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
This one paragraph:
"Apple seems to have taken photo editing to a new level themselves. While their demo at the developer conference was relatively quick and simple, the takeaway I got from what Ive seen is that Apple was looking for a way to get past a dozen sliders needed to do a complex shift of tonalities and colors to single, user-understandable sliders. Theyre building intelligent controls, that know that if you want a brighter image, that doesnt mean just increase pixel values across the board. A bright (or dark) image tends to lose vibrance, for instance, so why wouldnt a brightening tool also try to keep color punchy? As with many things Apple, the simple does a lot of things with one widget approach also has an under the covers ability, as well, where you can get to those individual parameters if you really feel you need to. The net effect, though, is that most people are going to be using only a very few controls to do some very sophisticated things that were intelligently designed. The rest of us can dig deeper and tweak to our hearts content."
gives me the feeling that Apple has abandoned the pro market and is going full-on for the consumer market, which is what they do best. While I may like the DAM facilities of Aperture, Lightroom simple beats Aperture in everything else. I have yet to see one pro who wants a one slider does all approach to photo editing, whoever the average housewife who knows zero about photography, let alone editing will probably be a fan of the new tools.
"Apple seems to have taken photo editing to a new level themselves. While their demo at the developer conference was relatively quick and simple, the takeaway I got from what Ive seen is that Apple was looking for a way to get past a dozen sliders needed to do a complex shift of tonalities and colors to single, user-understandable sliders. Theyre building intelligent controls, that know that if you want a brighter image, that doesnt mean just increase pixel values across the board. A bright (or dark) image tends to lose vibrance, for instance, so why wouldnt a brightening tool also try to keep color punchy? As with many things Apple, the simple does a lot of things with one widget approach also has an under the covers ability, as well, where you can get to those individual parameters if you really feel you need to. The net effect, though, is that most people are going to be using only a very few controls to do some very sophisticated things that were intelligently designed. The rest of us can dig deeper and tweak to our hearts content."
gives me the feeling that Apple has abandoned the pro market and is going full-on for the consumer market, which is what they do best. While I may like the DAM facilities of Aperture, Lightroom simple beats Aperture in everything else. I have yet to see one pro who wants a one slider does all approach to photo editing, whoever the average housewife who knows zero about photography, let alone editing will probably be a fan of the new tools.
It would be interesting to hear from the "average housewife who knows zero about photography" group of MacRumors photographers how they feel about some of the new tools around here.
Well, to be honest, how many average house wives know about white balance, DoF (depth of field), apertures, shutter speed, wide angle lenses, prime lenses? I don't think so. These are the average consumers who would benefit most from these new photo editing features. Not a pro who wants the ultimate control over every slider, every way to edit a photo to exacting standards. If you can't understand this, then you fall into the average consumer mode as well.
A "pro" (however you choose to define that ubiquitous level of photographic skill) doesn't need to take ultimate control over an image when sitting in front of a computer screen. A "pro" takes care to capture the best image when looking through the viewfinder then simply deletes anything that doesn't meet an exceptional standard of photography.
I would say a pro is the person that gets the shot he or she is commissioned to get. Again, this would exclude many to most house wives. A pro could also be defined as someone who earns the majority of their salary or living taking photos. Not quite ubiquitous you make it out to be but in some ways not easily defined. You are correct in that a pro tries to control the "event" as much as possible via composition, lighting, etc, but in some cases this is not possible, which would require professional tools. Aperture used to be a pro tool but it is iPhoto Plus at this stage of the game. As much as I hated to do it, I was forced to migrate and begin processing in Lightroom. This is my opinion of course but I see little value in this "tool" for a professional photographer or even an advanced enthusiast.
I can see that.
You don't need to understand my thought process. I was explaining that to declare yourself as a "pro" because of the tools you use usually means that you're trying to assert some authority in a subject that you might in truth be more of a novice in. That's not to say that there's anything wrong with being a novice, so to speak, only that most professionals are too busy running a business and using whatever works to worry about whether or not the tool they're using is "pro" or not. You run the risk of painting yourself into a corner creatively, or burning bridges as you rely only on the tools you have convinced yourself are worthy.
Everything you use in photography will have a limit. When you reach that limit and can't produce the photography you want to any more you don't blame the equipment - you find another way. More often than not the solution might well be something that doesn't have 'Pro' in it's branding. It might be something that hasn't been used before. It shouldn't stop you using something if the only reason not to is that "I don't know any Pro's who do". Likewise it shouldn't be the motive for justifying one's status; "Pros use this software, and now so do I - ergo I am now a pro and people not using the same software are 'consumer' [or some other definition]"
If buying into "what the pros use" makes you feel more at ease with your decisions, then go ahead.
There is no secret key, there are no special VIP passwords.
If you study the life and work of Ansel Adams you will find that he spend huge amounts of time in the darkroom editing and printing his work. He never "got it right" only in the camera. His masterpieces are a combo of excellent field composition and masterful post processing. If he were alive today, he would be a maven of post processing apps.
Very good point MCAsan. Excellent in fact. I have friends that spend much of their time in Photoshop after a shoot while I try to accomplish everything I can in LR and maybe kick out to a NIKGoogle (still waiting for Google to finally screw up what was/is great software) for final retouching. One key distinction to make is that AA also shot on large format film which has very different properties than digital. As anyone who knows anything about shooting in RAW verses, .JPG, post processing is 99% of the time needed on RAW images as they tend to be flat and colourless because in effect, it is literally straight out of the camera (SOOC) with no processing performed at all. So again, I feel my argument stands that these new tools that Apple is offering are not for those interested in photography but are for those interested in taking snapshots.
Ya, the whole get it right in the camera thing is a bit silly. You'll never get your whites or blacks spot on. It's one or the other. To do that, you need software. You're never going to get a clean look straight of camera, especially if you're shooting RAW. You can get "sort of" close with exposure, but sometimes that requires software.
There's no pro photographer that has shown you a photo straight out of camera. None. Not Ansel Adams, not William Eggleston, not Steve McCurry, not Henri Cartier Bresson. No one. Even in the film days, everything was "processed".
Don't fool yourself with get it right in the camera. You'll drive yourself crazy. The only thing you can truly get right in camera is your framing. But nothing that involves exposure, tone, and color.
All true to a point.
However, beyond the basic and simple adjustments needed to process a RAW file and tweak it to personal tastes (all of which can easily be accomplished with an application such as Aperture), how many pro photographers spend countless hours processing images through ultimate tool control in post. I would argue that it's the hobbyist who seeks to take an average image and turn it into a work of art using a computer and software.
We'll never know but I do wonder what someone like Ansel Adams would think of this pursuit of photographic excellence while sitting at a computer screen. What is it that an application such as Aperture would leave him thinking: "This isn't enough".
Totally agreed!!! iPhoto and now Photos are aimed at the snapshot crowd who are the vast majority of person with a device with an integrated camera. The wife and I took our niece to a public garden yesterday for some photography. My wife had just given the niece a Canon 7D (we now shoot M43). I was amazed at how many folks where not just using only their phones (mostly iPhones) but their tablets to take shots. It would never occur to me to intentional take a tablet along as a camera. My idea of a minimum camera is my Panasonic ZS-40 P&S that has 30x zoom and shoots 18MB images in raw format.
Hmm, the eternal concern that Apple just addresses the consumer market and forgets about my niche (»= the pro market«).
Two points: first of all, Apple exposes the sliders even in iPhone's iOS interface, and secondly, aren't most of the sliders you use today already an abstraction? When I started editing photos on my computer, there was no exposure slider, just brightness, contrast, curves and such. As an evolution of modern DAM software, I find that great, because Aperture and Lightroom are not meant as replacements for Photoshop.
I don't think the pro vs. non-pro distinction is very useful, because there are plenty of »amateurs« out there (as in people for whom photography is a hobby and they're not getting paid) who want added controls, and plenty of pros who don't.
Nicely said. As a "pro" in another field (software), I know that the tool doesn't define the results but the person at the keyboard (or behind the camera) certainly does. It is doubtful that anyone who is good at photography is good because they use Aperture or LR, nor are they "pro" because they're using one tool or the other. Use whatever tool works. The image is everything. I saw an exhibition recently where the photographer did almost all of her pp work in iPhoto. And the work was stunning. I'm not sure if she was a "housewife"
.That's what I said many months ago. Pro market is abandoned by Apple as doesn't generate it enough revenue stream. No point competing with Adobe or Phase One which are predominantly designed for professionals.
As a bit of a photography outsider, I'd actually consider "Photos" a pretty good sign that there might be an Apperture update.
iMovie got a big update that was the foundation for Final Cut Pro X which was desperately due for an update. It was the first of the pro app major update and was butchered, they released an unfinished app and pissed off the pros. Now I'd say the app would be usable by most pros but many have moved on to creative cloud. iMovie on both iOS and mac are compatible with it.
Logic Pro 9 was 4 years old before it was updated to Logic Pro X, the new Logic was released just a few months before a major revamp of GarageBand on both the Mac and iOS.
I see a trend here. The pro apps were getting old. They rebuilt some of the core engine and released consumer grade apps alongside it.
With Photos, were seeing that Apple has a new core engine for editing pictures. I think it would have made strategic sense for Apple to wait for this new engine instead of trying to add editing features to the current version of Aperture.
That said, I'm not sure it's not worth jumping ship to Lightroom... most pro photographers get it with their 10$/month Photoshop subscription...
iMovie got a big update that was the foundation for Final Cut Pro X which was desperately due for an update. It was the first of the pro app major update and was butchered, they released an unfinished app and pissed off the pros. Now I'd say the app would be usable by most pros but many have moved on to creative cloud. iMovie on both iOS and mac are compatible with it.
Logic Pro 9 was 4 years old before it was updated to Logic Pro X, the new Logic was released just a few months before a major revamp of GarageBand on both the Mac and iOS.
I see a trend here. The pro apps were getting old. They rebuilt some of the core engine and released consumer grade apps alongside it.
With Photos, were seeing that Apple has a new core engine for editing pictures. I think it would have made strategic sense for Apple to wait for this new engine instead of trying to add editing features to the current version of Aperture.
That said, I'm not sure it's not worth jumping ship to Lightroom... most pro photographers get it with their 10$/month Photoshop subscription...
Just a quick glimpse at Apple's software portfolio would tell you that's false (and I'm assuming you mean creative pros rather than professionals in general). It's true that Apple has neglected the pro photo market, but the same cannot be said for music (Logic X) or video (Final Cut Pro X) where Apple has invested major resources for complete rewrites. Even though FCP X has been ridiculed at launch as iMovie Pro, I think Apple sticks with it in the long run and tweaks it to make it successful.
Absolute nonsense!
Lightroom is aimed squarely at amateur enthusiasts.
Capture was originally designed with professionals in mind (specifically those using Phase One camera backs), however in recent years it has added more & more features aimed at enthusiasts in the attempt to make the product more popular & successful. And, credit where it's due, their plan has worked perfectly.
(Aperture is the same - I'm not trying to suggest it's innocent).
In truth, all of these programmes claiming to be "professional software" is a case of the Emperor's New Clothes. The companies that made them are bigging up mediocre features and the users lap it up, praising any changes as revolutionary!?
In reality though, they can't even do the basics. Contrast & sharpening in all 3 of these apps is a joke! And that's the two things absolutely every raw file needs.
Apple's new "photos" app doesn't look like something I would use. However at least it's not pretending to be something it's not.
How is manually wanging a slider in Photos any different from wanging a slider in Lightroom / Capture / Aperture?? Be honest - it isn't.
So anyone who says Lightroom or Capture is "for pros" while Photos is "for amateurs" is really saying that professionalism has to do with how many sliders you need!? Give me a break.
If these contrast and sharpening adjustment in those three is joke then what software do u use then?
Photoshop. Personally I use CS5, but any version since Photoshop 7 will do the trick.
For best results, convert your raw in Aperture (switching sharpening, contrast, and every other so-called "feature" off. Also reduce black point to 0). Then export to photoshop to make all adjustments.
For those who use lightroom to convert - make sure you use process version 2010. The 2012 process action is abysmal if you actually want control over your images (it makes changes behind the scenes but leaves the sliders at 0 so the user is left in the dark).
Amongst the pro apps, it seems to me that Apple has significant interests in video and audio, but not photography.
In terms of video, remember that Apple and Disney have a close relationship (Bob Iger, the Disney CEO, sits on Apples Board), going back to the Pixar days. Disney has been putting out excellent animated features for some time now using a lot of Apple's components and software, so in light of this relationship, I am not surprised that they keep on top of the pro video market with Final Cut X.
On the audio side, remember Apple just acquired Beats and Beats Electronics. Beats Electronics is a leader in audio software, and Jim Iovine has been involved with iTunes behind the scenes for a long time. Like FCX and the Disney/Pixar influence, it's logical for Apple to keep up with the pro audio app market given Iovine's involvement with Apple and the Beats deal.
What I'm not seeing is any obvious connection (business or otherwise) between Apple and the pro or high-level photography market. Obviously, at the consumer level, Apple has been improving the camera on the iPhone as well as the Photos and iPhoto consumer apps, and that's fine for casual shooters taking snaps. But there doesn't seem to be an internal or external influence that would push Apple to keep working on the pro photography market. Am I missing something here?
Bingo
When Craig demoed Photos for Mac at WWDC I knew Aperture was safe. The reasoning is simple. At a consumer level Apple wants the Photos experience to carry across iOS and OS X especially considering that Continuity/Handoff is going to be paramount to the experience. To do that the core framework and UI need to be very similar. That's exactly what they appear to have done.
I'm guessing that in 2015 we'll see a svelte Photos for Mac that remains focused on managing and easily editing photos on the Mac. Gone will be the extra stuff like making cards, books and extensive slideshows. Why? Consumers don't use these features enough.
Aperture 4 will be delivered. It too will use the same Photos Framework yet you will be able to see all of the granular controls we have now in addition to more features that the new frameworks enable. It's here that I think Apple will put the missing features of Photos for Mac. The book, calendar, cards and more are better suited in Aperture where Apple knows people care about their photos enough to take the next step and pay $79 for the app.
This will allow Aperture for iOS to be announced simultaneously and all the Handoff goodness that will entail.
Yeah it sucks to have to wait this long but Apple is one company that isn't afraid to "rip and replace" when it comes to products.
Apple's not ending Aperture. They've invested time (money) into revamping their photo architecture and cloud enabling it because that's is the future.
It depends on the job. 99% of the time I'll let Aperture generate the PSD.
That PSD will be based on an 8-bit JPEG if I'm going to be batch processing a large number of small images (for example a wedding, commercial event, or corporate headshot session where I've photographed 60 different people in 1 day).
However if I'm delivering a small number of commercial images that need to be of the highest possible quality then I'll use either 16-bit JPEG or 16-bit TIFF and process each one manually.
I generally try to avoid using TIFFs unless the payment I'm receiving justifies it.
My photoshop workflow is completely non-destructive, so there is no discernable improvement in quality that justifies the massive increase in filesize. However using TIFFs does slow down your workflow and therefore cost you money.