JGowan said:
this is a great point. i still don't think aperture is going away. and while i like it and think it has amazing potential, i see the flaws and certainly hope for a much improved 2.0 version.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Aperture's Iris Closing?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
this is a great point. i still don't think aperture is going away. and while i like it and think it has amazing potential, i see the flaws and certainly hope for a much improved 2.0 version.
I use Aperture as my main and almost exclusive photo processing app. Every couple of weeks I try to improve a photo additionally in Photoshop, where it takes much longer to do the same things, and I do not have the time nor the motivation to do this but for exceptional cases.SalsaShark said:
Sure a bigger screen helps enormously. Is Aperture to slow for you (when handling thousands of pictures) or are its organisational features not able to handle thousands of pictures well enough.
Maybe the 200 pictures per event I usually produce do not stress Aperture enough for me to appreciate its shortcomings.
I've got a 1.83 MacBook in the back of a UPS truck rolling slowly toward my house right now. I didn't buy Aperture yet, but I was about to.
I used to be a pro sports photographer in the days before digital. I'm shooting part time pro again and I'm trying to figure out which way to go, Lightroom or Aperture. I'm a little bit hesitant to start working fully with Lightroom because it's a beta and Adobe hasn't said what the final program will cost. Anyone know what the price will be? Just because it's free right now doesn't mean it won't be $1000 when the beta expires.
Aperture creating it's own library file can get big quick when you have thousands of shots and an 80gig laptop that has other stuff on it. Anyone have a good solution for that?
I used to be a pro sports photographer in the days before digital. I'm shooting part time pro again and I'm trying to figure out which way to go, Lightroom or Aperture. I'm a little bit hesitant to start working fully with Lightroom because it's a beta and Adobe hasn't said what the final program will cost. Anyone know what the price will be? Just because it's free right now doesn't mean it won't be $1000 when the beta expires.
Aperture creating it's own library file can get big quick when you have thousands of shots and an 80gig laptop that has other stuff on it. Anyone have a good solution for that?
manu chao said:
It's not the screen size so much (though I think Lightroom makes better use of its space as well), but rather the speed of importing and working with photos. I use a MBP (2.0) in the field and dual 1.0 G4 desktop. It's really painful on the latter. One thing I really like about Lightroom is while it does its full import and preview creation in the background, you can start working with an import almost immediately. I can at least do basic categorizing or look for a specific shot I need right away while the rest of the information is building. It felt like all I did with Aperture was sit and wait.
bretm said:
I'm talking "PRO" programs... the ones you mention, of course, are awesome, MacDraw and MacWrite were great compared to the Windows counterparts at the time...
Yeah, Apple has Final Cut Pro, but aren't there some really high end pro stuff that the studios use instead?
SalsaShark said:
Importing (and exporting) takes time, that is true. I guess, I am just patient and do something else in the meantime.
(I assume your dual 1.0 G4 desktop is quite slow because the graphic card does not support Aperture, which is the equivalent of saying that Aperture is only useful for those who are able to afford to update their computers quite often.)
Actually, I can see this is a benefit. I like Shakes process flow. I like noodles and nodes, and while I don't expect the interface to be like Shake, Ill bet that it's process path will be similar. If the Aperture teem wasn't working, give it to the teams that have already proven themselves.Perhaps a diffrent perspective will improve the product.
Man, that's the news I've been waiting to hear.manu chao said:
I have a 1.5GHz PB w/ 1.5GB RAM. Now I can buy Aperture and be a little less nervous about its performance.
So if all this is true, then why are they hiring programmers for the Aperture team?
http://blakeseely.com/blog/archives/2006/04/27/change/
Think Secret's credibility just keeps sinking lower for me, even when I think that's not possible.
http://blakeseely.com/blog/archives/2006/04/27/change/
Think Secret's credibility just keeps sinking lower for me, even when I think that's not possible.
picaman said:
Good post, but doesn't necessarily completely counter TS's claim. TS claimed that the OLD aperature team was getting the boot, but did mention that at least the Shake and Motion team were being brought in to do patchwork on some stuff. They don't discount the possibility that a new development team is taking shape...
SalsaShark said:
I don't think I'm "defending Aperture". I'm just pointing out that there are other solutions to self-organizing files "owned" by a particular application. The same applies to iPhoto, iTunes, etc.
I'm not sure what you mean by symbolic linking not being practical because the image files are buried 4 or 5 folders deep and with a different name than the original file. From a pure Unix perspective, thats exactly what symbolic links are useful for!
I guess so.
If that's your foregone conclusion, then why are you even here?
<sigh>
Anyway, point stands: if you want to organize your files outside of Aperture (which, btw, I still don't understand the 'why' of aside from control issues; can't you do the same organization inside Aperture?), there are ways to do it. Without creating a second copy of the file in its original "raw raw" state (ie, without an XMP sidecar including keywords et al). Without changing to a different tool with its own set of "issues".
But, hey, to each his own. Enjoy Lightroom.
foxone said:
Yes, it does seem odd. But that Apple can't seem to keep up with the RAW formats the way Adobe has spells issues trouble for Aperture being taken seriously by some.
To my knowledge the Panasonic LX-1/Leica D-Lux 2 are not supported by Aperture. I know that Aperture is aimed at the pro, but pros do sometimes shoot "lower end" cameras. And Aperture is meant to be an organizational workspace too. Why force users to use different programs? I liked the fact that for my Reykjavik/London trip that I was able to import both into Lightroom.
Add to that Adobe does not seem poised to release a Universal Binary of PS anytime soon according to some comments that I have heard. Have not kept up on these rumors, so my facts may be wrong on that I admit.
But without Universal Binary support soon from Adobe, Apple is in trouble in getting the Macintels in to the hands of many photographers. This is based on some comments from customers at my store that have used or want to use Macs.
conflicting messages
I noticed this as well. Not only on Apple's homepage photo of the MBP but the majority of MBP photos throughout the website use Aperture screen shots to demonstrate the new features and power of the MBP. Why? if they were planning to dump it. They are showing MBP and Aperture as an ideal marriage (not an up-and-coming divorce )
I'm a photographer and illustrator who uses Photoshop (and other Adobe creative suite programs) all day and prefer Adobe "Lightroom" by a slight margin. Apple keeping Aperture would greatly benefit both Aperture and Lightroom users as healthy competition between the two keeps the pressure on for improvement!
foxone said:
I noticed this as well. Not only on Apple's homepage photo of the MBP but the majority of MBP photos throughout the website use Aperture screen shots to demonstrate the new features and power of the MBP. Why? if they were planning to dump it. They are showing MBP and Aperture as an ideal marriage (not an up-and-coming divorce
)I'm a photographer and illustrator who uses Photoshop (and other Adobe creative suite programs) all day and prefer Adobe "Lightroom" by a slight margin. Apple keeping Aperture would greatly benefit both Aperture and Lightroom users as healthy competition between the two keeps the pressure on for improvement!
OKay im am tired of this BS. It's time to Stick up for Nick and Rayn(http://www.thinksecret.com). First off you Say there Credibility is Sinking lower for you. Well I can Say that on the Last couple of apple role outs they have hit it right on the Head. Do you want Proof Well here it is
Wait did u see the date on it April 19th Befor anyone else said it. They did. You still want more proof well here
Did we see the date on the the 24th 4 day befor the event and they hit it right on the head.
Rayn is calling this
so lets see if this month the Mac Books comes out. if it does that will make 3 for 3 on apple roll outs.
sorry the post was so long i am just sick on people ripping on Nick and Rayn. when it comes to what will and will not roll out there are pretty good on nailing it on the head
Daring Fireball
John Grubers's excellent blog, Daring Fireball, brings a lot of insight to this topic. A definite read...
http://daringfireball.net/2006/04/aperture_dirt
John Grubers's excellent blog, Daring Fireball, brings a lot of insight to this topic. A definite read...
http://daringfireball.net/2006/04/aperture_dirt
Aperture
Having read most of the posts, I think that there is a lot of disinformation about Aperture. As Steve said, it is not a replacement for Photoshop. (There is definitely a possibility that he was trying to pull Adobe's chain , however)
As to workflow, Aperture is quite good. Most important feature is that the "negative" - your original RAW file is never mucked with. Anything you do, from correcting the exposure, to tweeking the temperature of your photo is recorded only as an incremental change, so you do not get several different "full" versions of your work. The key is to "get it right" in the camera vs "I can fix it in Photoshop."
If you need to do cutouts and montages, sure you still have to use Photoshop. It is, in fact, an extremely powerful tool for manipulating images. Anything this powerful is not going to be totally intuitive to operate, so RTFM, go to the PS seminars and learn how to harness the power.
Where I see the strength of Aperture is in organizing, ranking and "touching up" your RAW photos and then being able to quickly output a web gallery, for proofs to a client, or printing with most of the settings handled by Aperture.
It is really easy to "recover" a RAW file from the Aperture Library .. just Export the Master file. Backups are handled to your designated "Vault".
Missing: Teathered shooting. At present, I still have to use Nikon Capture to have my G5 and D2X "talk" to each other. Maybe version 1.2 will get this feature added.
This is my first post here, so take it for what it is worth.
Having read most of the posts, I think that there is a lot of disinformation about Aperture. As Steve said, it is not a replacement for Photoshop. (There is definitely a possibility that he was trying to pull Adobe's chain , however)
As to workflow, Aperture is quite good. Most important feature is that the "negative" - your original RAW file is never mucked with. Anything you do, from correcting the exposure, to tweeking the temperature of your photo is recorded only as an incremental change, so you do not get several different "full" versions of your work. The key is to "get it right" in the camera vs "I can fix it in Photoshop."
If you need to do cutouts and montages, sure you still have to use Photoshop. It is, in fact, an extremely powerful tool for manipulating images. Anything this powerful is not going to be totally intuitive to operate, so RTFM, go to the PS seminars and learn how to harness the power.
Where I see the strength of Aperture is in organizing, ranking and "touching up" your RAW photos and then being able to quickly output a web gallery, for proofs to a client, or printing with most of the settings handled by Aperture.
It is really easy to "recover" a RAW file from the Aperture Library .. just Export the Master file. Backups are handled to your designated "Vault".
Missing: Teathered shooting. At present, I still have to use Nikon Capture to have my G5 and D2X "talk" to each other. Maybe version 1.2 will get this feature added.
This is my first post here, so take it for what it is worth.
Apple is apparently hiring new blood for the Aperture team:
http://blakeseely.com/blog/archives/2006/04/27/change
http://blakeseely.com/blog/archives/2006/04/27/change
gkarris said:
That's a pretty wide open question. Lots of places use AVID which is VERY expensive and very quirky and very proprietary. Aperture at $300 sounds like it has a lot of potential in the pro market. Final Cut Studio seems to be maturing rather well so perhaps Aperture will do the same. I hope so, because it's the direction I intended to take rather than Adobe's offerings. (not that there's anything wrong with Adobe but the approach is not my favorite in terms of HI guidelines)
Back to you folks
JC
bilbot said:
Bullseye-- I couldn't agree more. This is the purpose for which this app was always meant. It is not supposed to *replace* Photoshop. I was at the PhotoExpo in NYC the week it was announced and the Apple folks were very straightforward about the goals for Aperture.
And I couldn't agree more, my goal is to try to avoid Photoshop by getting it right when I'm shooting (also a D2x, btw) --- just like I used to do when I shot film. Photoshop is a real time sink when it comes to working on photos from a large shoot and Bridge is still not optimal. Aperture fufills a real need for review, organization and culling -- not as a primary image manipulation app.
Nice first post!
JT
turtlebud said:
Ack! Plenty of room between those two!
My guess would be $100-200. The question is whether they really expect folks who use Elements to go with Lightroom -- if so, the pricing will probably be lower.
JT