I wonder if it needs to be installed on the Startup Disk. If not, I can definitely see myself getting this + an external HD in the relatively near future.
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
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
i dont care about the interface but if it can retouch as well as photoshop i'm there. Photoshop's healing brush and patch tool are invaluable to me.
Well, there's a 6 week wait anyway (according to the store) so there might be some real world experiences in the meantime that indicate it can run on your machine. (I run Motion 2 on a 1.33 PB and while it is not fast, it is quite adequate for my simple needs).ajshades said:
bretm said:
Interesting, but on Apple's web site they have a video of a professional sports photographer and in the background of his lab it sure looked to me like he was using Apple cinema displays. Besides, Apple's cinema displays are SWOP certified, so I think you a bit behind the times.
Aperture Awe
All it takes is money?!?
So THAT'S what I've been doing wrong!!
Sigh... yeah, add it to the list of many, many Apple products I want but can't afford. And note that nobody has posted a surefire (and legal) solution to this minor money problem...
It looks sweet, although I haven't read all the groovy details yet. Yes, the system requirements seem steep and I'll have to check my specs, but it's probably due to showing/sorting/manipulating multiple images simultaneously in your "catalog/stack."
Should be cool to at least play with in the Apple store when it comes out...
Object-X said:
All it takes is money?!?
So THAT'S what I've been doing wrong!!
Sigh... yeah, add it to the list of many, many Apple products I want but can't afford. And note that nobody has posted a surefire (and legal) solution to this minor money problem...
It looks sweet, although I haven't read all the groovy details yet. Yes, the system requirements seem steep and I'll have to check my specs, but it's probably due to showing/sorting/manipulating multiple images simultaneously in your "catalog/stack."
Should be cool to at least play with in the Apple store when it comes out...
Flash
Apple's 'Final Cut Studio' area of their site also uses a lot of Flash:
http://www.apple.com/finalcutstudio/
Apple's 'Final Cut Studio' area of their site also uses a lot of Flash:
http://www.apple.com/finalcutstudio/
Is it me...
Or does Aperture resemble the Raw Image Thumbnaier and Viewer that has been bundled with Windows XP Powertoys? I, myself, have never used it. I've always just seen it when downloading Tweak UI on my other PCs.
Or does Aperture resemble the Raw Image Thumbnaier and Viewer that has been bundled with Windows XP Powertoys? I, myself, have never used it. I've always just seen it when downloading Tweak UI on my other PCs.
baleensavage said:
OS what? There are probably pro designers reading this that were 14 or fifteen years old when that OS came on a machine. Yikes. Gotta move along my friend or you'll get trampled.
Aperture express exists. It's called iPhoto. iPhoto is truly amazing. My wedding photographer handed me 1228 RAW files and I'm creating stunning wedding albums for the whole family. The color correction tools in iPhoto are pretty awesome. It of course doesn't output RAW format. But nobody can use RAW format in the end. It's acquisition. So if you know what's up, you can always go back to the original RAW in iPhoto even. In other words, don't make changes twice to an image, or it'll get rejpeged.
I'm at workbretm said:
My home computer's got 10.3.8...I also use iPhoto for managing my files, but my relationship with it is love/hate. iPhoto is excruciatingly slow with large files and the best feature, tagging photos, has been buried in the popup get info window which is really inconvenient. I'm hoping they'll make an in between program. With Final Cut they have Express then iMovie. If this catches on they may be able to do the same. Or maybe this will encourage them to improve iPhoto.
Object-X said:
On APPLE'S web site. Gosh wow. How odd. No I'm not behind the times. A few others have already backed me up. It can be done, but it's not optimal yet.
Even websites I create don't have the contrast. Examples are things that are light grey on white. The light grey becomes almost white. Ditto with dark grey and black. The dark grey becomes nearly black. So it's not a gamma thing. LCDs have distinct steps.
This looks like a great product. I like to shoot RAW with my Nikon D70, and then mess with it just to learn the process.
It seems I'll be sticking with Photoshop, though, as I don't do desktop computers, and neither of my Powerbooks is anywhere close to meeting the minimum requirements for Aperture.
Maybe the 3rd or 4th incarnation of the PowerIntelBook will be up to the job.
It seems I'll be sticking with Photoshop, though, as I don't do desktop computers, and neither of my Powerbooks is anywhere close to meeting the minimum requirements for Aperture.
Maybe the 3rd or 4th incarnation of the PowerIntelBook will be up to the job.
After seeing all the quick tours and reading, I've got my initial assessment.
1.) Too expensive, since it's only doing about 50% of what Photoshop can do, it should cost 50% of Photoshops price. Similar to Motion vs. After Effects.
2.) Looks fast. The whole idea of this is managing and small tweaking in a very efficient manner. This is where it trumps the Photoshop/Bridge combo.
3.) The new functions are great, the Loupe is amazing, the management is great.
4.) This is for photographers only. The designers that also wear the "photographer" hat are going to get annoyed with this quickly because it's ANOTHER way to manage content, most designers already have a working system for entire projects (including photos). If this stores images anything like iPhoto i can see people getting pissed of quickly.
5.) Like it or not, all Photographers have to use Photoshop at some point. There are too many photo shoots where a guy didn't shave, or a lady blinked and the rubber stamp tool needs to be used, this destroys the "all RAW" workflow that Apple is touting.
All in all good-to-great for pure photographers (depending on need), not so good for anyone that needs anything more. At $500 it's a little too steep to add a second "photo" app to a workflow for anyone beside a single purpose photographer. It would be nice if the management was applied to a broader sense for video, print, web, audio.
1.) Too expensive, since it's only doing about 50% of what Photoshop can do, it should cost 50% of Photoshops price. Similar to Motion vs. After Effects.
2.) Looks fast. The whole idea of this is managing and small tweaking in a very efficient manner. This is where it trumps the Photoshop/Bridge combo.
3.) The new functions are great, the Loupe is amazing, the management is great.
4.) This is for photographers only. The designers that also wear the "photographer" hat are going to get annoyed with this quickly because it's ANOTHER way to manage content, most designers already have a working system for entire projects (including photos). If this stores images anything like iPhoto i can see people getting pissed of quickly.
5.) Like it or not, all Photographers have to use Photoshop at some point. There are too many photo shoots where a guy didn't shave, or a lady blinked and the rubber stamp tool needs to be used, this destroys the "all RAW" workflow that Apple is touting.
All in all good-to-great for pure photographers (depending on need), not so good for anyone that needs anything more. At $500 it's a little too steep to add a second "photo" app to a workflow for anyone beside a single purpose photographer. It would be nice if the management was applied to a broader sense for video, print, web, audio.
Manatee said:This looks like a great product. I like to shoot RAW with my Nikon D70, and then mess with it just to learn the process.
It seems I'll be sticking with Photoshop, though, as I don't do desktop computers, and neither of my Powerbooks is anywhere close to meeting the minimum requirements for Aperture.
Maybe the 3rd or 4th incarnation of the PowerIntelBook will be up to the job.
Ah, don't give up the ship .... those of us who are jumping in will let you guys on the fence know how it goes on our PBs. It may be OK.
JT
ibooks are not professional
Look at it this way. Apple carries two lines of computers and usually 3 lines of software.
Consumer Hardware- mac mini, iBook, and iMac
Professional Hardware- powerbook, Powermac
Consumer Software- iLife
Prosumer Software- FinalCut Express, Logic Express, Photoshop Elements. etc.
Professional Software- FinalCut Studio, Logic, Aperture, Photoshop CS
You bought an ibook, a consumer level computer, Apple doesn't have to cater its professional software to you, it was your mistake to buy a consumer level laptop and hope it will last to do professional level work. The Powerbooks aren't just powerbooks because there lightweight and thin, its because they're much more expandable to meet a professional workflow. As for Apple being hypocritical with the iMac being able to run Apeture, well, I guess you need a G5 to really process all those ridiculous RAW images. All in all, its your fault for buying a consumer model and expect to be catered to with professional software.
ajshades said:
Look at it this way. Apple carries two lines of computers and usually 3 lines of software.
Consumer Hardware- mac mini, iBook, and iMac
Professional Hardware- powerbook, Powermac
Consumer Software- iLife
Prosumer Software- FinalCut Express, Logic Express, Photoshop Elements. etc.
Professional Software- FinalCut Studio, Logic, Aperture, Photoshop CS
You bought an ibook, a consumer level computer, Apple doesn't have to cater its professional software to you, it was your mistake to buy a consumer level laptop and hope it will last to do professional level work. The Powerbooks aren't just powerbooks because there lightweight and thin, its because they're much more expandable to meet a professional workflow. As for Apple being hypocritical with the iMac being able to run Apeture, well, I guess you need a G5 to really process all those ridiculous RAW images. All in all, its your fault for buying a consumer model and expect to be catered to with professional software.
areyouwishing said:
I agree. I can't see why people are comparing this to Adobe Photoshop. After reading about it and watching the demos, it looks to me like something aimed at Phase One's Capture One PRO software. Sure it does appear to be a lot better than Bridge and Camera RAW, but we'll see once it's actually shipping. I would hope that a $500 dedicated app would be better.
But I still don't see how a pro photographer wouldn't still need Adobe Photoshop. Hell, I'm not even a pro (just a hobbyist) and there are transforms and affects I use that still would require Photoshop.
areyouwishing said:
Its seems like a good package for amateurs with digital SLRs who want to shoot in Raw and dont want to get into cut & paste photo alteration...yes?
Cameras supported
Slick, but what cameras it supports is still somewhat fuzzy. It lists only a handful of newish cameras as having an "optimized support": What exactly is non-optimized support? While I presume Nikon "K1X" is really my D1X (it had better ), where is my Canon PowerShot G2 (which I am NOT intending to retire anytime soon) or my father's Pentax *ist?
Slick, but what cameras it supports is still somewhat fuzzy. It lists only a handful of newish cameras as having an "optimized support": What exactly is non-optimized support? While I presume Nikon "K1X" is really my D1X (it had better ), where is my Canon PowerShot G2 (which I am NOT intending to retire anytime soon) or my father's Pentax *ist?
I'd like to know what kind of performance hit will come into play with the file versioning. Any kind of versioning usually entails a large penalty in resources. I take that min. system requirement as part marketing/part wish fullfillment. Yeah, it might run without bogging, but what will I really be able to do on a minimally configured system?
Criticisms aside, I think the $500 asking price is really stupid. How many pro shooters have invested in Photoshop and whatever asset management scheme already? Plus invested the time and effort in learning implementing that workflow? There's a cost aside from the half a grand and the switch had better be worth it. It's short money if it saves time, and flattens out the learning curve, but $500 is $500 and there's tons of gear out there beckoning.
Criticisms aside, I think the $500 asking price is really stupid. How many pro shooters have invested in Photoshop and whatever asset management scheme already? Plus invested the time and effort in learning implementing that workflow? There's a cost aside from the half a grand and the switch had better be worth it. It's short money if it saves time, and flattens out the learning curve, but $500 is $500 and there's tons of gear out there beckoning.
