Aperture Plug-in Interest High?

[Passante]

Wish I could run Aperture

Went to the Photo expo in New York city last week. Apple had a huge presence smack in the center of the expo area. For that matter Apple products were everywhere. Booths were using 24 inch iMacs to display their products and software. Very few PCs on the show floor.

Apple had a great demonstration showing the 1.5 release of Aperture. The new release finally supports RAW from my Fuji S2. Had been thinking about getting Photoshop but thought I would give Aperture a try. Checked the system specs and didn't see my G4 tower listed. Hmmm, that must be a mistake. My MDD G4 was the last one produced. It has to run Aperture. Good, my graphics card was listed (Radeon 9800). Well lets run the compatibility checker....

AHHHHHH, I can't run Aperture AHHHHHHHH


Any workarounds?

 

[Digitalclips]

Web ...

Hey, while there are some good Aperture users reading this thread I would like to take the opportunity to ask you guys and gals a question ... does anyone else find the web creation side still has major browser display issues?

I have been using Aperture since the day it first shipped. I use it every day and can't imagine living without it anymore. I have one major gripe. With each update I rush to create a web display, the method I like to use to show clients photos quickly, to see if it now works. It never does!

Since day one the web pages throw text and images all over the place especially on a PC. Any resemblance to WYSIWYG is gone compared to the look in the design mode.

Viewed on a Mac with a restricted page width is is useable but widen the page and you start to see elements fly all over the place and on a PC it is like that on any page size. It is especially noticeable if there is a lot of text to the left of an enlarged image but even headings are misplaced.

I am baffled why Apple have yet to address this issue also I am baffled that I have read of no one else mentioning this. Is it just me? If so i would be very happy if someone tells me the cure. If it is not just me then please Apple fix this.

 

[DamonNoisette]

There are workarounds...

Apple had a great demonstration showing the 1.5 release of Aperture. The new release finally supports RAW from my Fuji S2. Had been thinking about getting Photoshop but thought I would give Aperture a try. Checked the system specs and didn't see my G4 tower listed. Hmmm, that must be a mistake. My MDD G4 was the last one produced. It has to run Aperture. Good, my graphics card was listed (Radeon 9800). Well lets run the compatibility checker....

AHHHHHH, I can't run Aperture AHHHHHHHH


Any workarounds?

Check the dpreview.com Mac forums for Aperture workarounds. I've seen them all over the place.

Something to note, we're running a Dual 2.5 G5 with a Radeon 9600XT and Aperture is still really slow. In fact my wife switched back to using the Adobe Bridge (and Adobe Camera Raw) and has effectively abandoned Aperture. It's sad to me because we were early adopters, as in we bought it the day it came out for $499 + 7% tax, and really tried to use it.

I'd imagine if we had a Mac Pro we'd be in good shape to run Aperture, but I don't think it's smart to buy a new machine for basically one program when other alternatives -- some arguably more efficient -- exist.

Your mileage may vary, of course.

Damon Noisette, assistant to
Pro Photographer Agnes Lopez (http://www.agneslopez.com/)

 

[ChrisA]

.... Had been thinking about getting Photoshop but thought I would give Aperture a try.

The two programs searve diffent complementary purposes. Seem odd that you would have to choose between them. If you shoot hundreds of RAW images then Aperture is designed to streamlline that but you need some high end hardware. PS is for making extensive edits to one image.

In your case with an older G4. I'd just get Elements and iPhoto. CS3 will be available in spring 07 and it wil be universal. Spring would be a good time to buy a Mac Pro.

 

[Passante]

The two programs searve diffent complementary purposes. Seem odd that you would have to choose between them. If you shoot hundreds of RAW images then Aperture is designed to streamlline that but you need some high end hardware. PS is for making extensive edits to one image.

In your case with an older G4. I'd just get Elements and iPhoto. CS3 will be available in spring 07 and it wil be universal. Spring would be a good time to buy a Mac Pro.

It may of been the Steve Jobs reality distortion field at work but the Aperture demo of version 1.5 sure made it look as if I could do a lot more editing than I thought possible. Plus Apple's edu price for Aperture is a third of Photoshop CS. I'd use Elements if curves were available.

 

[DamonNoisette]

The two programs serve different complementary purposes. Seem odd that you would have to choose between them. If you shoot hundreds of RAW images then Aperture is designed to streamline that but you need some high end hardware. PS is for making extensive edits to one image.

In your case with an older G4. I'd just get Elements and iPhoto. CS3 will be available in spring 07 and it will be universal. Spring would be a good time to buy a Mac Pro.

Chris is right. To have a full photo editing station you need Photoshop and not just Aperture. In fact, Photoshop with Adobe Bridge may be all you need until the hardware catches up with Aperture.

Spring may be the perfect time for a new Mac Pro with the Clovertown processor. 8 cores running an optimized Aperture and PS3 might be the sweetest machine yet!

 

[iMeowbot]

I'd use Elements if curves were available.

Elements 5 added this. Adobe haven't said when a Mac version will be out, though.

 

[ChrisA]

It may of been the Steve Jobs reality distortion field at work but the Aperture demo of version 1.5 sure made it look as if I could do a lot more editing than I thought possible. Plus Apple's edu price for Aperture is a third of Photoshop CS. I'd use Elements if curves were available.

There is a fundimental difference between making an adjustment to the entire frame (like removing a blue color cast, "sharpening",...) and editing seleted portions of the frame (like blurring a backgrounds or sharpening only the area around the eyes or painting out a utility wire or distant roadway) PS is designed to do the latter and Aperture is designed to do the former to large numbers of images There is some overlap of function because PS can perform the "an adjustment" to a single frame.


If you have a job to do you would KNOW what it is and would know if you need to process hundreds of RAW files or if the job was to work exstensivly one one or a few images. The choise is pretty clear. But then people might need to do both jobs at diffent times and need both tools.

 

[manu chao]

There is a fundimental difference between making an adjustment to the entire frame (like removing a blue color cast, "sharpening",...) and editing seleted portions of the frame (like blurring a backgrounds or sharpening only the area around the eyes or painting out a utility wire or distant roadway) PS is designed to do the latter and Aperture is designed to do the former to large numbers of images There is some overlap of function because PS can perform the "an adjustment" to a single frame.

Apparently cannot explain this difference often enough.

As a photographer, I more or less consider the idea of non-global adjustments as manipulation. I have never done that to any of my images. It changes the documentary character of photographs. There are exceptions like dust removal which only serve to correct technical blemishes and to come back closer to the original content.

 

[cube]

There needs to be support for input and processing plugins.

I would prefer not to get Aperture and just use the Photoshop Elements organizer, but it seems an Aperture plugin would be the only way of getting from DxO to iLife/iWork automatically.

 

[ChrisA]

I downloaded the plug-in SDK from Apple

Ok so I downloaded the plug-in SDK from Apple and read the Docs. Here is what I think....

It is not hard to write an export plug-in Anyone who does software for a living could get one working quickly. ("Polish" and good design is another issue.)
Basically there is some XML that defines the user interface and some bits of Objective C code that get called when various events happen. There is example code for most of what you'd want

Apple seems to have a method of making plug ins that is not unique to Aperture. The method is available to anyone and I'd expect to see it used by most 3rd parties (Like Adobe inside CS3) It's a very clean design that allows for the app to "discover" a plug in and to let the plug in modify the App's GUI. Error handling seems to be well thought out too. They seem to have put effort into this so we should see it used with most apps

It's pretty cook bookish to make a simple plug in but the plug in author is allowed to add ANY user interface elements he wants on top of the samples Apple suggests. You could do something pointless like embed a Tetris game (win and get a free unload?) you could also "process" the image as it is being uploaded (Say to re-size it for printing. So a simple plug in could become as complex or simple as you want. But I don't see a way to give the image back to Aperture. Export is one-way.

Apple uses the term "Plugin/export" as if there could someday be other types of plug ins. I think they are leaving this open. Maybe the next big thing would be an Import plug in.

For those wanting a "processing plugin" could you not already do that yourself with an Automator workflow. Export the image to the desktop. Apply "brand X UltraFix" and then import the image back. There are examples of Aperture Automator workflows on the Apple web site.

 

[Westside guy]

For those wanting a "processing plugin" could you not already do that yourself with an Automator workflow. Export the image to the desktop. Apply "brand X UltraFix" and then import the image back. There are examples of Aperture Automator workflows on the Apple web site.

That would be suboptimal since it would break the non-destructive workflow model.