OMG!!! They still have a Page 2????
Same problem here, it says invalid serial number
That's because you *must* purchase version 1.5
I think he wanted to know "how good" it really was for that purpose...
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.
Apple Releases Aperture 2.0
- Thread starter jemo07
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
OMG!!! They still have a Page 2????
That's because you *must* purchase version 1.5
I think he wanted to know "how good" it really was for that purpose...
Does anyone know if Aperture 2.0 can work with Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ18 RAW files? It's not listed on the official support list, though similar Panasonic models are. I'm thinking of getting this camera so I'd be pretty gutted if Aperture won't work with its files
Thanks! That's a great resource!
While I haven't used Lightroom, I find that Photoshop can be frustrating. For me Aperture is v. easy to use, though it could be improves, for sure.
I'm digging the RAW 2.0 converter in Aperture 2. But one downer is that I have to manually switch each image from RAW 1.1 to 2.0. When you have thousands of images, that's a nightmare. Anyone know if there's a setting where it will automatically switch all images to 2.0?
As earlier clean interface and works even better with iLife and iWork. Better price aswell.
But, it still takes longer time to get the same result as in lightroom and I think it's just as slow as the old version. So it fails on me.
The new patch tool seemed rather cool in the tutorials, but I doubt it works as good on most real images. Maybe it would work a little better if Apple didn't hated GPUs so much, I doubt it would be as fast as lightroom thought.
Also Lightroom won't tie you up to OS X and Macintosh.
Maybe the price point was changed because Apple knew they had a less good application?
Edit: And then I only try on 4 mpx jpegs, I guess it would be reaaaaally slow with higher resolution raw images.
But, it still takes longer time to get the same result as in lightroom and I think it's just as slow as the old version. So it fails on me.
The new patch tool seemed rather cool in the tutorials, but I doubt it works as good on most real images. Maybe it would work a little better if Apple didn't hated GPUs so much, I doubt it would be as fast as lightroom thought.
Also Lightroom won't tie you up to OS X and Macintosh.
Maybe the price point was changed because Apple knew they had a less good application?
Edit: And then I only try on 4 mpx jpegs, I guess it would be reaaaaally slow with higher resolution raw images.
Yeah, that sucks major donkey ass in all Apples applications aswell, why require a special .mac account? Atleast people be able to put up their own .mac server. .mac is way to expensive for what you get, and to little space aswell. They could have offered the 10GB version for free for all people who have bought a mac ;/
Have you downloaded the trial and tested? Imho it's not at all as fast as lightroom.
Are that to early for the 9.99 upgrade or whatever it was?It figures this happens when I just got Apeture 1.5 for Christmas...
The loupe are slow because it makes the program swallow all your graphics memory.
I've played around with iPhoto, Aperture and Lightroom and when you try to do similair stuff to an image with all three the iPhoto version didn't looked as good. iPhoto seems nicest for just browsing and sorting your images thought.
So if most she does is sorting images, iPhoto are sufficient.
If very simple image editing is enough, iPhoto are probably sufficient.
If you want to be very creative and do advanced stuff you need Photoshop (but Photoshop Elements are only 1/10 of the price and can do much aswell... so consider that if you will buy the software.)
If you want a fast way to tune and sort your images Aperture and Lightroom are your options, you can get a much better image quality than the original much faster than in Photoshop (but the same stuff can probably be done in Photoshop with more work.)
Personally I like the layout of Aperture but the result, speed and compatibility of Lightroom. So I will probably go with Lightroom over Aperture.
Edit: Since you already had CS3 I guess iPhoto + CS3 works nice aswell aslong as you don't mind eventually having dubletts of the images (original + photoshop modified one.)
IMO you forgot to mention one of the most important differences between Aperture/Lightroom and the rest of the apps, as iPhoto, PSE, PS3, CS3 etc.: Aperture and Lightroom will NEVER change your original photos when you are editing them. AP and LR just keep the originals plus save the editing commands. AP/LR will render the pictures at any time you want to look at it, print/export it (that is why you need a better GPU etc).
Even if you export your picture from Aperture/Lightroom for more sophisticated editing to PSE or PS it will be returned automatically to AP/LR by PSE/PS just by saving the edited (psd, tiff, jpg ...) version in PSE/PS, but within AP/LR there is still the original (raw or jpg) photo to which the edited version will be attached. Therefore you can allways got back to square one. If you try the same with e.g. iPhoto, your original file will be overwritten by the edited picture and you have to be happy with your edited version. No way back.
BTW PSE and PS have one major difference, that might even be of interest for those of us would don't need the very advanced editing power of PS: With PS you can edit (nearly) everything in 16 bit mode, whereas PSE offers 16 bit mode only for that kind of editing you can do anyway in Aperture or Lightroom. For more advanced features you have to switch to 8 bit mode in PSE.
Even if you export your picture from Aperture/Lightroom for more sophisticated editing to PSE or PS it will be returned automatically to AP/LR by PSE/PS just by saving the edited (psd, tiff, jpg ...) version in PSE/PS, but within AP/LR there is still the original (raw or jpg) photo to which the edited version will be attached. Therefore you can allways got back to square one. If you try the same with e.g. iPhoto, your original file will be overwritten by the edited picture and you have to be happy with your edited version. No way back.
BTW PSE and PS have one major difference, that might even be of interest for those of us would don't need the very advanced editing power of PS: With PS you can edit (nearly) everything in 16 bit mode, whereas PSE offers 16 bit mode only for that kind of editing you can do anyway in Aperture or Lightroom. For more advanced features you have to switch to 8 bit mode in PSE.
Brilliant! Thanks for your help, I've now managed to get the key and am currently upgrading my library
That is not quite true. In your iPhoto Library there are two directories called Originals and Modified. If you modify a photo the modified version will be stored in Modified, while the unchanged original photo remains in Originals. In iPhoto it is the modified photo that is shown, and you may revert to the original photo by selecting "Revert to Original" from the Photos menu.
It doesn't sound like you have any idea what you are talking about. I am running Aperture 2 on a MacBook and it runs just fine, loupe and all. Speed is subjective, which makes it difficult to qualify "fast" or "slow", but it runs just fine for me.
That's a bit disappointing to hear. I installed it last night, but never got a chance to exporting old stuff to import into Aperture to play with.
Given what folks seemed to be saying, seemed like it'd be a nice improvement. the UI certainly looks better, but I've always liked Aperture over Lightroom for that.
Out of curiosity, what computer are you running off of?
Well, I'm sold.
Bookmaking rocks. It will help me immensely in my album production for clients. The only thing that is lacking, is books only export to PDF. If they exported to JPG, it would be perfect for me and my album company's procedures.
Just a little gripe. I can easily open all and save to JPG in Photoshop.
Bookmaking rocks. It will help me immensely in my album production for clients. The only thing that is lacking, is books only export to PDF. If they exported to JPG, it would be perfect for me and my album company's procedures.
Just a little gripe. I can easily open all and save to JPG in Photoshop.
Uhm, does iPhoto overwrite the original? That suck. I guess one can store dublicates onself thought.
Regarding Photoshop and Elements I don't know what are the differences, I'm a pirate anyway so it doesn't bother me. But I would probably go with elements if I had to pay, atleast to see if it was sufficient or not.
But then mac fanatics says that iBook G3s run everything sooo great and that Vista requires a bla bla whatever new rig to work. So well, I don't know how much it's worth. Over here in Aperture 1.5 he loupe was very slow, and it lags in 2.0 aswell. If that doesn't bother you that's ok, same with using sliders and not getting instant results on the image, to me it's just annoying to try to get it right when the controls and image lags. I have better things to do when wait =P
I also ran opengl driver monitor when I experienced it and sure enough all my graphics memory was used up.
I don't have a decent camera so I just used my 4mpx jpegs, I guess raw may differ, not that it will be faster I assume but slower in both applications, and maybe Aperture works better compared to Lightroom then, I have no idea.
Yeah, the UI are soo clean and it's nice to have everything at ones place, I hate the library and develop tabs in Lightroom.
I ran it on 2.2GHz MBP / 2GB ram / 128MB vram.
But don't trust me, just try it, I would have prefered if I liked Aperture better since it would sound cooler to say it was only available on a mac, but well, I don't it seems =P. Both apps are good thought so I would probably do well with either.
But I still think the 256MB vram version may run it much better, and I will always hate Apple for their specs.
And the guy who got a quad Mac Pro but only the 7300 GT should probably just upgrade his graphics card, I mean, if you can afford a quad mac pro why use such a lowend card? Atleast it is fixable in the mac pro, if only they used BIOS aswell (or all PCs used EFI) so one didn't had to get a special mac version of the graphics card aswell.
Yes - I was just at an Apple Store in St. Louis this afternoon, and they had only one retail box left on the shelf, and it was installed on all their Macs.
Bs!
Don't write things like this, please! Someone might be confused and take you for real.
This is simply not true for iPhoto! The originals are always kept separate from the edited versions, automatically.
Don't write things like this, please! Someone might be confused and take you for real.