good enough for aperture

Discussion in 'iMac' started by mulberry, Jun 29, 2009.

  1. mulberry macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2009
    #1
    I am a senior and this is my first post, so please be patient. I am on the brink of buying my first ever mac computer and have a question. I am considering the 20inch iMac and may increase the ram to 4 gigs. Would this computer allow me to run Aperture?
    Thanks.
     
  2. TuffLuffJimmy macrumors G3

    TuffLuffJimmy

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #2
    yessir it will. However, I know Aperture is great and I use it myself, but I would recommend you try out an Aperture trial and a Lightroom trial and decide for yourself. After moving into photoshop I really wish I had gone with Lightroom, but Aperture, for the most part, is working out for me.
     
  3. hooly macrumors regular

    hooly

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    #3
    I have been running Aperture on a 2.5Ghz cpu with 4Gb RAM (macbook pro). It runs pretty well.

    I used to run version 1.0 on a 2.3 Ghz machine with 2 Gb ram. That version (and with those specs) was quite slow and spinning beachballs were not uncommon when cropping or adjusting angle.

    The move to version 2 of Aperture really speeded things up. My only complaint now is a slight delay to render previews of large RAW files. After I click on an image it takes 1 - 3 seconds, sometimes a fraction longer, until the preview snaps into sharp focus. After that editing the picture is seamlessly fast. I imagine your imac would be similar. I noticed the problem has got slightly worse over time, so it may also be related to the large library size >40Gb.

    I don't know if Lightroom does any better in that respect. I trialled both a couple of years ago and preferred Aperture, but it really is horses for courses and they are both excellent pieces of software. Definitely worth trying the free trials of both before splashing out :)
     
  4. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #4
    It's better than good for Aperture. Aperture is perfect for "mass editing" but I love PS CS4
     
  5. benlangdon macrumors 65832

    benlangdon

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2008
    #5
    ya i find it annoying to have everything in aperture and then need to work on a pic, still don't know if its better to export or just drag and drop on my desktop, in photo shop. then have to re import the pic into aperture.

    i run aperture on a 2.2 gh/z mbp 2gb ram, its fine. not like dam fast but it works, ya previews take a little while, especially when they are on a second screen.

    so actually if anyone knows this i got another question. in aperature you can make the second display (from a laptop) the preview screen, can you switch it? preview on the laptop screen and main page on external screen
     
  6. TK2K macrumors 6502

    TK2K

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2006
    #6
    it's most dependent on your camera. Aperture ran beautifully on my 8MP camera, however the 5Dmark2 proved too much for a unibody macbook pro with 2gb of ram to handle.
     
  7. hooly macrumors regular

    hooly

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    #7
    You can edit with photoshop directly from Aperture. Right click and then select Edit with (first you have to tell Aperture where photoshop is)

    Yes, it is just determined by which screen has the menu bar (in system preferences > displays)
     
  8. hooly macrumors regular

    hooly

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    #8
    Yes that's right. People for whom Aperture is lightening fast are either not working in RAW or have relatively small RAW files... or they have a super computer :)
     
  9. TuffLuffJimmy macrumors G3

    TuffLuffJimmy

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #9
    That's not true. Aperture creates a new image either tiff
    or PSD then sends it to Photoshop. That is not editing directly.
     
  10. benlangdon macrumors 65832

    benlangdon

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2008
    #10
    when you save it, does it send another copy to aperture or deletes the original and replaces it, or do you have to then re import the image.

    ya i figured, ive done that and its just annoying when you have to switch the menu every time i turn on aperture


    ha thanks guys, had those little questions for a while, just never really asked.
    ya im not working with raw, but i do work with some big images, like resolution, a lot of panoramas 14,000 x 3,500
    o and yes it everything runs fine with 2gb but i wish i had 4gb, with ps, having many pics open, and aperture running, it does slow down a lot.
     
  11. mulberry thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2009
    #11
    Re- good enough for aperture

    Thanks very much for all the help. Based on all your replies I think the 20inch imac will do just fine.

    P.S. I’m still learning how to post properly to the forum.
     
  12. AppleThis&That macrumors regular

    AppleThis&That

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2009
    #12
    I do a lot of Photography and Graphic Design on my 24" iMac 2.66GHz (Which has basically the same settings as the 20") and it runs perfectly fine with CS4. I work with Illustrator, InDesign, Bridge and Photoshop at the same time on a daily basis and it zips! I do have 4GB of ram though, so that could be a factor. I would upgrade your ram to get the full effect. :)
     
  13. hooly macrumors regular

    hooly

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    #13
    When you edit a file for the first time it exports a TIFF version to PS (or indeed any other image editing programme you have selected). When you finish working just save the file as normal (e.g. CMD S) and the file will be saved in Aperture in a stack with the original. This is what I meant by editing directly, although it is true it is more an automated export/re-import.

    If you go back and open the TIFF again in PS a new version won't be created, it will keep working on the previous one.
     
  14. TK2K macrumors 6502

    TK2K

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2006
    #14
    yeah, raws just chew through CPU power, it's crazy
     

Share This Page