They just released a software update for Aperture today. No new features but it shows they are working on it.
BTW, what are you looking for in version 4?
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.
New Aperture 4 announcement for June 10th?
- Thread starter Razeus
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They just released a software update for Aperture today. No new features but it shows they are working on it.
BTW, what are you looking for in version 4?
- Noise reduction as good as Lightroom 5
- Ability for plugins to work just like the built-in adjustments (and appear in the adjustments window)
- Graduated/gradient filters like Lightroom
- Better sharpening tools
- More speed!
To be fair, so does LR. When you use an image manipulation plugin in LR (Nik, etc) it renders to a TIFF. Where LR shines, and probably where you are coming from, is that they provide some basic manipulation out of the box, such as decent lens corrections, decent noise reduction and the like. Obviously, these only make sense if you work in LR only (i.e. the RAW file XMP written by LR isn't generally readable by other tools). If you like the results of LR most of the time, it is certainly is a good way forward.
Razeus, it's clear you have some personal vendetta against Aperture. You're perfectly entitled to it, of course, but why start a forum post like this that's clearly just baiting for negative responses?? It's nothing but trolling. As maflynn said above - "if you don't like it, don't use it".
Try to understand that different photographers want different things from their raw converters. Some people will want the best possible quality and colour accuracy, while others will want lots of sliders, features and special effects. Aperture's strength lies in the former while Lightroom's strength lies in the latter. But this doesn't necessarily make either programme "right", or "better" than the other. For the record, I own and use both.
If you want a very accurate raw conversion with a few adjustment sliders, use Aperture 3.
If you want a pretty good raw conversion and some more adjustment sliders use Lightroom 3 / Adobe's 2010 process version.
If you want a fairly poor raw conversion with even more sliders then use Lightroom 4 / Adobe's 2012 process version.
(I have not downloaded the Lightroom 5 beta so have no idea whether they've introduced an even newer process version in that. If they have, I can't comment on its quality.)
You clearly prefer Lightroom and are satisfied with the results you get - that's great. However it's in your best interests as a consumer to realise that Aperture does have its strengths. If you want Adobe to continue producing great software then some increased competition from Apple would likely spur them on. If, on the other hand, Aperture ever did become "Abandonware", it would be a sad day for digital imaging.
Try to understand that different photographers want different things from their raw converters. Some people will want the best possible quality and colour accuracy, while others will want lots of sliders, features and special effects. Aperture's strength lies in the former while Lightroom's strength lies in the latter. But this doesn't necessarily make either programme "right", or "better" than the other. For the record, I own and use both.
If you want a very accurate raw conversion with a few adjustment sliders, use Aperture 3.
If you want a pretty good raw conversion and some more adjustment sliders use Lightroom 3 / Adobe's 2010 process version.
If you want a fairly poor raw conversion with even more sliders then use Lightroom 4 / Adobe's 2012 process version.
(I have not downloaded the Lightroom 5 beta so have no idea whether they've introduced an even newer process version in that. If they have, I can't comment on its quality.)
You clearly prefer Lightroom and are satisfied with the results you get - that's great. However it's in your best interests as a consumer to realise that Aperture does have its strengths. If you want Adobe to continue producing great software then some increased competition from Apple would likely spur them on. If, on the other hand, Aperture ever did become "Abandonware", it would be a sad day for digital imaging.
Last edited:
you'd make a horrible salesman. while you're at it, did you forget to post a windows vs. osx thread?
Sure, that wasn't meant as a differentiator, just a clarification on an earlier post.
To the previous two posters, let me help you with that:
"IN MY OPINION...
Hope that helps
"IN MY OPINION...
"
Hope that helps
To the previous two posters, let me help you with that:
"IN MY OPINION...
"
Hope that helps
It is absolutely unhelpful and untrue: Capture is better, that is fact.
In what way is it better? And in what way is it fact? I'm not saying you're wrong - I'd just like to hear your evidence.
To the previous two posters, let me help you with that:
"IN MY OPINION...
"
Hope that helps
Not opinion at all. I've used both. Aperture is no good. It doesn't give good results compared to LR.
So...you're the defacto authority and can prove beyond any doubt that "Aperture is no good"? Please....pontificate to us.
And...yes...I've used both. The Develop module in LR is excellent. However, from an organizational standpoint, at least for my workflow, Aperture's project-based workflow is a lot easier, and much more efficient than LR's use of Folders, and then having to create separate collections.
I'll say this about Aperture compared to my attempts with Lightroom 4 and 5 - it is SO much easier and simpler to use, and with a bit of effort and the very reasonably priced NIK collection it produces excellent results. Lightroom just made my fairly new iMac with plenty of RAM run very slowly, and I would definitely need to buy a book on how how to use it - it just seems very complex and crowded to me.
As for my wishes for Aperture, it is for it not to end up as abandonware.
As for my wishes for Aperture, it is for it not to end up as abandonware.
Maybe you never used Aperture properly? It's actually not hard to use.
Maybe for what you're doing Lightroom is better, but your statement makes it sound like you got bad results with Aperture.
Since many people can get great results from Aperture, this does, in fact, qualify only as your opinion - sorry to break it to you
. Like many, I've used both too, and can render nice images from either one so really, it's all down to preference.... in your opinion
We're all entitled to our opinion, but that's all it is. Glad to hear you like the results you get from Lightroom, but just because it works for you doesn't mean it's the best solution for everyone else.
Is it just me, or is this turning into a clone of the sticky Lightroom Vs Aperture thread!?
I have LR5 too though calling it a new generation is a somewhat dubious description. Still the same ugly UI (my opinion, of course) and not a ton in the way of new features - good features to be sure, just more of a major point release than anything imo. What's in a number, right? Chrome 20-something vs Safari 6-something.
Choosing a tool is about many things, including the ability to generate a great end-result based on a preferred workflow. Since Aperture continues to be updated frequently (the last action packed one being a year ago, with many point updates since then) and since the workflow works better for me and since I really, really like the Nik and PTLens plugins for how they can assist in the end product, there's no compelling reason for me to get rid of Aperture, and I use PS for pixel level editing so if I want to utilize ACR, I can do so within my current workflow.
Speaking for myself, of course.
EDIT: One additional item of note which I just read about this morning over on www.bythom.com is that ACR gets split into two different versions: ACR and ACR CC. They both get camera and lens support updates but only the CC variant gets any new features that come along. Bummer if you just buy LR off the shelf.
Last edited:
LR5 is more of a dot upgrade more than anything else. The Upright and Radial filters are about the only things that are really new. The "Advanced Healing Brush" is something that should have been in v. 4. Oh yeah...Aperture has been able to do that for quite some time.
As to "why even bother at this point?", the WWDC keynote is only a few hours away. Why not wait to see what Apple announces first?
Don't be such a horse's rear.
Oh...and one more thing....keep in mind that Adobe still hasn't recovered from the black eye they gave themselves when they announced their Creative Cloud strategy. They dissed (and pissed off) a lot of hobbyists, amateurs and semi-pro's that used the stand-alone version of Photoshop. Add into that, Adobe has indicated that they may add features to the Creative Cloud version of LR5 that won't be available to the perpetual license owners.
Last edited:
If you're going strictly by version number, does that mean if Aperture went from version 3 to version 6 that LR would now be a generation behind? It all depends on what features Aperture had that LR doesn't.
Apple could add all the features that LR5 has and call it Aperture 3.5. Would that mean that Aperture is still 2 generations behind? No.
As far as I'm concerned, LR5 is LR4 with a couple of features added. Therefore it should've been a point release.
Oh come on now, you know it is all about the number!
My revision is bigger than your revision!
While you guys have been bragging about version numbers and such, I've been working on my latest photo book.
Before Razeus chimes in, I'll be the first to admit that I'm disappointed that there wasn't any news on Aperture (nor anything for iLife).
I've used both Aperture, LR4 and LR5 Beta. Although LR's Develop module does an excellent job, the Folder/Collection based organization drives me bonkers. I really do prefer Aperture's Project-based management. Time to decide if I can hold out, or plunk down $80 (less with the NAPP discount) for the LR5 upgrage - which I still maintain is only a dot upgrade.
I've used both Aperture, LR4 and LR5 Beta. Although LR's Develop module does an excellent job, the Folder/Collection based organization drives me bonkers. I really do prefer Aperture's Project-based management. Time to decide if I can hold out, or plunk down $80 (less with the NAPP discount) for the LR5 upgrage - which I still maintain is only a dot upgrade.