Aperture Now Shipping

[sjl]

1. In the user comments after the review (which had a lot of good points), someone commented that there were 2 major criticisms of the software, but that both were fixable (poor RAW conversions and bugs, if my memory serves me). This person felt that the review "missed the forest for the trees" in getting too bogged down in these areas which probably would be fixed by version 1.02. The reply was "Well, this is what's shipping today!".

But is it really fair to expect a 1.00 version to be bug-free 5 days after it ships? And when a couple of major bugs appear, complain that it is garbage merely for that reason?

2. Almost 25% of the review was the reviewer's pet peeve about small fonts that are unreadable on large screens. [...]

The second point, I fully agree with -- I don't see that as being as big a problem as the reviewer seems to think it is.

On the RAW conversions, though: isn't that the sine qua non of Aperture? I would expect an application that touts itself as a RAW workflow program to have something like that pretty much tied up and sorted. Reading the Ars review makes me think that it's a very long way from that.

Now, I'll happily agree that different cameras have different formats for RAW, and even that the algorithms to get the image quality out of a given RAW format are pretty sophisticated. But really, Apple should have made sure that the output from Aperture would be as good as that from Photoshop and/or the camera vendors' software.

I'm still interested in Aperture, but for the price, I don't think it's good enough to have the software shipping with a flaw in what I regard as fundamental functionality. Apple can ship updates to fix the problems, sure -- but I don't know when they'll ship them, or how good they'll be. All anybody can go on is what is out there here and now, and either say "it's acceptable" or "it's not". To accept a software vendor's assurances (implicit or explicit) that the problems will be sorted out "real soon now" is just asking for trouble.

Having said all of that, it hasn't stopped my interest in Aperture. Once there have been a few updates to the raw image processing aspect, and I'm comfortable with the image quality I can get out of it, I'll quite likely plonk down the cash. But not before.

 

[CalfCanuck]

I see, I read that the first time around as being user-fixable somehow which spurred my interests.

You say you'll be avoiding any major exports, but don't the problems being seen come from when tools are applied and the 'version' is viewed looking quite low-quality? If the image is in Aperture doesn't the original always stay untouched and therefore can be retrieved by/through PS if you needed it for print?

Again, it's my first day, so allow for some confusion on my part! Anyway, there is a good thread I started a few weeks ago that referred to an interview with the Aperture development team. It does a good job of explaining what is saved where, and the potential to access metadata at a later stage.

https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=1961071#post1961071

As to how Aperture treats the "round-trip" to PS. you begin by setting an external editor in your preferences, including how you want the file exported (psd vs tiff in the PS case). Then when you select "Open with external editor" it applies whatever changes you have applied INSIDE Aperture to that "Version" of the Master image before converting to your file format of choice and opening inside our external editor already converted.

In my temp workaround, if I needed to access a RAW photo I would just look at my file name inside Aperture, then from inside PS go to the original, pre-imported file (outside of the Aperture folder system). You can still access the untouched Masters inside the Aperture package, but for me there is no need to do this extra step.

Note that many of my earlier photos I am now working with were originally highest quality jpeg's from my first digital SLR (D30) in spring 2002, whose RAW format is not supported by Aperture anyway. For these the RAW issue is irrelevant (as it will be for scans from my old Velvia images). My more recent images are RAW, but my short-term goal is creating order via keywords, etc. while I get to know Aperture.

I'm interested in Aperture as an upgraded storage means and sort method from iPhoto (which is horrid). If they can further implement more tools and make it work even better in the future, I'm all for it....but for the time being, I'm still intrigued even as a storage/sorting solution. Although that is assuming my images in the program stay untouched and 'original'

Again, take a look at the referenced discussion with the software team. All the originals are untouched, and future versions of Aperture may well allow the integration of meta data back into an exported version of the Master file. Of course this goes against the idea of untouched originals, which is why Aperture has three files for each image.

 

[efoto]

Again, it's my first day, so allow for some confusion on my part! Anyway, there is a good thread I started a few weeks ago that referred to an interview with the Aperture development team. It does a good job of explaining what is saved where, and the potential to access metadata at a later stage.

https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=1961071#post1961071

Thanks for that, informative read.

In my temp workaround, if I needed to access a RAW photo I would just look at my file name inside Aperture, then from inside PS go to the original, pre-imported file (outside of the Aperture folder system). You can still access the untouched Masters inside the Aperture package, but for me there is no need to do this extra step.

You are negating that extra step by having duplicates of the files on the same (or external, whatever) harddrive correct? I was wondering if the original RAW files could be accessed inside Aperture somehow so that I wouldn't have to keep the original in a folder hierarchy outside and then also have a second 'original' imported inside....that would eat my HDDs pretty quick

I have all of the really important stuff backed up to DVD, but for the time being I don't have enough excess HDD space to keep a folder hierarchy of images AND import them into Aperture....it has to be one or the other.

 

[CalfCanuck]

You are negating that extra step by having duplicates of the files on the same (or external, whatever) harddrive correct? I was wondering if the original RAW files could be accessed inside Aperture somehow so that I wouldn't have to keep the original in a folder hierarchy outside and then also have a second 'original' imported inside....that would eat my HDDs pretty quick

I have all of the really important stuff backed up to DVD, but for the time being I don't have enough excess HDD space to keep a folder hierarchy of images AND import them into Aperture....it has to be one or the other.

Aperture imports all files into projects folders inside it's library package (/Users/User name/Pictures/Aperture Library). It creates a separate folder for each image, with the original image plus 4 other files.

In my case I like lots of backups, as our original "negatives" are the most valuable thing for photographers. This ability to archive negatives (hopefully in a safe deposit box) is one of the amazing things about digital photography. I just cry whenever I read a newspaper article about a photographer who lost all their negatives when their house/darkroom burnt down!

 

[CalfCanuck]

First days impressions

Well, at the end of my first day inside Aperture I have to say I like what I see - contrary to the spewing on the ars discussion board about the review!

To preface my remarks, I am a photographer that switched to digital backs in late 2000. But I must also state that I have been constantly frustrated by the work flow issues (my current image asset mamager is Cumulus, as I also store project audio and text inside it).

About every 3-4 months I just go nuts and wander around the web for a few hours looking for something better, but it ends up looking like jumping from one frustrating program to another one that's more of the same. Better the devil you know ...

Anyway, the announcement of Aperture got me to sit up in my chair and take notice. Cumulus allowed me to identify a number of thumbnails that had potential quite quickly, but to look at the detail I always ended up with 15-20 images open in PS as I tried to figure out which one to chose. And having to fuss with importing those 14 ones that would merely be discarded unsaved was not a pleasant task. So even after one day the Loupe is looking quite sweet.

A quick note on file importing - I imported 1000 jpeg's from my D30 and D60 bodies shot in 2002 in about 1.4 seconds per file (average size of about 2 MB). I then imported 78 RAW files from my 20D in about 2.2 seconds per file (average size about 9 MB). Each imported image was placed inside a unique folder, with 4 other supporting files located there as well.

 

[efoto]

Aperture imports all files into projects folders inside it's library package (/Users/User name/Pictures/Aperture Library). It creates a separate folder for each image, with the original image plus 4 other files.

In my case I like lots of backups, as our original "negatives" are the most valuable thing for photographers. This ability to archive negatives (hopefully in a safe deposit box) is one of the amazing things about digital photography. I just cry whenever I read a newspaper article about a photographer who lost all their negatives when their house/darkroom burnt down!

I understand your reasoning for having redundant digital negatives (originals), I was just asking if the only reason you were negating the deletion of the original folder is to have those redundant copies. For someone with only 80GB internal storage, space becomes a major issue pretty quick when shooting RAW. I backup my 'negatives' to DVD or other drives....but usually when I use a program to import them (used iPhoto for a bit, but then vomited and took them all back out ) I delete the original folder that held the images because I can't afford, space wise, to have two copies of the same RAW image locally.

Basically, you are using redundant storage on the same drive, or an external backup....but isn't that essentially the same as using the 'Vault' and backing it up to a FW drive or something?

 

[CalfCanuck]

I understand your reasoning for having redundant digital negatives (originals), I was just asking if the only reason you were negating the deletion of the original folder is to have those redundant copies. For someone with only 80GB internal storage, space becomes a major issue pretty quick when shooting RAW. I backup my 'negatives' to DVD or other drives....but usually when I use a program to import them (used iPhoto for a bit, but then vomited and took them all back out ) I delete the original folder that held the images because I can't afford, space wise, to have two copies of the same RAW image locally.

Basically, you are using redundant storage on the same drive, or an external backup....but isn't that essentially the same as using the 'Vault' and backing it up to a FW drive or something?

I actually have about 4 or 5 external HD's lying around - usually 3 hooked up at once.

While there are some similarities between Vault and other BU strategies (I use Retrospect), the big difference is that Vault backs up not only your pictures, but the data for your edits as well. So it's not just your files that it is saving.

I should also clarify what I said yesterday about the original images being stored unchanged in a aperture folder package. I talked about the structure to show you where the file reside, untouched, but it's probably not the wisest, nor the fastest, to use that method to access them.

The simplest way for ANYONE using Aperture to open those saved Master RAW files directly inside PS or C1 is merely to Export your Master file to your desktop. It took about a second to Export a 8 MB RAW file from my 20D.

So even if people have issues with the RAW conversion (I did a few quick conversions with my 20D RAW and didn't see any apparent issues), I think the workflow issues of using Aperture's tools to winnow 1500 images down to a final 30 will rock. Once the 30 images have been chosen, Exporting them should take under a minute - then one can use any method of converting RAW's that one chooses!

 

[CalfCanuck]

I'm working on a multi-page review both for here, and for our Aperture "Wiki."

Should be done by the end of the week.

iGary,

Hope the review is coming along well - I am REALLY enjoying Aperture. Never thought that Stacks would be such a big deal, but I love it!

I'm sending this email to ask if you have any questions - I'm off to one of the 4 introduction showcase seminars at 2 pm today in San Francisco. It's a supposed to be given by a member of the Aperture team (hopefully not just a marketing person), so if I can sneak in a question from you to add to my own, I'll try...

"This December, Apple will host a national tour to showcase Aperture, the first all-in-one post-production tool for photographers. Join us and find out how you can harness Aperture and Mac OS X Tiger to give you a complete workflow for today’s digital environment."

 

[~Shard~]

I'm sending this email to ask if you have any questions - I'm off to one of the 4 introduction showcase seminars at 2 pm today in San Francisco. It's a supposed to be given by a member of the Aperture team (hopefully not just a marketing person), so if I can sneak in a question from you to add to my own, I'll try...

Very nice of you to offer to do this, but perhaps a PM to iGary instead would be more appropriate and effective.

 

[CalfCanuck]

Well,

Just back from the first of the four showcases (the others are in LA, Chicago, and NYC over the next week) here in San Francisco today. There were probably about 200 people at the 2 hour talk (mainly working pros), and they seemed quite open to the idea.

It was given by Joseph Schorr, the Aperture Product Manager, so he should be in the know! 100 minutes running through it's paces, plus a 20 minute Q & A.

A lot of focus on showing off how it runs off the base RAW's throughout the process, which is the innovation. The ars review focused a lot on RAW as it come out of Aperture into a finished file via-a-vis Adobe RAW support and C1, but that really misses the point. Aperture looks instead at having total access to those RAW files, and increasing productivity, during the culling stage (for example, going from 1500 down to 30 final images). Once you know what you want, you can easily export them out (as I commented earlier) at about 1 second per image, then use whatever other RAW import filter one choses.

I did ask a question about scalability - we already know of the 10,000 image limit in a Project, and I know that Aperture also uses Folders and Albums as "containers" as well. He stated that folders could hold multiple projects with a 100,000 image limit, and that the development team down in Cupertino had experimented with Libraries up to 500,000 images. He did state that keeping smaller Projects did speed things up, so I take that to mean that opening up 200,000 images in one window should probably be avoided.

He also talked about using multiple Libraries (located on different HD's, for example). This is not totally seamless in v.1, but at the same time not too difficult either. By pointing Aperture to a different Library location in the Aperture preferences - here's the info on new Libraries from the manual:

"To change the location of the Library, copy the Library file to a different hard disk. The Library file is located in the Pictures folder, with the name Aperture Library. After copying the file to a new location, you specify the new location in the Preferences window. To specify a new location for the Library, choose Aperture > Preferences, then click the Set button below the Library Location field, navigate to the Library file at the new location, and click Select. Make sure to select the Library file itself, not a folder holding the Library file. If you select a folder, Aperture creates a new, empty Library file instead of locating your copied Library file. When you quit and reopen Aperture, the application accesses your Library from the new location."

Finally, Aperture can export and import Projects. It looks like this is the way you combine workflow between new images on your PB in the field (you create a new Project on the PB and import your new images into that)and your "monster" Library back on your main computer (where you would export the Project from your PB and then import it into your Aperture Library on your desktop).

Didn't mean to ramble, but just wanted to highlight how it appears Apple has designed the workflow ...

 

[efoto]

He also talked about using multiple Libraries (located on different HD's, for example). This is not totally seamless in v.1, but at the same time not too difficult either. By pointing Aperture to a different Library location in the Aperture preferences - here's the info on new Libraries from the manual:

"To change the location of the Library, copy the Library file to a different hard disk. The Library file is located in the Pictures folder, with the name Aperture Library. After copying the file to a new location, you specify the new location in the Preferences window. To specify a new location for the Library, choose Aperture > Preferences, then click the Set button below the Library Location field, navigate to the Library file at the new location, and click Select. Make sure to select the Library file itself, not a folder holding the Library file. If you select a folder, Aperture creates a new, empty Library file instead of locating your copied Library file. When you quit and reopen Aperture, the application accesses your Library from the new location."

So this is separate from the vaults, those being backups and these being separate libraries?

Just to get a better handle on this....if I set another library somewhere else (either another disk or another location) and turn Aperture to look there, that new library is blank and unused? So I could have two libraries and as long as I switch Aperture between them, no one is worse for wear?

This sounds like what iPhoto Buddy did for iPhoto, allowing multiple libraries instead of just having albums within the same library. I personally like this idea (assuming it's the same setup as iPBuddy) because some things just don't go together and it's much easier to separate them completely than just by an album. With iPB I had libraries for Autos, France, Women , etc, and then within each library I had them sorted by albums for capture date/event. I much prefer that sort of spacing/architecture....is that what this allows?

 

[iGary]

I'm sorry I have not been able to contribute much, guys. I have a couple of story deadlines I'm under and a lot of work on my desk. I promise I'll be in soon to contribute to the discussion.

 

[CalfCanuck]

So this is separate from the vaults, those being backups and these being separate libraries?

Just to get a better handle on this....if I set another library somewhere else (either another disk or another location) and turn Aperture to look there, that new library is blank and unused? So I could have two libraries and as long as I switch Aperture between them, no one is worse for wear?

This sounds like what iPhoto Buddy did for iPhoto, allowing multiple libraries instead of just having albums within the same library. I personally like this idea (assuming it's the same setup as iPBuddy) because some things just don't go together and it's much easier to separate them completely than just by an album. With iPB I had libraries for Autos, France, Women , etc, and then within each library I had them sorted by albums for capture date/event. I much prefer that sort of spacing/architecture....is that what this allows?

Backing up a bit, the reference to multiple libraries was directed more at people who were concerned about Aperture's Library being limited to the physical size of a hard drive. So if they had a 250 GB HD, and using the example of 12MB per RAW image, 1000 images take up 12GB. Hence this single HD "solution" used by Aperture would max out at about 20,000 images. A work around for letting Aperture 1.0 access multiple Libraries (on different HD's because one HD is too small) would use the method I described earlier.

So my comments were directed at understanding where and why one would use different libraries if you are shooting massive amounts of images per year. In my real world case, I might shoot 30 or 40 GB on a extended multi-week shoot, but then I'd come back and spend a LOT of time processing those images - hence I'm not shooting 500 GB a year. Allowing for my Canon 20Ds RAW size of about 9 MB per image combined with trashing about 20% of my "unsuccessful" images, I could probably put almost 35,000 original RAW 20D images into a Library on a 250 GB drive before maxing it out.

Now back to your questions - assuming you have the drive space (which you would need regardless of using Aperture or not), there are many a few different methods to organize images INSIDE a single Library, and those are what you would use. It's always better to have the images available for access WITHIN a single Library - you'd use numerous "Projects" to import images into, as well as "Albums" and "Folders" inside a Library. If your Library maxed out the space on a HD, one's first choice would always be to relocate the Library to a different, larger HD with more free space to allow the library room to grow.

Edit - forgot to answer your Vault question: think of an Aperture vault like a Bank Vault - it's used to store stuff in a safe place. Hence the Vault are the back-ups, in case of HD failure, data corruption, or natural disasters (computer destroyed in a fire, etc)

 

[~Shard~]

I'm sorry I have not been able to contribute much, guys. I have a couple of story deadlines I'm under and a lot of work on my desk. I promise I'll be in soon to contribute to the discussion.

No worries iGary, it gets done when it gets done. There are many people here who are appreciative of you doing this in the first place, so there's definitely no rush.

 

[efoto]

Thanks for the explanation CalfCanuck, I think I'm slowly catching on a little bit. It would be a lot easier to grasp if I actually had a copy of my own to use and explore. I have had such limited time on it that it's hard to really get a feel for all that is being discussed. I just know that libraries in iPhoto became very cluttered, but there were only albums so perhaps the 'Projects' in Aperture can act like what I used multiple iPhoto libraries for.

 

[amberashby]

Selling my copy of Aperture

Hi everyone,

Aperture isn't running quite as fast as I'd hoped it would. I'm sure it is because of my 64MB video card. I don't have $300+ right now to upgrade it so I decided to go ahead and sell it now with the intention of saving up for a new video card.

I just received it Wednesday and it is the Acedimic version (exactly the same as the regular version except for the Acedemic sticker and Academic on the splash screen at launch.) I did not register it and have uninstalled it.

Email me if anyone is interested. Willing to sell it for $225 plus $5 shipping USPS priority. Will be posting it on Ebay tomorrow if I don't get a response.

Thanks.

LSUTIGER@MAC.COM

 

[bm7at81]

I've heard reports of people successfully running it on 12"PB's with a fixed 'checker' that allows the program to launch under a Go5200 card....and it runs 'fine' considering the 12"PB isn't the fastest computer to being with.

I can confirm that Aperture runs great on my 12" G4 1.5ghz PB with 768MB RAM. It takes a while to import the photos and is sluggish for about 30 secs when browsing to a new album, but once loaded up, the images load almost instantly (lightyears ahead of iphoto!) and the processing/editing is much quicker than with CS2.

Have to admit, im not really a photography buff and I havent had it long enough to really give it a good spin, but am impressed so far. Im looking forward to see how it handles after I upgrade to 1.25Gb Ram.

One thing i will mention, the previews in the primary display would always come up blank (just the black background) no matter what type of file i was viewing - I managed to fix this by changing my Display in System Pref from a manually calibrated LCD profile to the RGB Stored Preset Profile - Previews are now looking great - just wish i had more screen real-estate!

Cheers

 

[Jo-Kun]

I can confirm that Aperture runs great on my 12" G4 1.5ghz PB with 768MB RAM. It takes a while to import the photos and is sluggish for about 30 secs when browsing to a new album, but once loaded up, the images load almost instantly (lightyears ahead of iphoto!) and the processing/editing is much quicker than with CS2.
...

so you can install it on a 'non supported' system? I mean the only thing I don't have is a supported graphics card... all the rest of my G5 is up to speed... and maybe I will add a new card later, but first I would like to use aperture anyway...

did anything come up while installing etc that said you couldn't install it and what did you do to get it installed?

I've talked to the people in my Pro Photo shop (both part time photographers & salesmen... so they know about what they are talking) and I asked them to compare it with Capture One... they told me what's the big advantage except the live adjustments... the speed because its the fastest raw processor there is & you can copy adjustments to whle series after correcting the first... wich is great when you shoot a lot of images with the same studiosetup need to correct only one (for instance shoot the first image with the kodak color/grey strips) and than adjust all... saves a lot of time while otherwise rocessing image per image... ok finetuning will be done in photoshop but the biggest timehog is rawprocessing...

they tld me to go with aperture now instead of Capture One, they both do the same, cost the same, but aperture is much faster & as mentioned by Jim Frost... lightbox with loupe gives aperture even some more advantage...

so probably next jan. I'm getting Aperture... and hope I can get it up and running without buying a new graphics card yet...

J

 

[efoto]

I'm sorry I have not been able to contribute much, guys. I have a couple of story deadlines I'm under and a lot of work on my desk. I promise I'll be in soon to contribute to the discussion.

Just a friendly MR-hood reminder/poke to see if had any new thoughts on Aperture iGary (and others). If you're busy you're busy, but if you have some free time I'd sure love to hear your experiences with it over the last week or so.

 

[Glenn Wolsey]

Aperture is running extremely well on my 2Ghz iMac G5, with 1GB of RAM.

I'm very happy.