'Aperture X' Scheduled for Launch Before End of Year?

[wheelhot]

That 27" iMac is calling my name...

Go for it dude!!! (and for the Quad-Core version - damn I feel tempted with the Quad Core version)

And as for me, I tried LR3, can't handle it. Feels the UI is horrible. Prefer Aperture UI that seem to be integrated together seamlessly.

Now about the market share, well take note that LR is available on both platform so it is likely Adobe will put in the Windows users (which will be A LOT) in it too.

Now, I hope the faces thing makes it into Aperture, I know some doesn't like it, but I think its kinda useful for some purposes. And an easier way to upload to flickr or facebook will be appreciated. But the most important thing Im hoping for is real speed boost, low resource hog, makes use of Open CL and GCD and non-destructive plugins (they could implement it like PS layers, that would be sweet, easy to disable and enable the plugin effect and even stack em up or delete the previous ones), also improvements in the adjustment panels

Go Aperture X!!! (alright the name is weird, for now...go Aperture 3!!!!)

edit: and 64 bit will be awesome!

 

[Michael73]

However much I want Aperture, the fact remains that I do most of the heavy lifting for my business with Adobe's CS4 Web Premium Suite. While I like the tight integration between iPhoto and Aperture, business dictates the tight integration between Aperture and Photoshop rule the day.

To be fair, I only used the Aperture 2, 30-day trial when it first came out and didn't find it to be that much better than the tools I already had so I never bought the full version.

 

[Mark Booth]

I have tried Aperture and I also own Capture One and I jumped on the bandwagon with Lightroom 3 BETA. Overall, LR3 is very impressive, due mainly to it’s improved navigation, reduction of layered menus and direct uploading to social websites like’ Flickr with more to come. However, if Aperture X actually does something better with integration with .Me and similar external links, it may very well raise the bar. Thus far, Aperture pails in comparison to Lightroom in terms of features, ease of use and organization. BTW: Capture One has the best hands-down razor sharp imaging, and zoom feature of any other.
Regards,
Dan

Aperture can do direct uploads to social websites with plug-ins. Here's the one for Flickr:

http://www.flickr.com/tools/aperture

I use the plug-in for SmugMug. LOVE IT!! Right from Aperture to my site without leaving the app! I can even create new galleries within the plug-in! Works great!

Mark

 

[cinder]

I've been using Aperture since v1.1 . . .
I tried Lightroom at one point but it felt like a cheap unstable app at the time - granted, I think it was the first version.

Apple really needs to hit it out of the park this time with RAW processing, more archive/mobility options, improved organization, facial recognition (!), and speed, speed, speed, speed.

I probably should have already tried LR3 since I'm such a Photoshop junkie most of the time . . .

 

[Winni]

Other companies have early product announcements, road maps and public betas. Apple only has rumors, making their products the worst possible choice for professionals and business customers.

That being said, Aperture is an outstanding product.

 

[Island Dog]

I haven't had time to go through the Lightroom beta, but I found the interface to be too busy in earlier versions.

Aperture seems to fit much nicer as far as workflow goes, but that is just my opinion.

 

[jaw04005]

The biggest problem with Aperture is that it relies too heavily on the GPU (or at least it did). I purchased Aperture 1.5 and rarely used it because it was a dog on Apple’s top-of-the-line intel iMac at the time. Yet, Lightroom worked fine on the same hardware.

At the time, you would have had to purchase a $3000 Mac Pro (likely with a BTO graphics card) to get decent performance out of Aperture.

I switched to Lightroom (which I had been beta testing simultaneously) and never looked back.

I haven’t used Aperture 2, but Aperture 1.5’s feature set and UI seemed to be marketed exclusively toward professional photographers. Whereas, Lightroom was marketed toward professionals and amateurs.

 

[Mark Booth]

I'm in the middle of a Mac Pro "makeover", partly in anticipation of a new version of Aperture. I've installed four brand new 1TB drives in my Mac Pro and striped bays 1 & 2 into a 2TB RAID array for my boot drive. Bays 3 & 4 are a 2TB RAID array for my photos. I put my photos on my Photo drive and, when importing into Aperture, I choose to leave them in their current location. Now that I've dramatically increased the speed of both my Boot drive (where the Aperture Library file is located) and my Photo drive, I can most definitely feel the difference in Aperture. Much snappier!

Today, the UPS man is delivering my new Radeon 4870. I ordered a PC version and will be flashing it for the Mac Pro. That will add some some snap to graphics but, more importantly, it will add an OpenCL compatible card to my Mac Pro! There can be little doubt that Aperture X will make use of OpenCL.

With over 20,000 photos in Aperture that I access on a daily basis, it is my single most important and, frankly, single most favorite application on my Mac Pro. I do all of my photo workflow in Aperture. I have to shoot something out to Photoshop so infrequently, the Photoshop app icon has cobwebs on it!

Mark

 

[abbstrack]

just as i'm at the point of no return with aperture and set to make the switch to lightroom (for a number of reasons, but mostly because it combined with snow leopard have made my computer behave as though i'm on a PowerPC processor, despite having a powerful enough system where that should not be an issue), this is welcome news. i've downloaded the lightroom 3 beta, and I really am not sure i'm ready to fully learn a new workflow suite after 2-3 years on aperture..and i do most of my heavy lifting in photoshop, so i'm really in need of the workflow management more than anything...

i'll keep my eyes peeled, but like so many others have stated, i wish there was less secrecy about what this new release would entail. I know the Aperture group has a few photogs whom they consult with, but there is a much larger community out here, and we'd all like to know/participate in the discussion about what we want from our 'Professional' software.

 

[Mark Booth]

I haven’t used Aperture 2, but Aperture 1.5’s feature set and UI seemed to be marketed exclusively toward professional photographers. Whereas, Lightroom was marketed toward professionals and amateurs.

The Aperture 1.5 -> 2.0 transition was a BIG one! In fact, I didn't really use Aperture all that much before 2.0. I was used to my routine with Photoshop and didn't find myself getting comfortable with Aperture 1.5. Then I attended Apple's Aperture 2.0 seminar (free!) and I was blown away! I switched to Aperture the next week and haven't looked back!

Mark

 

[-=XX=-Nephilim]

Even though I often find myself cringing when using Adobe software (and I do it on daily bases!) frankly speaking Lightroom is one of the best tools ever created and designed...

Its simply awesome in every possible respect and pretty much >>> Aperture to the ground...

If Adobe could only follow Lightroom design and stability with rest of their software this world would be much better place to live in

Looking forward to Lightroom 3!

 

[NewSc2]

Seeing as how this has turned into an Aperture vs. Lightroom thread...

I never could get used to Aperture's file handling and processing. Too much in common with iPhoto, and even after I'd cleaned through most of the options, it felt like Apple took over too much on that side.

So I went with Lightroom and never looked back. The workflow was easy—it felt like an extended, easier-to-use version of Photoshop.

 

[Truffy]

I tried the Lightroom beta when it was first released, and I hated the UI and workflow. Used Aperture since and I like it, although v2 is slow on my PPC. The web galleries need improving, and face recognition would be a gain.

Overall though, my main reason for sticking with Aperture is that it's not Adobe. If I never have to give those SOBs anything more I'll be quite happy.

 

[jettredmont]

Even though I often find myself cringing when using Adobe software (and I do it on daily bases!) frankly speaking Lightroom is one of the best tools ever created and designed...

Its simply awesome in every possible respect and pretty much >>> Aperture to the ground...

If Adobe could only follow Lightroom design and stability with rest of their software this world would be much better place to live in

Looking forward to Lightroom 3!

The problem is: all of Adobe's software was once this innovative. Then the competition died off and what we're left with is what you see in the CSn suites. Adobe is just about the absolute worst company out there for making "just good enough" software after they've captured the market.

That's why I'm really happy to see Aperture rumors swirling again. It'll have to wait until I have an Intel mac to run it on (my "main" mac is a G5, which needs to be replaced as soon as possible because the main board is failing), but I'm okay with that. Definitely will be giving a revamped version of Aperture a solid trial, assuming it comes out for real before next Summer.

 

[jettredmont]

Seeing as how this has turned into an Aperture vs. Lightroom thread...

I never could get used to Aperture's file handling and processing. Too much in common with iPhoto, and even after I'd cleaned through most of the options, it felt like Apple took over too much on that side.

So I went with Lightroom and never looked back. The workflow was easy—it felt like an extended, easier-to-use version of Photoshop.

Personally, the fact that Aperture let me only worry about organizing my photos, not the files underneath (while providing a logical structure so I could find any files beneath if an emergency required it) was what kept me on Aperture when Lightroom came out. Lightroom's "you manage the files in Finder and the photos in LightRoom" approach was just more unnecessary work to me.

It's a bit of a dated comment, though. Aperture allows the user to keep files out of it's managed library, and I believe LR now allows users to keep files in a managed library of its own. So, it's not really a difference anymore.

Personally, I think a main driver behind Lightroom adoption has been Photoshop. I'm not a big PS user, though, so I tend to find the LR interface as clunky and unintuitive (at least in the 1.x line, which was the last time I gave it a solid trial; I'll be trying again with the 3.x line, especially if Aperture doesn't deliver a solid update), much the same as the byzantine Photoshop interface.

 

[finalcut]

If that is true, then Apple needs to allow us downloading a beta version just like Adobe does with Lightroom 3. This way, we can fill for bugs and recommandations

 

[Otaviano]

Looking forward to this one ... man oh man am I looking forward to this. I just want it to be re-written to take advantage of Snow Leopard and to give me some improved performance and I will be a seriously happy camper.

 

[John.B]

Aperture X needs to be "Lr + parts of Ps"

I've said it before but it bears repeating here...

Aperture could pick up some features to get parity with Lr. Most notably, a lot of Canon shooters would like to see Aperture get sraw support. I think the GPU-specific nature of Aperture is better now that Apple has gotten away from the gawdawful Intel GMA950 integrated graphics. (Intel graphics for the Mac have truly sucked!)

But what's really missing from both products is the ability to do basic Photoshop-type functionality in a non-destructive workflow. I'm not saying that Apple should try to create a full-blown Photoshop competitor; just that Adobe has tried to protect its Photoshop/Elements franchises by artificially limiting what types of editing can be done inside Lightroom vs. what you have to round trip into Ps for.

Apple could create a real game changer by implementing just the basic photographic image editing functionality (masking, layers, etc.) in a non-destructive workflow similar to what Aperture already does for color correction, etc. Photographers only use a tiny fraction of the power of Ps (that's even more true of CS), and that market would be ripe for the picking (pun intended) for Apple.

Steve, are you listening?

 

[SpinThis!]

All I know is that Apple better not pull the crap they did with the Final Cut and Logic updates which were barely updates at all.

Final Cut offers some minor things but to working pros, any feature that will speed up their workflow is a welcome addition. And this is probably one of the better Logic updates in awhile—FlexTime alone is worth the price of the upgrade. Do you even use these apps or are you just armchair calling from the sidelines?

64-bit and GC is not a magic bullet for performance. Logic is already pretty well threaded and 64-bit may or may not help a few dsp plugins. 64-bit addressing for memory isn't really an issue either.... the only time you may hit a wall is with the EXS but since each EXS can pull up more than once instance of itself, it's not really an issue.

People slate Adobe for not having 64 bit Photoshop but Apple is sitting on more 32-bit Carbon code than anyone else. Apple's pro apps will get updated in time but projects of this magnitude take time and are likely to overhaul a lot of the application forcing pros to relearn a few things along the way too. So it's a double-edged sword.

 

[shaunymac]

The biggest thing I hate about lightroom is the file management and catalogues. For that reason alone I ditched lightroom and used bridge and photoshop. This combo bogged me down until I gave aperture a try again. I am so glad I did.

If this update brings speed, bring it on. I love aperture. If you are in doubt about what it really can do, go to apple.com and watch some videos. This is great great news.

APERTURE X!!!

 

[Kaptajn Haddock]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_2 like Mac OS X; da-dk) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7D11 Safari/528.16)

A much needed update. Aperture 2 is great, but could use some new features and more speed.

 

[Zach Schible]

Personally, the fact that Aperture let me only worry about organizing my photos, not the files underneath (while providing a logical structure so I could find any files beneath if an emergency required it) was what kept me on Aperture when Lightroom came out. Lightroom's "you manage the files in Finder and the photos in LightRoom" approach was just more unnecessary work to me.

It's a bit of a dated comment, though. Aperture allows the user to keep files out of it's managed library, and I believe LR now allows users to keep files in a managed library of its own. So, it's not really a difference anymore.

Personally, I think a main driver behind Lightroom adoption has been Photoshop. I'm not a big PS user, though, so I tend to find the LR interface as clunky and unintuitive (at least in the 1.x line, which was the last time I gave it a solid trial; I'll be trying again with the 3.x line, especially if Aperture doesn't deliver a solid update), much the same as the byzantine Photoshop interface.

I would agree that Adobe has been taking a back step on some of their products. I would love to see the competition between Apple & Adobe heat up, almost to the level of Microsoft vs. Apple. If this happens I think we could see some incredible innovation on both sides. If anything get Adobe more serious about app development.

 

[Truffy]

Apple could create a real game changer by implementing just the basic photographic image editing functionality (masking, layers, etc.) in a non-destructive workflow similar to what Aperture already does for color correction, etc.

Agreed. I'd also like to see basic text overlay (I use photos as the basis for cards/flyers) and composition (pic-in-pic compos).

Photographers only use a tiny fraction of the power of Ps (that's even more true of CS)

Especially since Adobe started throwing everything in, including the kitchen sink. PS has become a sad, bloated beast. I'm back on CS2, but I don't even like firing that up. If I didn't have to, I'd be quite happy!

 

[NewSc2]

Personally, the fact that Aperture let me only worry about organizing my photos, not the files underneath (while providing a logical structure so I could find any files beneath if an emergency required it) was what kept me on Aperture when Lightroom came out. Lightroom's "you manage the files in Finder and the photos in LightRoom" approach was just more unnecessary work to me.

It's a bit of a dated comment, though. Aperture allows the user to keep files out of it's managed library, and I believe LR now allows users to keep files in a managed library of its own. So, it's not really a difference anymore.

Personally, I think a main driver behind Lightroom adoption has been Photoshop. I'm not a big PS user, though, so I tend to find the LR interface as clunky and unintuitive (at least in the 1.x line, which was the last time I gave it a solid trial; I'll be trying again with the 3.x line, especially if Aperture doesn't deliver a solid update), much the same as the byzantine Photoshop interface.

Actually, Lightroom can manage files into its own library too.

I prefer letting Lightroom act as a Finder "front" (so what I see in Finder is exactly what I see in Lightroom, and Lightroom can rename/delete files directly), but you can also set up Lightroom to backup photos into a Lightroom library, or move files into a Lightroom library, or leave them where they are, etc.

 

[lasuther]

I need to buy either LR or aperture. The deal breaker for me is LR updates often for new cameras and aperture doesn't. I have a olympus e620 and aperture doesn't support it. I'm looking at a GF1 and aperture doesn't support that. I just don't believe apple will have the updates that LR gets.