Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Aperture 4

swordio777 said:
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.
Click to expand...


Can you batch export from aperture into Photoshop?
 
tgara said:
Amongst the pro apps, it seems to me that Apple has significant interests in video and audio, but not photography.
Click to expand...
I think you are right, Apple has for some reason always had a penchant for music and videos, it seems to me that those two are products are under continuous development (Logic is AFAIK still made in Germany, for instance). I'm not a gamer, but if Apple's management cared more for games, they could have absorbed most of the console/semi-serious game market already.

However, I think if you look at what Apple has announced for photos, I think a pro solution may be in the cards at one point, delivering what we want: (partial) syncing of our libraries across devices and possibly users, backups in the cloud, etc. I was very happy to hear that Apple's photo syncing solution uploads the original image file (including RAWs).
 
Aperture 4 (or X) will come, eventually. And it will be disappointing to pros, but the enthusiasts will like it. (a la Final Cut Pro X)

There will be pros that use it, just like FCPX, but it won't have the features Lightroom does. Apple can make powerful, pro-focused software, but that's not really its brand. Instead, Apple's "pro" software is also designed to appeal to the enthusiast, which means it has to embrace a certain amount of "easiness" by offering to automatically do common things.

That's why you hear about people saying how fast they can work in FCPX. It's designed to make certain tasks much easier, because FCPX does them automatically. Aperture will have similar features, which for many people will be awesome, but pros want the control. Control breeds complexity, and that's against Apple's brand. (Even if the option for certain pro features is available in Aperture, you can be sure it's sort of 'hidden' behind Apple's preferred method.)
 
inplainview said:
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 I’ve 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. They’re building “intelligent” controls, that know that if you want a “brighter” image, that doesn’t mean just increase pixel values across the board. A bright (or dark) image tends to lose vibrance, for instance, so why wouldn’t 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 heart’s 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.
Click to expand...

Source please?

inplainview said:
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.
Click to expand...

I can't understand how Aperture is iPhoto Plus? It is not aimed at the same users.


OreoCookie said:
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.
Click to expand...
Exactly. I've worked with pros who care a lot less about "the art" of photography or a camera's settings than some amateurs.

---

On the whole sliders thing, it seemed to me that Photos had general sliders (let's call one of them "enhance") that could be used to improve a photo, but that it had a disclosure triangle that allowed the user to individually change the contrast, definition... settings.

It's a bit like saying that Photos can't be used in a professional setting as its controls are "too easy", yet Aperture and Photoshop have "Magic wand" and "Auto" buttons that automagically improve settings with one click. I'm guessing Lightroom does too?

Basically, what matters is the final result and if we can achieve that in our favourite application, then it's all the better. For those of us currently in the Apple camp, WWDC has given us hope that we can continue to do so with the intuitive software we enjoy using. It doesn't mean that we never use other stuff. I spent most of yesterday in ACR and Photoshop. They aren't my tools of choice but they were the fastest and in some cases only ways of doing what I wanted.
 
hulk2012 said:
Can you batch export from aperture into Photoshop?
Click to expand...

Yes you can.

If you’re not bothered about managing your PSDs in Aperture then you can just use the normal Export function (File > Export > Versions...) and select one of the PSD options.

If you prefer to manage your PSDs in Aperture (as I do), then just select all the images you want PSDs of & hit Cmd+Shift+O. Frustratingly, this does mean they all open in photoshop – a small niggle, but worth it to get all my PSDs inside Aperture & stacked with the originals. You can close all the photoshop windows quickly and easily by going to File > Close All.

@hulk2012 - Our conversation about photoshop has drifted away from this thread’s original purpose. If you have any other questions about my photoshop workflow then feel free to DM me. Alternatively, maybe start a thread about workflow, or about using Photoshop as your main tool for editing photos - I’m sure others will be happy to chip in too :)
 
Since John Gruber's post about how he thinks Apple should drop Aperture I've become worried and have attempted to use Lightroom to get the ball rolling on my learning curve, just in case.

All I can say is so far, after editing a few hundred photos on it, I am really not enjoying it. I hate its user interface.

I'm happy with Aperture 3 if Apple keeps updating it. I just hope they do, or release the new version.

*fingers crossed.
 
All I can say is so far, after editing a few hundred photos on it, I am really not enjoying it. I hate its user interface.
Click to expand...


Which is why after years of LR, I am learning Aperture. I want to be ready for whatever shows up early next year. I already imported my referenced library of 60,000 images into Aperture. So I can now edit in LR or Aperture.
 
theusualsuspect said:
There will be pros that use it, just like FCPX, but it won't have the features Lightroom does. Apple can make powerful, pro-focused software, but that's not really its brand. Instead, Apple's "pro" software is also designed to appeal to the enthusiast, which means it has to embrace a certain amount of "easiness" by offering to automatically do common things.
Click to expand...
I don't buy this whole »brand«*non-sense. Apple has worked on FCPX for several years, and they have fielded it with pros in the movie business. They have close ties with a big movie studio because of Steve Jobs, and you can tell they really have a personal interest in music and movies. (Acquaintances of mine sell extremely specialized color correction software for professional movie editing and they've heard through the grapevine that Apple is reimagining movie editing. That was ~2010.)
theusualsuspect said:
That's why you hear about people saying how fast they can work in FCPX. It's designed to make certain tasks much easier, because FCPX does them automatically. Aperture will have similar features, which for many people will be awesome, but pros want the control.
Click to expand...
I think »pros« want to get the job done, they don't necessarily want control. Making common tasks easier means you can get more work done -- if you anticipate correctly what the user wants.
theusualsuspect said:
Control breeds complexity, and that's against Apple's brand. (Even if the option for certain pro features is available in Aperture, you can be sure it's sort of 'hidden' behind Apple's preferred method.)
Click to expand...
What exactly is »hidden«? And with Apple's preferred method, I assume you mean the default settings?
InfiniteLoopy said:
It's a bit like saying that Photos can't be used in a professional setting as its controls are "too easy", yet Aperture and Photoshop have "Magic wand" and "Auto" buttons that automagically improve settings with one click. I'm guessing Lightroom does too?

Basically, what matters is the final result and if we can achieve that in our favourite application, then it's all the better. For those of us currently in the Apple camp, WWDC has given us hope that we can continue to do so with the intuitive software we enjoy using. It doesn't mean that we never use other stuff. I spent most of yesterday in ACR and Photoshop. They aren't my tools of choice but they were the fastest and in some cases only ways of doing what I wanted.
Click to expand...
Personally, I think Apple focusses on the right problems (meaning the problems I care about), namely making my photos ubiquitous and available on any device. The biggest nuisance switching from my 2010 15" MacBook Pro to my 2013 13" Retina MacBook Pro is that I can no longer store everything locally. So I would like automatic syncing of my photo libraries across devices without having to schlepp around my whole photo library on my Mac.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back