Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Do you use Aperture for your Photo Mangement? Average user?

Photo Management. What do you use?

  • Total voters
    36
I

iBunny

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Apr 15, 2004
1,254
0
Who of you the Average user, uses Aperture vice iPhoto?

Thats all I want to know. Not for photo editing etc, just to orginize and view your pics? I know that its pricey, since iPhoto is bundled... but who pays extra just to have Aperture?

And im not talking about you photo editing enthusiasts... just the normal person.
 
I organize my digital camera photos using iPhoto. Anything I pull off of the internet gets Spotlight tagged.

Aperture gives you a lot better workflow control and correction abilities. It's not per se best at management for most people. I looked into it for managing my photos and it didn't really offer what I wanted.
 
I switched to Macs about 3 months ago. I tried iPhoto, but I want something that uses and keeps the folder/file structure I have been using for years. So I switched to Aperture, which allows that. Now, though, with my iPhone, I find that Aperture is lacking on jpg tools.

I'm starting to think I just go back to what I used in Windows: folders + Photoshop.
 
Maui said:
I switched to Macs about 3 months ago. I tried iPhoto, but I want something that uses and keeps the folder/file structure I have been using for years. So I switched to Aperture, which allows that. Now, though, with my iPhone, I find that Aperture is lacking on jpg tools.

I'm starting to think I just go back to what I used in Windows: folders + Photoshop.
Click to expand...
Folders in an application or in the file system?

What bugs me as that Aperture will archive all your images into one package. I much more prefer Spotlight + iPhoto right now. I just need to find out some more about Spotlight arguments in order to figure out what I haven't tagged yet.
 
As a total amateur SLR user, who is nowhere near a skilled camera user (yet!)
I use aperture and I think it's pretty good.

It's sure not perfect compared to iphotos. The web galleries are terribly plain compared to the comparable adobe product, but the keywords features are pretty good on 1.5.3, and the performance on a decent mac is good.
 
iPhoto does everything I need.

The only thing that I don't really like is how it organizes pictures into folders. I was a Windows user for years and getting used to not relying on Finder/Explorer has been hard for me.
 
I have not played around with Aperture but I think the one drawback of iPhoto '06 is the lack of decent XMP support. At the moment my workflow is

- tag using Adobe's Bridge
- build slideshows and reduce to albums in iPhoto

It is somewhat bumpy and would be a lot easier if iPhoto would re-scan the pictures metadata. If anybody has a good idea to accomplish this aside from a complete refresh of the iPhoto library: Let me know. :)
 
I use Lightroom, but I did use Aperture for a bit. Then again, I couldn't think of really anyone who would get Aperture/Lightroom etc. if they weren't a photo enthusiast. A lot of people get it because they shoot a lot of images or shoot RAW and usually those people are enthusiasts anyway.

The average user wouldn't even know what to do with Aperture so I wouldn't see the point of getting it unless they were super rich and had money to burn. If you're not going to use the editing features, it's almost a waste of money. For editing, iPhoto does that. Almost the biggest reason to get Aperture over iPhoto is because of non-destructive editing as iPhoto creates a duplicate whenever you even touch a photo.
 
Eidorian said:
Folders in an application or in the file system?

What bugs me as that Aperture will archive all your images into one package. I much more prefer Spotlight + iPhoto right now. I just need to find out some more about Spotlight arguments in order to figure out what I haven't tagged yet.
Click to expand...

but all you need to do is right click the APLibrary and click show package contents. there ya go, files and folders.

I'm not a fan of the way it stores the pictures in the folder structure (i'd change it a bit), but it's not something that bothers me. It's not something that I need to do anything about.

I use Aperture because I can't stand iPhoto or Lightroom... :rolleyes:
 
What is this "tagging" you refer to?

I do my keyword tagging in iPhoto, and the EXIF data stays in-tact, so I'm curious about this other type of "tagging".
 
termina3 said:
Oh, but there's so much more you can add beyond keywords and what your camera does...

Copyrights, Author, website, notes/comments, captions, etc, etc
Click to expand...

Ahhhh... The stuff found in File Info in PS. That's a good idea to run stuff through there first. Thanks.

If I use Bridge, instead of a Photoshop Action, will it update this stuff without re-saving (thus re-compressing) JPG photos?
 
Heavy Doody said:
If I use Bridge, instead of a Photoshop Action, will it update this stuff without re-saving (thus re-compressing) JPG photos?
Click to expand...

can't say for sure, but EXIF data should be a separate file from the actual picture

also, doesn't bridge work with previews only? I dunno... I use Aperture, which is completely lossless :)
 
Heavy Doody said:
If I use Bridge, instead of a Photoshop Action, will it update this stuff without re-saving (thus re-compressing) JPG photos?
Click to expand...

It will modify the meta data without recompressing and using templates in Bridge is an excellent option (at least for my workflow). If only I could get iPhoto to re-import the metadata from the XMP. Picassa (on the Windows side) did monitor the files for changes and updated its library when they occurred...
 
Silly question

The question states only "average people" not "photo enthusiasts".

Well I think by definition if you're willing to pay $300 for a photo management program you're likely to be at least a "photo enthusiast" by definition. So I think the answer to your question as defined is 0%.

Having said that, aperture is so much more powerful for photo management than iphoto. I bought my first mac (Mac Pro) based primarily on it alone. I've got thousands of photos, so I'm an enthusiast certainly. It takes more work than just chucking them into an iphoto library, but the pay off is much higher as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back