PSA: Large RAW files + Aperture 3 = HORRIBLE

[Phrasikleia]

Having spent probably 15 hours researching how to make aperture run fast, I ended up with a new computer and a new workflow.

I was having the same problems, A3 was taking what seemed like HOURS to do basic adjustments to 5DII RAW files... I was working on a 2007 24" iMac 2.4ghz C2D 6GB ram 256mb graphics ,with the library on a FW800 external. Slow as syrup.

Upgraded to a 27" 201 iMac 2.93i7 12GB ram with 1gb graphics, with the libraries on the internal SATA 2TB WD Black 7200rpm and A3 on the internal Vertex 2 SSD.

Gotta love a $3,000 solution to an $80 problem.

The new hardware makes a world of difference of course, but I feel that working from multiple, smaller libraries makes just as big a difference...I now create a new Library for every couple/event/shoot and store it on the internal HDD. I have been using this new workflow for a few days now and it works great. Aperture 3 is now acceptably fast and it does not slow me down. It keeps right up

Well, then so much for the organizational features of the application. You can't do keyword searches across libraries, so breaking up your collection into multiple libraries essentially nullifies half of Aperture's usefulness.

 

[MattSepeta]

Gotta love a $3,000 solution to an $80 problem.



Well, then so much for the organizational features of the application. You can't do keyword searches across libraries, so breaking up your collection into multiple libraries essentially nullifies half of Aperture's usefulness.

Such is life....

I tend to agree though, Aperture is slower than it should be, regardless. Photoshop ran pretty well on my old machine, unlike Aperture.

 

[Clark Kent]

On my 4 year old MBP, 20MB RAW files from a Nikon D7000 (16mp) are no slower to edit than 5MB RAW files from my old Nikon D40 (6mp).

Granted, there is some sluggishness here and there since I'm using a fairly old system, but it's absolutely useable.

Aperture seems to play nice with Nikon files in my experience.

 

[iDisk]

Whatever happened to the photographer, capturing the picture right the first time, so they can do less post work on the computer?? The digital age, spwans (click click click click) and then (edit edit edit edit edit) later on the computer for hours.

I'm not trying to insult or imply anything to anybody, but I spend very little time in post and more time in my environment, capturing the moments and doing my best to get it right the first time (must be my days of film kicking in). We are not video editors, we're Photographic Artist (at least some of us).....

With that said, Aperture is a fine program, for the artist who it's targeted towards.

 

[Clark Kent]

Whatever happened to the photographer, capturing the picture right the first time, so they can do less post work on the computer?? The digital age, spwans (click click click click) and then (edit edit edit edit edit) later on the computer for hours.

I'm not trying to insult or imply anything to anybody, but I spend very little time in post and more time in my environment, capturing the moments and doing my best to get it right the first time (must be my days of film kicking in). We are not video editors, we're Photographic Artist (at least some of us).....

With that said, Aperture is a fine program, for the artist who it's targeted towards.

Are you Ken Rockwell?

Editing in Aperture is a great thing and it's not always possible to get everything just right. I took a few hundred pictures of my daughter this weekend at a very important event in her life. Because the situation was once-in-a-lifetime and moved quickly, I had one chance to get the pictures. I shot in manual mode, bouncing my flash, quickly changing settings when necessary, but there are dozens of pictures where I couldn't get everything "just right" without missing a fantastic moment. Some are overexposed, some have white balance issues or color casts from the flash bouncing off non-white surfaces. Knowing that these things are 100% correctable in post lets me focus on capturing the moment.

Now if you're directing your comments toward the landscape photographers out there, I might understand it at bit more...

 

[CocoaBob]

Some suggestions...

Don't make the same mistake I did. I have a Canon 5DMK2 and I wanted something decent to make edits to my pictures when I'm on the road with my MBP, and I was suckered in by the $79 price point for Aperture. I downloaded a trial of LR and had fantastic success with it, but I didn't want to spend the money on it since Aperture was so much less. Huge mistake. LR3 is easily 10 times as fast when editing large RAW files. Fair warning to anyone out there considering Aperture for the same use.

hitek79,

Hopefully you've solved this problem by now. I've been using Aperture for several versions now, and haven't found it slow to the extent you talk about (ie. freezing for 10-30 secs). Granted, I'm running on different hardware: MacPro 1,1; 16GB, ATI Radeon 5770. But I have some questions/suggestions for you.

1. You don't specify the memory configuration of your 2009 MBP. Have you tried Aperture 3 on your 8GB Mac Pro 1,1? Does it show similar slowness ?

2. Are you running *any* other software on the MBP when you run Aperture. In particular, are you running any "virus detection" software (Norton, McAfee, etc)?

3. When Aperture 3 is running slow, does the Activity Monitor show that CPU usage at 100% ? What does it show as Disk Activity level?

4. Try running the Console app (Applications/Utilities/Console) while running Aperture 3. Does it report any Aperture related errors during the "slow" periods ?

5. Try turning off the "Faces" features of Aperture 3 (if you haven't already). It's under the Preference/General menu.

6. Try repairing the Aperture database. Start Aperture 3 holding down the Option and Command (⌘) keys. You should see a dialog window allowing you to repair Aperture permissions, repair the Aperture database or rebuild the database. You should try repairing the permissions and the database first. *Rebuild* the database only as a last resort.

Hope you find these suggestions/questions helpful; or at least, pointing you in a productive direction.

Of course, if Lightroom fulfills your needs, then go for it !! It's a wonderful product. And it never hurts to show that there is a lucrative and vibrant market for 3rd party Apple apps.

All the best,
Bob

 

[iDisk]

Are you Ken Rockwell?

Editing in Aperture is a great thing and it's not always possible to get everything just right. I took a few hundred pictures of my daughter this weekend at a very important event in her life. Because the situation was once-in-a-lifetime and moved quickly, I had one chance to get the pictures. I shot in manual mode, bouncing my flash, quickly changing settings when necessary, but there are dozens of pictures where I couldn't get everything "just right" without missing a fantastic moment. Some are overexposed, some have white balance issues or color casts from the flash bouncing off non-white surfaces. Knowing that these things are 100% correctable in post lets me focus on capturing the moment.

Now if you're directing your comments toward the landscape photographers out there, I might understand it at bit more...

No not ken lol ... he is a member on here though, under his name.

Again my comments weren't directed at anybody (meaning names on the forums). After doing film for awhile (I'm 25) and coming over to digital, I still use that same philosophy of just trying to have my camera capture what my eyes see, no matter what type of photography I'm doing.

I understand to that you can get everything "just right", but to hear the level of complaining about a post editing program (Aperture) to certain extents I've seen on the forums, have been quite interesting. Since only 10 years plus ago all or most were still on film without the luxury of the software we have today.

Which made us young photographers (in my case) have the fun of shooting and making sure we got it right.

 

[Ruahrc]

But for some types of shooting, "getting it right" in-camera is impossible and this notion as a rule is total BS. Shoot RAW? Then you will have to edit on the computer- as that is the whole point, giving you the creative freedom to make all the choices that turn the raw sensor data into a finished image.

You cannot blend exposures for HDR in-camera, and some (a lot) of the time a standard straight-edged GND won't work. Digital exposure blending provides a better result by allowing you to more selectively choose where to blend. You cannot stitch photos for panos or increased resolution in-camera (at least not yet for DSLRs anyway). I could go on and on.

Simply put, the computer is just as necessary a tool for the digital photographer as the darkroom was to the film shooter. Landscape shooters rarely have the luxury of getting it right in camera either. Ansel Adams never got it "right" in-camera, he shot the exposures he needed in the field and completed his vision in the darkroom.

Using PP to fix sloppy mistakes is one thing, and I agree- PP is not the answer. In reality there is precious little you can actually "fix" in PP as a result of sloppy shooting technique. You cannot rescue a photo taken with missed focus or motion blur due to camera shake (at least not without significant degradation in image quality), and correcting bad composition via cropping can be difficult too. Too much latitude on exposure errors will cost you in image quality in blown highlights or noisy shadows.

 

[Phrasikleia]

Whatever happened to the photographer, capturing the picture right the first time, so they can do less post work on the computer?? The digital age, spwans (click click click click) and then (edit edit edit edit edit) later on the computer for hours.

I'm not trying to insult or imply anything to anybody, but I spend very little time in post and more time in my environment, capturing the moments and doing my best to get it right the first time (must be my days of film kicking in). We are not video editors, we're Photographic Artist (at least some of us).....

With that said, Aperture is a fine program, for the artist who it's targeted towards.

After doing film for awhile (I'm 25) and coming over to digital, I still use that same philosophy of just trying to have my camera capture what my eyes see, no matter what type of photography I'm doing.

I understand to that you can get everything "just right", but to hear the level of complaining about a post editing program (Aperture) to certain extents I've seen on the forums, have been quite interesting. Since only 10 years plus ago all or most were still on film without the luxury of the software we have today.

Which made us young photographers (in my case) have the fun of shooting and making sure we got it right.

Well, have fun with the JPEGs that your camera produces for you. Personally, I think it's rather perverse to prefer what a camera can manage on its own over having the complete control that you get with processing RAW files. It's a naive notion that post-processing is only good for correcting problems.

You may be only 25, but surely you're old enough to have heard of this thing called a darkroom, in which people like Ansel Adams slaved away for hours, manipulating images to achieve creative results. It's the same now as it was back then: getting things "right" at the moment of capture is only half the battle.

 

[iDisk]

Well, have fun with the JPEGs that your camera produces for you. Personally, I think it's rather perverse to prefer what a camera can manage on its own over having the complete control that you get with processing RAW files. It's a naive notion that post-processing is only good for correcting problems.

You may be only 25, but surely you're old enough to have heard of this thing called a darkroom, in which people like Ansel Adams slaved away for hours, manipulating images to achieve creative results. It's the same now as it was back then: getting things "right" at the moment of capture is only half the battle.

You sound a little upset? I hope not, were just talking about a software program.

Assuming that one shoots with JPEGs is naive as well, and again you sound a little upset.

Of course I heard of a darkroom. Ansel Adams and others had to use those, being that their were no technology like their is today during that time. (Some still enjoy using them today as well, despite advancements in tech, depending on the photographer film is still relevant in their life)

Did I suggest anyone using a darkroom? Did I say post-work was dreaded awful? Did I mention anything about someone using there photos in a PS or PXM to do some creative things?

No ... I didn't... I just brought up the fact that it appears to be a bit of mis-understanding about how Aperture is compared to other "professional" post editors. I also mentioned how most artist try to "get it right" the first time, to save on post work.

Sounds like your trying to put words in my mouth, and steer the conversation into some heated debate... Well have fun with that, cause their are people who like to have actual conversations, and can present themselves accordingly.

Not really sure why your trying to jump on my back in a forum, based off something I didn't say ... Given the quality work you do (based off your site), someone with your experience should sorta see where I'm coming from.

...............

@ Ruahrc

I whole heartedly agree with your post.

And your right AA never always got it right the first shot ... But the cake was baked to perfection on that first shot and when he got to the darkroom, he added the toppings, icing etc... to make it become what he envisioned it. (Thats how I see it ).

................

If it's not clear already, Apple is making its "pro" apps more geared to the people who have been using the iLife suites who want to step it up..

ie: iPhoto -> Aperture
iMovie -> FCPX
soon to be garageband -> Logic Pro

I will never expect these apps to be compared to what others call "Real Pro" Apps, cause Apple doesn't view themselves in competition with them.

 

[OreoCookie]

Well, have fun with the JPEGs that your camera produces for you.

I think that's a little harsh.

Personally, I think it's rather perverse to prefer what a camera can manage on its own over having the complete control that you get with processing RAW files. It's a naive notion that post-processing is only good for correcting problems.

Thom Hogan discusses `becoming an expert at photography' and `becoming an expert at PP' a bit in his latest column (July 29th, 2011): the photographer is struggling to learn how to get it right when shooting while the post-processor has to extract the best from a the RAW materials. His observation that people usually tend to be inclined one way or the other jives with my own experience (as a hobbyist, mind you): I don't like fiddling with photos on the computer for hours. It was the same way when I still had my BW darkroom as a kid.

I don't think `getting it right at the first shot' is realistic, but it can be an aspiration suitable for some types of photography. I like my Sigma DP1: the camera is so slow that it is slowing me down. I have to take pictures more deliberately and I don't mind exchanging 6 fps with (felt) 0.3 fps. You get less shots to process.

 

[Phrasikleia]

I think that's a little harsh.

Thom Hogan discusses `becoming an expert at photography' and `becoming an expert at PP' a bit in his latest column (July 29th, 2011): the photographer is struggling to learn how to get it right when shooting while the post-processor has to extract the best from a the RAW materials. His observation that people usually tend to be inclined one way or the other jives with my own experience (as a hobbyist, mind you): I don't like fiddling with photos on the computer for hours. It was the same way when I still had my BW darkroom as a kid.

I don't think `getting it right at the first shot' is realistic, but it can be an aspiration suitable for some types of photography. I like my Sigma DP1: the camera is so slow that it is slowing me down. I have to take pictures more deliberately and I don't mind exchanging 6 fps with (felt) 0.3 fps. You get less shots to process.

Well, then maybe I didn't do a good job of expressing myself. Getting things right at the moment of capture is a must--I subscribe to that philosophy wholeheartedly (note that I prefer the term "at the moment of capture" to the term "in camera.") But the process doesn't end there. The photographer still has decisions to make when processing the image, whether that processing is done in a computer or a darkroom. Getting it right in the computer is just as important. The alternative is letting the camera's processing software take the reins for you.

 

[TheReef]

Ruahrc and Phrasikleia said the same thing...

@iDisk, This recent thread seems to be a more appropriate place for your topic.

The second reason I'm frustrated is I'm on an Apple computer using Apple software, and they don't seem to play all that well together.

Sorry to hear of your problems, it's a bit of a shame, you'd think Apple'd have an advantage here to write optimised code for their own platform.
I haven't researched the area thoroughly but I'll take a stab and say it comes down to Adobe's heritage in image manipulation algorithms vs Apple's relatively new core image frameworks not being utilised as effectively.


I'm still on A2 working fine on my Mac mini with 4GB of ram, it's interesting to read of people having varying levels of success with A3, which has a lot of tempting features for me.

Hopefully A4 will be a big leap forward. It's still a lot cheaper than Adobe's offerings

 

[iDisk]

Ruahrc and Phrasikleia said the same thing...

@iDisk, This recent thread seems to be a more appropriate place for your topic.

Post number 50 in that thread sums up my views... Which is what I said here btw

 

[OreoCookie]

Well, then maybe I didn't do a good job of expressing myself. Getting things right at the moment of capture is a must--I subscribe to that philosophy wholeheartedly (note that I prefer the term "at the moment of capture" to the term "in camera.") But the process doesn't end there. The photographer still has decisions to make when processing the image, whether that processing is done in a computer or a darkroom. Getting it right in the computer is just as important. The alternative is letting the camera's processing software take the reins for you.

Agreed: the computer is the last step between the photographer pressing the shutter release and the `output' (whether it's print, published online or used as part of a photo book). Ideally, photographers should be proficient in all of those steps, but in practice, we all have our strengths, preferences and biases. Not only that, I reckon most photographers tend to learn things when they become necessary (e. g. by running into limitations or by being asked to do something they haven't done before).

 

[MattSepeta]

Whatever happened to the photographer, capturing the picture right the first time, so they can do less post work on the computer?? The digital age, spwans (click click click click) and then (edit edit edit edit edit) later on the computer for hours.

Welcome to the 21st century... We have these great things called computers that allow us to do things our photographer predecessors were technologically NOT ABLE to do. They did not have access to it.

Using a computer to work on your images is no different than using a tripod, using a ND filter, using a fast aperture lens.

 

[hitek79]

hitek79,

Hopefully you've solved this problem by now. I've been using Aperture for several versions now, and haven't found it slow to the extent you talk about (ie. freezing for 10-30 secs). Granted, I'm running on different hardware: MacPro 1,1; 16GB, ATI Radeon 5770. But I have some questions/suggestions for you.

1. You don't specify the memory configuration of your 2009 MBP. Have you tried Aperture 3 on your 8GB Mac Pro 1,1? Does it show similar slowness ?

2. Are you running *any* other software on the MBP when you run Aperture. In particular, are you running any "virus detection" software (Norton, McAfee, etc)?

3. When Aperture 3 is running slow, does the Activity Monitor show that CPU usage at 100% ? What does it show as Disk Activity level?

4. Try running the Console app (Applications/Utilities/Console) while running Aperture 3. Does it report any Aperture related errors during the "slow" periods ?

5. Try turning off the "Faces" features of Aperture 3 (if you haven't already). It's under the Preference/General menu.

6. Try repairing the Aperture database. Start Aperture 3 holding down the Option and Command (⌘) keys. You should see a dialog window allowing you to repair Aperture permissions, repair the Aperture database or rebuild the database. You should try repairing the permissions and the database first. *Rebuild* the database only as a last resort.

Hope you find these suggestions/questions helpful; or at least, pointing you in a productive direction.

Of course, if Lightroom fulfills your needs, then go for it !! It's a wonderful product. And it never hurts to show that there is a lucrative and vibrant market for 3rd party Apple apps.

All the best,
Bob

My MBP has 4gigs of RAM. Nothing big, but it should be adequate considering the hardware and software are basically made for each other.

I do have Aperture on my MacPro, but never really use it. If I'm on my MacPro I'm doing a final edit using CS5 and taking advantage of a large calibrated monitor, not just quick retouches.

I'm not running any virus software, and I have not checked out the activity monitor. I know I probably should, but again, I'm just looking to do some quick but nice edits, not spend large amounts of time trying to optimize Aperture. The reason I switched to Apple was that I just wanted everything to work out of the box, and until now everything has.

Thanks for all of your suggestions, I'll take some time to go thru them and see what I come up with. Cheers!

 

[hitek79]

Whatever happened to the photographer, capturing the picture right the first time, so they can do less post work on the computer?? The digital age, spwans (click click click click) and then (edit edit edit edit edit) later on the computer for hours.

I'm not trying to insult or imply anything to anybody, but I spend very little time in post and more time in my environment, capturing the moments and doing my best to get it right the first time (must be my days of film kicking in). We are not video editors, we're Photographic Artist (at least some of us).....

With that said, Aperture is a fine program, for the artist who it's targeted towards.

I have a full darkroom set up in my basement. I've spent WAY more time in the darkroom than I do using computers to process my pictures.

 

[Benjamindaines]

Dunno what you're talking about man. I have the same camera as you. I'm also running Aperture 3 on a 2011 MacBook Pro and it flies through the RAW files.

If you're seeing slow import speeds, you probably have a USB 1.1 card reader or slow CF cards. If this is not your first DSLR my guess would be that you kept your CF cards from the last camera, and this is probably your issue. When I got my MK2, I had to buy 30 MB/s cards to handle the file sizes.

 

[hitek79]

Import speeds are fine.

 

[seedster2]

Gotta love a $3,000 solution to an $80 problem.

Well, then so much for the organizational features of the application. You can't do keyword searches across libraries, so breaking up your collection into multiple libraries essentially nullifies half of Aperture's usefulness.

I am just not confident in Apple's commitment to professional software. Like their computers but even their OS is headed the way of oversimplification

Whatever happened to the photographer, capturing the picture right the first time, so they can do less post work on the computer?? The digital age, spwans (click click click click) and then (edit edit edit edit edit) later on the computer for hours.

I'm not trying to insult or imply anything to anybody, but I spend very little time in post and more time in my environment, capturing the moments and doing my best to get it right the first time (must be my days of film kicking in). We are not video editors, we're Photographic Artist (at least some of us).....

With that said, Aperture is a fine program, for the artist who it's targeted towards.

This is a ridiculous post. It's attacking the user rather than addressing the observed performance issues some are discussing. You took a similar approach in a lot of FCP X contributions. While it's nice that you bring balance to some of the one sided conversations, this post sounds like a paid advertisement for the Apple brand protection team.

Image


Welcome to the 21st century... We have these great things called computers that allow us to do things our photographer predecessors were technologically NOT ABLE to do. They did not have access to it.

Using a computer to work on your images is no different than using a tripod, using a ND filter, using a fast aperture lens.

Agreed 100%

 

[hitek79]

3.2 is worse

Finally updated to 3.2 and that was a huge mistake. Somehow this program is now even slower.

 

[Mr.Noisy]

Finally updated to 3.2 and that was a huge mistake. Somehow this program is now even slower.

I dont understand why your having issue's with A3, I have it installed on a mp 1,1 with 12gb of RAM and use sRAW1 and full RAW files from a 5D2 and it's fine, but I run it in 32bit mode for the Nik filter plugins, speedwise I have no problems, I use it so much cs4 is now gathering dust waiting to be used

 

[flosseR]

Finally updated to 3.2 and that was a huge mistake. Somehow this program is now even slower.

Yea, no offense but this is more of a user problem in my opinion. God knows what else you have installed or running. Aperture 3.2 IMPROVED speeds actually..

I think you should do a rebuild of your machine, leave EVERYTHING additional that you've now off and try with each additional installation on how it affects the speed. I did this and noticed that little snitch caused a major slow down with another software.. even though that software was not even accessing the network.

So, there are too many factors and all we hear is "its too slow".. well, if it is too slow then get lightroom since you seem so convinced that it is so much better. Why beat the horse more?

 

[maflynn]

Finally updated to 3.2 and that was a huge mistake. Somehow this program is now even slower.

I'm running 3.2 and I'm not seeing any performance degradation. I have a mixture of 6mp/12mp/10mp RAW files and my 2010 MBP is chugging away not chocking at all.

Aperture is no speed demon but its not lethargic either.