part of the reason i purchased aperture was not just for its workflow and RAW capabilities, but as a piece of software to completely replace iphoto and, to an extent, photoshop. i'm finding this is not going to happen.
1. aperture cannot do very basic web pages well at all - even after repeated trips to the manual i cannot find any way to make my portrait photos properly align center in webpages - they remain left justified, throwing off the aesthetic of the page. further, the software has no simple, but nice, effects such as drop shadows or reflections.
2. aperture cannot do slideshows with ken burns. period.
3. the interface sucks. maybe i haven't used the program enough to get used to it, but thus far it seems to run counter to Apple's gui format. i still don't understand the difference between the options in the "main" or "secondary viewer," even after tutorial, for example.
4. subjective here, but photoshop's RAW plugin seems much more adept at properly getting the proper white balance, exposure, etc, without much tinkering from my end. in aperture, i'm finding i need to slide the bars myself a lot more.
there's a lot more in details too, but i'm not going to get into that here. the thing is, for the cash this program costs, i would expect, at the least, these very basic features would be in the program. the whole reason i got aperture was to eliminate the need for manual file management and external editors - now i'm finding i need to re-import into iphoto just to produce a decent slideshow. badly done, apple. badly done.
1. aperture cannot do very basic web pages well at all - even after repeated trips to the manual i cannot find any way to make my portrait photos properly align center in webpages - they remain left justified, throwing off the aesthetic of the page. further, the software has no simple, but nice, effects such as drop shadows or reflections.
2. aperture cannot do slideshows with ken burns. period.
3. the interface sucks. maybe i haven't used the program enough to get used to it, but thus far it seems to run counter to Apple's gui format. i still don't understand the difference between the options in the "main" or "secondary viewer," even after tutorial, for example.
4. subjective here, but photoshop's RAW plugin seems much more adept at properly getting the proper white balance, exposure, etc, without much tinkering from my end. in aperture, i'm finding i need to slide the bars myself a lot more.
there's a lot more in details too, but i'm not going to get into that here. the thing is, for the cash this program costs, i would expect, at the least, these very basic features would be in the program. the whole reason i got aperture was to eliminate the need for manual file management and external editors - now i'm finding i need to re-import into iphoto just to produce a decent slideshow. badly done, apple. badly done.
