DAM tools.
Don't be so quick to define your professionalism by the tools you need to enhance your photography - you might find that it's the other way around.
And on the money front - doesn't everyone get paid for photography theee days? A few years ago, everyone was a DJ or in a Band - now everyone's a photographer. I know people who work a 9-5 and then shoot a couple of hours at the weekend for kicks. They get paid - how are they defined in the professional world? Or someone who works 7 days a week churning out whatever photography can pay the bills. No sleep, man, just tech! Is that professional?
Some definitions simply mask inadequacies.
Please can you reply to me via the board rather than private messages. It's more help to other members if they can see the discussion.
You mention in your messages how great you think C1Pro is and talk about how you are a professional and get paid for your photography.
A couple of things.
'Getting Paid' doesn't justify the use of any application over the other. It just doesn't qualify a tool as professional or not. I have been paid for polaroids and for medium format digital work. Which one is more deserving? Which one makes me more professional?
I want to re-iterate that neither of the DAM applications define or expose a difference between a 'professional' and a 'consumer' or 'amateur'. Why are you so hung up on these things?
You talk about the amount of tools that one application might have over another as a reason to use C1Pro, but it doesn't matter! Photographers get the results they need with the tools they choose. An argument might be 'Why buy a multi tool when you just need a screwdriver' - OK, it's not the best analogy but there you go.
A LOT of people will get the image in camera with minimal post necessary. And then move on. For all the tweaking there are more clever programs than any of the import/DAM tools.
Don't be so quick to define your professionalism by the tools you need to enhance your photography - you might find that it's the other way around.
And on the money front - doesn't everyone get paid for photography theee days? A few years ago, everyone was a DJ or in a Band - now everyone's a photographer. I know people who work a 9-5 and then shoot a couple of hours at the weekend for kicks. They get paid - how are they defined in the professional world? Or someone who works 7 days a week churning out whatever photography can pay the bills. No sleep, man, just tech! Is that professional?
Some definitions simply mask inadequacies.
C1 - latest version
Just as an aside to your rant ...... you may want to have a look at the latest version of C1. We shoot exclusively Fuji X-Trans and I have to say the latest version supports RAW up to and including XT-1 and makes a great job of them as well. Personally I would say as good as Aperture.
Totally agree on the DAM aspect of Aperture....
We have been assessing options to AP3 - other than Adobe and if there's no change on Monday, I think we will call it a day and move to CP1. The DAM isn't that bad!
Just as an aside to your rant
...... you may want to have a look at the latest version of C1. We shoot exclusively Fuji X-Trans and I have to say the latest version supports RAW up to and including XT-1 and makes a great job of them as well. Personally I would say as good as Aperture. Totally agree on the DAM aspect of Aperture....
We have been assessing options to AP3 - other than Adobe and if there's no change on Monday, I think we will call it a day and move to CP1. The DAM isn't that bad!
Aperture 4
Same here. I'm already bought to C1 however still running Aperture on side incl deepening the knowledge of using it (creativelive, aperture expert, etc). However if Monday won't make it then it will break it. Will delete my entire catalogue and won't never look back.
I'm still running iPhoto on my multiple macs simply for an integration purpose with OSX but that's all.
Just as an aside to your rant
Totally agree on the DAM aspect of Aperture....
We have been assessing options to AP3 - other than Adobe and if there's no change on Monday, I think we will call it a day and move to CP1. The DAM isn't that bad!
Same here. I'm already bought to C1 however still running Aperture on side incl deepening the knowledge of using it (creativelive, aperture expert, etc). However if Monday won't make it then it will break it. Will delete my entire catalogue and won't never look back.
I'm still running iPhoto on my multiple macs simply for an integration purpose with OSX but that's all.
Last edited:
Not really a DAM but there is Adobe Bridge.... I consider it more of a Finder replacement (on the Mac), and there are other browsers as well. GraphicConverter eg.
But it does highlight the fact that there isn't something like that from Apple (and no, the Finder doesn't count). If Apple made Aperture more than just a media management tool for photographers I'd be tempted to jump back. By that I mean something that could include other file formats besides images. One thing I love about Bridge is that even though I can't move folders around like I can in LR, I can apply tags from the same pool that I use in LR so that photos, Illustrator documents, PDFs and Word documents all come together, especially using collections and filters.
I realize that people (professional or not) who exclusively work with photos might not be pleased, but I don't see how opening up a DAM to other file formats would necessarily get in the way. Aperture might have to change some nomenclature (albums, eg) but it seems like it could work. Bridge pre-dated both LR and Aperture, and the latter applications were meant to address its deficiencies, like raw processing. Maybe it's time we went back in the other direction.
But it does highlight the fact that there isn't something like that from Apple (and no, the Finder doesn't count). If Apple made Aperture more than just a media management tool for photographers I'd be tempted to jump back. By that I mean something that could include other file formats besides images. One thing I love about Bridge is that even though I can't move folders around like I can in LR, I can apply tags from the same pool that I use in LR so that photos, Illustrator documents, PDFs and Word documents all come together, especially using collections and filters.
I realize that people (professional or not) who exclusively work with photos might not be pleased, but I don't see how opening up a DAM to other file formats would necessarily get in the way. Aperture might have to change some nomenclature (albums, eg) but it seems like it could work. Bridge pre-dated both LR and Aperture, and the latter applications were meant to address its deficiencies, like raw processing. Maybe it's time we went back in the other direction.
I prefer using content specific databases for certain purposes. As an example... I use iTunes as my database for music. It does a "good enough" job for my music... especially since it integrates so nicely with the iTunes store.
Likewise... Aperture is my database for pictures. Other than better sharing across multiple users... there is essentially nothing that I really need in Aperture to make it better. IMHO... Aperture is probably the best application ever written for photography organization... enough reason on its own to switch from a PC to a Mac.
I use DevonThink Pro Office for everything else. It is flat out amazing. I could choose to put everything into DTPO if I chose... but as amazing as it is as a product, it would not do as good a job as iTunes as my music database... nor would it be as good at Aperture as a photography database. I also have little reason to want to mix my music with my tax returns and photographs in the same database. There is no value in that for me.
That trio of database programs ... is a trifecta for me.
/Jim
Wrapup?
Why don't we just wrap-up our wishes? What would an Aperture release need?
in my opinion:
-better workflow.
When working with more than one mac, aperture is a mess. I shoot Raws in my MBP when I'm with clients or in field shooting. But when I'm coming home, I want to edit them on the iMac. Just loosing time here..
- noise reduction and lens corrections
- nicer look.
- more flexibility when it comes to working with aperture and PS
Why don't we just wrap-up our wishes? What would an Aperture release need?
in my opinion:
-better workflow.
When working with more than one mac, aperture is a mess. I shoot Raws in my MBP when I'm with clients or in field shooting. But when I'm coming home, I want to edit them on the iMac. Just loosing time here..
- noise reduction and lens corrections
- nicer look.
- more flexibility when it comes to working with aperture and PS