Scott Bourne to ditch Aperture?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by steveash, May 30, 2012.

  1. steveash macrumors 6502

    steveash

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2008
    Location:
    UK
    #1
    In yesterday's post on the popular Photofocus blog Scott Bourne raised his disappointment with Apple for their slow updates of Aperture. He threatens to move over to Lightroom, suggesting that it offers better image processing but also says that with half a million images in Aperture this may take some time! For those who don't know Scott he has been one of the leading advocates and trainers of Aperture use.

    http://photofocus.com/2012/05/29/heres-why-im-seriously-considering-a-permanent-switch-to-adobe-lightroom/

    With Apple's general trend towards the larger consumer market are they deserting the creative professionals that were the foundation of the brand. Scott mentions about the slow and turbulent development of Final Cut and fears the same for Aperture. I would also add to that the slow development of Mac Pro hardware and a general dumbing down of software to be consumer friendly rather than creative tools.

    So to be devil's advocate, is there a future for Apple with creative professionals?
     
  2. OreoCookie, May 30, 2012
    Last edited: May 30, 2012

    OreoCookie macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2001
    Location:
    Sendai, Japan
    #2
    The argument that just because Apple is making more money of other groups, they are deserting creative professionals is a non sequitur: Although I agree that Apple had better updated Aperture some time ago to keep up with the rapid pace Adobe sets, I don't think Apple's introduction of Final Cut Pro X serves well as an argument: in that case it's quite clear that Apple thinks Final Cut Pro X is the future of professional video editing. (Whether video pros will agree with Apple's vision in the long run is of course another question.) Apple clearly does try to contribute to pro markets.

    Also, I don't think simplification is the same as dumbing down: simplifying making backups, for instance, is a net benefit. In the same sense, neither Lightroom nor Aperture are »dumbed down« versions of Photoshop.

    In any case, thanks for the link.
     
  3. GoCubsGo macrumors Nehalem

    GoCubsGo

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2005
    #3
    The question is how does Lightroom compare to Aperture in terms of protecting and storing originals? Earlier, Aperture prevailed; today, I am unsure. I completely agree that Apple's updates are far too sporadic.
     
  4. OreoCookie macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2001
    Location:
    Sendai, Japan
    #4
    AFAIK Adobe hasn't added any file management/backup features to Lightroom 4 (e. g. an analog of Aperture Vaults).
     
  5. Kebabselector macrumors 68030

    Kebabselector

    Joined:
    May 25, 2007
    Location:
    Birmingham, UK
    #5
    Lightroom doesn't modify original files so there's no need to protect them. There is a backup for the database it uses.
     
  6. GoCubsGo macrumors Nehalem

    GoCubsGo

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2005
    #6
    I'm talking about storing them like the vault.
     
  7. maflynn Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #7
    Can't say that I'm surprised, LightRoom overtook Aperture a while ago. They (adobe) have a better track record with updates and with their beta program its more transparent to what is occuring, i.e., updates.

    Apple's secretive policy only hurts sales in these professional sectors.

    Aperture is not a bad product, but Lightroom caught up and over took them feature wise a few versions ago and while AP still has some nice features like the Vault for backing up. I have no problems backing up my images, its just a bit more manual. I also make sure they are included in my Time Machine backup. LR has captured the hearts and minds of professional photographers (not that I am one) and aperture is quickly becoming a niche product that is losing its customer base

    I fully expect apple to make aperture a less professional and more consumer featured app. Of course if (when?) they do that, how will it fit into apple's product family with iPhoto being the defacto image software they have for consumers.

    FCPX is just one example of apple moving away from the professional sector, the lack of updates to MacPro are another and what about apple's other pro apps when were they last updated?
     
  8. Kebabselector macrumors 68030

    Kebabselector

    Joined:
    May 25, 2007
    Location:
    Birmingham, UK
    #8
    You can import them into it's own library - but I prefer to leave where they are and let LR reference them that way.

    Imported files as with reference files aren't modified so originals are protected that way - I've no experience of if the original files are backed up.
     
  9. steveash thread starter macrumors 6502

    steveash

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2008
    Location:
    UK
    #9
    I'm perhaps not accurate with the phrase dumbing down, it is more a change of focus. They seem to be spending more time on making the software easy to use rather than adding features that would add commercial value to the end product. For example in version 3 Aperture got Faces and Maps while Lightroom got lens corrections and improved raw processing.

    I do agree that the vault is a really strong feature of Aperture.
     
  10. maflynn Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #10
    LR can copy the originals to an alternative location on import, but other then that you the user has to take care of backing up of images.

    I have a folder structure by year, i.e., 2012, 2011 with the current year on my laptop. I make sure that is backed up by way of Time Machine. I have prior years on my NAS and I back them up on an external drive so that I have 2x copies of my images.

    ----------

    There's a lot I like about Aperture, but with apple's lack transparency about it and its poor noise handling I'm not terribly tempted to leave LR.

    I do love the vault feature myself, its a great feature to ensure your data is safe.

    With adobe, you have a long history of image editing and focus on the professionals and that gives me a peace of mind that where LR is going.
     
  11. steveash thread starter macrumors 6502

    steveash

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2008
    Location:
    UK
  12. OreoCookie macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2001
    Location:
    Sendai, Japan
    #12
    AFAIK Aperture 3 has seen improvements in its RAW engine.

    However, in addition to the Faces and Maps (which I agree seem like iPhoto features bolted onto Aperture), Apple has introduced some significant bugs into the book editor. E. g. the fact that you can no longer change the layering of text (moving to front/back or changing layer by +/- 1 does not work) drives me crazy. Perhaps we're just arguing semantics, but I'd call it lack of polish/attention to detail rather than having the wrong focus. In principle, I'm all for making better use of geolocation data, but .

    Personally, I'll wait for the next version of Aperture to make up my mind. I'd really, really hate to switch to Lightroom as my way to work and think is more free flowing and does not jive very well with Lightroom's rigid module-centric UI. And I'd also hate to put in more effort into managing my files and their backups. Perhaps Apple is working on a complete revamp such as they did with Final Cut Pro (again, I reiterate that I think Apple really is targeting the pro market with that piece of software and not some broader prosumer market), and I'm curious what they're going to do.
     
  13. jammiefreerider macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2006
    #13
    Aperture is one of Apple top selling Apps in it present "professional" form so I see no reason for Apple to dumb it down as prosumers and enthusiasts are already loving it.

    I think Apple are having a rebuild with a lot of thought based on ideas gained from FCPX, namely the meta data workflow. I think the next version is going to be fairly radical change to the present version and it would be foolish to jump ship now (even tho you won't see an update for another year).

    You can't just jump ship because LR is better in this round of updates, you'll keep jumping and you'll never end up happy. You are happy with Aperture because you've been using it for the past 2/3+ years so ignore LR for the time being and be patient.

    On a side note: I want Scott Bourne to stay with Aperture just to help keep Scott Kelby from slagging off Aperture.
     
  14. maflynn Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #14
    I don't believe its apple's top selling pro app because pros are buying it but rather its doing well because prosumers/enthusiasts are buying it on the MAS.

    I do expect apple to add more consumer features and less professional features for the next version. They want to make it more popular to the consumers so they continue buy it.
     
  15. snberk103 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Location:
    An Island in the Salish Sea
    #15
    Good advice. Migrating is a serious project. I'm not saying "don't migrate" ... just to make sure that you won't regret the decision if/when Apple updates Aperture. The idea is to leave a sinking a ship, not one that may have merely been becalmed for a time.
     
  16. nuckinfutz macrumors 603

    nuckinfutz

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2002
    Location:
    Middle Earth
    #16
    Oh come on Scott.

    First he contradicts himself by calling out the death of Steve being causal to Apple's lack of focus and then calls FCPX a debacle which Steve was very much alive for.

    Aperture is on a two year dev cycle and it, like many other applications, appears to be somewhat delayed.

    I am so tired of the "Apple doesn't care for for creatives" meme. It's boring and futile. Apple's not going to give you roadmaps. They never have and never will with any consistency. Deal with it.

    Frankly I think the whining comes with from people with a lack of skill. The best image editing I've seen was from a guy that was using 4 generation of Photoshop behind the current version.

    A poor Craftsman blames his tools.
     
  17. danpass macrumors 68020

    danpass

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2009
    Location:
    Miami, FL
    #17
    I bought it on the MAS. $79.99 couldn't be beat and I ended up liking it better than LR (on Windows).
     
  18. maflynn Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #18
    I think that's why its so popular. The price is a lot cheaper then LR, it does do a good job but I think more consumers/prosumers are using it then professionals. I have no statistics on this, just my opinion but if the demographics is correct how long will apple support to consumer image editing/asset management apps (iPhoto & aperture) At some point they may merge or kill one off.
     
  19. snberk103 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Location:
    An Island in the Salish Sea
    #19
    Interestingly, you can get Lr for $79 now if you are a student or teacher. I wonder if Aperture was taking that much business away from Adobe?
     
  20. nuckinfutz macrumors 603

    nuckinfutz

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2002
    Location:
    Middle Earth
    #20
    There really is no way to merge the two.

    iPhoto is enough for the average consumer and not enough for the serious Prosumer/Professional.

    Just the flexibility in being able to manage or create a custom folder structure in Aperture wins versus iPhoto's "everything in a bucket" approach.
     
  21. maflynn Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #21
    No because they always offered that even before aperture hit the MAS
     
  22. snberk103 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Location:
    An Island in the Salish Sea
    #22
    Hmmm (that's my thinking noise).... it may have been discounted before Aperture hit the MAS, but I recall buying LR2 or LR3 at lesser discount (I get a faculty rate) ... I think it was $100 instead of $150... but I could be wrong. But I do remember thinking that the $79 rate was a great discount.

    So... do you think Adobe got wind of Apple's pricing earl (not likely), or that Adobe matched the Apple pricing, or was it just a coincidence? I guess we'll never know, though, eh?
     
  23. maflynn Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #23
    I don't remember the price myself. I too purchased LR's academic flavor from adobe. I meant to convey that adobe had the discount before aperture's price reduction, plus adobe is pretty strict in making sure you qualify for the academic version. Because of that, I don't think any price cut by them was in response to apple
     
  24. WRP macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2011
    Location:
    Boston
  25. Ruahrc macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2009
    #25
    You could actually argue that Aperture's lowered pricing was in response to Lightroom. LR always had a cheap option for academics, while Aperture was initially more expensive. That they reduced to $79 all-around could be seen as an effort to keep competitive with LR.

    That SB is threatening to leave aperture shouldn't bother or surprise anybody. His whims move with the tides, or more like towards which direction the most sponsorship/profit dollars flow. I believe he originally was a LR user and then went to AP.
     

Share This Page