I tried and abandoned all versions of Aperture until 3. Now I do almost everything in it. I used to use Adobe Bridge + PHotoshop, dipping into iPhoto for quick slide shows. A big win for me is the integration with iLife/iWork media browsing. I also like Places since I've got a GPS on my camera. Much improved editing over previous versions, and basically all I need, only leaving for HDR, panos, and rare tricky Photoshop work.
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.
Verdict on Aperture 3
- Thread starter maflynn
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
A3 is great, no doubt about it. There is only one thing that is so sad. There are in some cases bugs that are easy to fix but that are really annoying. Example: I cant scroll trough my library in split view. Only in full screen view. These small bugs are really frustrating and i hope Apple will fix them quickly. If they do, there is no better photo editing and keeping program in the world.
Have been using Aperture since v1.5. Love it. I can't imagine going back to a Photoshop workflow especially with RAW. If all I had was Photoshop, I'd shoot JPEG.
I use CS3 almost everyday, for graphic design stuff, but its only use these days is as a vehicle for the 32-bit Silver Efex Pro. With the new 64-bit version, I'll probably stay in Aperture for it.
I use CS3 almost everyday, for graphic design stuff, but its only use these days is as a vehicle for the 32-bit Silver Efex Pro. With the new 64-bit version, I'll probably stay in Aperture for it.
I wasn't trying to question anyone's knowledge, expertise, or whether you know how to use PS. I was just saying that A3/L3 and PS are different tools. And often, PS is not the program most people need. So let's get back to the discussion at hand.
I vote no for A3
Actually what he describes as "resolution independent" is exactly what is referred to as resolution independent in the compositing world all the time. What your saying is absolutely correct, BUT that term is used, in exactly that way, when your working with Nuke and the like.
My investment in Aperture 3 and Photoshop CS3 Extended is the only reason why I'm still using Mac OS X. (And no, I wouldn't be using Windows instead.)
However, I'm not sure if I will invest in another software update. After 20+ years in the industry, I'm sick and tired of being artificially forced to update my software on a regular basis and am now seriously considering going open source with everything.
However, I'm not sure if I will invest in another software update. After 20+ years in the industry, I'm sick and tired of being artificially forced to update my software on a regular basis and am now seriously considering going open source with everything.
I wasn't trying to question anyone's knowledge, expertise, or whether you know how to use PS. I was just saying that A3/L3 and PS are different tools. And often, PS is not the program most people need. So let's get back to the discussion at hand.
I vote no for A3
My nose was not out of joint, sorry if I came off that way. First point is that personal preference dictates whether A3 or LR3 works better.
My larger point, hidden in all that blather, is that A3 is indeed the same type of tool as pshop... at least for most imaging tasks. There are times when you need some more heavy lifting and need to use pshop, but many folks can get away fine with an older version like CS3. The only reason I went there is that many people view Aperture only as an archiving program, and I would argue that it is a much more effective tool for imaging than Photoshop is...
Peace,
Michael
I tried going to Linux for a period of time, but I was stopped because of the lack of apps and the tweaking needed to get linux working on my system.
What seems to be common phenomenon; a number of open source applications start with great fanfare but then stall during the development cycle. They're stuck at 0.X version. So while there may be an application that I like or need its stopped being updated which may be a problem because fedora and ubuntu are on a 6 month update process. Then there's the lack of polished apps. While there are some great examples of open source apps, many of them lack the polish, flexibility, power that many commercial apps have.
Then there's that fact, with fedora, its recommended to fully reinstall the OS then update in place, i.e., reformat and reinstall. I just don't have the time/energy to install fedora and do the myriads of tweaks that are needed to get fedora to work on my desktop.
Finally, there is no viable alternative to Aperture or LightRoom on the open source front, i.e., great DAM apps that also use non destructive editing, at least none that I could locate.
A3 is terrible for RAW conversion, at least for Nikon. So I do my raw conversions outside of A3 (either in RPP or Nikon Capture NX2) and import as TIFF into A3. Very inefficient workflow. I can't recommend A3 until Apple gets their RAW act together.
Could you actually expand on this statement a bit? I've both just started to shoot raw and started using A3, slow as it is on my original core duo MBP. I'm quite curious to know what it is that I'm missing by doing my raw conversion in A3 vs. one of the other suites.
If others have opinions about raw conversion in A3, I'd certainly love to hear them as well.
Thanks!
Well, for my my Nikon .nef files the blues are way off and unnatural in A3 compared to NX2. Try it yourself. Convert a .nef file - say one with blue sky - in NX2, save it a a 16 bit .tiff file and import into A3. Then convert the raw .nef file in A3 and compare the two. If it isn't obvious, measure the blue sky values in both with the loupe tool and see what you get. You will see that they are dramatically different and, to me, the A3 version is wrong. It gets worse if you apply the quick fix-->auto enhance control. There is an extensive discussion of this by RW Boyer on his site and on the apple Aperture forum.
I LOVE Aperture ! I'm not using it for work but, as an amateur, it's not as complicated as Adobe products and quite powerful. I use it on my 27" iMac @ home and haven't yet found any bugs (but as I said I use it as an amateur)
I use it and like it, with the exception of the slowness. I use it on a recent macbook (2.4 dual core, 4gb ram) but it is pretty slow. Granted I am editing 5DmkII files (ie ~30mb each) so that could have a little to do with it.
I am curious from those users in here, what type of systems do you have if you are satisfied with the performance of A3. I am going to be getting a new desktop system (27 imac likely) next year. Is 8gb of ram going to do it or will I have to splash out and get 16gb to get rid of most of the "loading" messages and lags between applying a brush and seeing it on the screen? I am assuming the processor isn't the bottle neck, that its the ram (though I will prob get a quad core, for when they finally write apps to use them).
Thoughts?
I am curious from those users in here, what type of systems do you have if you are satisfied with the performance of A3. I am going to be getting a new desktop system (27 imac likely) next year. Is 8gb of ram going to do it or will I have to splash out and get 16gb to get rid of most of the "loading" messages and lags between applying a brush and seeing it on the screen? I am assuming the processor isn't the bottle neck, that its the ram (though I will prob get a quad core, for when they finally write apps to use them).
Thoughts?
I waited to upgrade to A3 until I got my i7. I was on an aging but trusty 1st gen 24" white iMac, and only had 3gb of ram. A2 ran fine, but my library was huge, and held off Snow Leopard as well for the same reason. Obviously there is a huge difference in ram & horsepower between the old & new machines... I am a happy camper.
Can't speak to the 8gb, as I dropped in 16gb third party ram before I even upgraded to A3. Also, I keep the libraries on my internal drive to avoid bottlenecks, and run most everything else off a 4tb Western HD (with another 4tb for Time Machine). Everything works great for me. A few occasional screen glitches switching from regular to full-screen (which could be due to the ProKit upgrade that just came out), but the latest update has made everything a lot faster (scrolling, exporting, etc). Anxious for NIK to finish up updating everything to 64 bit...
My i7 is top of the line, and handles A3 perfectly, and at well over half the cost of a Pro tower. No regrets. A3 is a substantial upgrade over A2...
cheers,
michael
Based on what I've seen, a fast quad core with 6GB of RAM is ideal for Aperture. And if possible, running your library from an SSD can make a big difference. I've also been corresponding with Barefeats, who does a lot of Mac testing, reviews and benchmarking, and he's been unable to get A3 to use more than 3 CPU cores and 6GB of RAM. It's also not clear what A3 can leverage from your GPU, but a better GPU certainly can't hurt now or for future considerations. At any rate, I'm afraid CPU clock speed is still king.
I never made it to Aperture 3, unfortunately. Initially, I demoed both Aperture and Lightroom 2 and bought into Aperture. The UI is great, the app as a whole is great, but something was missing for me. Once I heard LR3 was going to incorporate new NR abilities and lens-specific profiles, I made the switch to LR2 and prepared for LR3, which I'm now using. Another thing is performance and sustainability. LR3 license is for both Mac and Windows; obviously with Aperture you are locked into Apple taking you for the ride. Not a deal breaker but still a bullet point.
The one thing I do miss from Aperture is the fantastic and seamless integration within OS X. And hell, maybe in a year or two I'll move back
The one thing I do miss from Aperture is the fantastic and seamless integration within OS X. And hell, maybe in a year or two I'll move back