What makes Aperture better than Photoshop?

lamina

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Mar 9, 2006
1,753
41
Niagara
I have tried Aperture for photo editing, and have found it pretty much useless. Keep in mind that I have never really used it much before, and have years of experience with Photoshop.

So, what is it about Aperture that would make someone consider it better than Photoshop?
 

FleurDuMal

macrumors 68000
May 31, 2006
1,802
0
London Town
lamina said:
I have tried Aperture for photo editing, and have found it pretty much useless. Keep in mind that I have never really used it much before, and have years of experience with Photoshop.

So, what is it about Aperture that would make someone consider it better than Photoshop?
From what I gather, Aperture is more of a photo management software rather than an editing suite. It's useful if you have a large workflow as it saves you a lot of space compared to iPhoto, and has great dual monitor features. However, Photoshop will always remain king in the editing department.
 

snap58

macrumors 6502
Jan 29, 2006
310
0
somewhere in kansas
lamina said:
I have tried Aperture for photo editing, and have found it pretty much useless. Keep in mind that I have never really used it much before, and have years of experience with Photoshop.

So, what is it about Aperture that would make someone consider it better than Photoshop?
What?

Aperture is not meant to compete with Photoshop, in fact it is set up to allow you to open an external editor such as Photoshop. I bet almost everyone that uses Aperture, also uses Photoshop for editing. You may want to check out Apples Site, they have some nice QT's on Aperture and what it is designed to do.
 

Clix Pix

macrumors demi-goddess
Aperture is NOT "better than Photoshop," it complements PS and in some instances can be used instead of PS. If I've gone out and shot 100 images, I can come home, stick the CF card into the card reader, open Aperture and upload them right into Aperture, then review the images and immediately rank them. Say I've got 25 that are really outstanding from this bunch, I shift them to a separate folder within Aperture and then if they require a little modification, can check the exposure, sharpen a little, maybe adjust the saturation a little, possibly crop if I feel the image would be improved by doing that, then immediately can output to a folder on my desktop, ready to be uploaded (correctly resized and all) to my SmugMug account or shared with friends in email. This can take significantly less time than in CS2 or Bridge. Now if I've got an image or two that I'd like to do more editing on, while within Aperture I can open up CS2 and work in that program as well.

I tend not to do much manipulation of my images -- I prefer to shoot them right the first time in the camera rather than depending too much on fancy footwork in CS2. I rarely use layers or filters. I have found that 99% of the time I can use just Aperture to post-process my images, and that it is a great time-saver, but I would not give up CS2 and use only Aperture.
 

Grimace

macrumors 68040
Feb 17, 2003
3,541
35
with Hamburglar.
Depends on what you mean when you say "edit".

If you want to do a lot of post-processing and batch post-processing of RAW images, Aperture is great. It can easily change the white balance, saturation, exposure, color balancing, metadata data, copyright info, KEYWORDS, exporting to web directories, and more -- for a lot of photos at once. It is similar to iPhoto in that you house the photos in albums directly in the program.

This is important for some workflows that require you to sort through thousands of images by the aforementioned categories. I have tens of thousands of images and frequently need to find specific images by categories -- even sorting by which camera I used for the shoot.

Photoshop has layers. That makes it a whole different type of editing. Many photographers who use Aperture don't want to manipulate the image in the way that Photoshop can, so that the image stays a little more "pure". Adjusting overall levels isn't considered to be "doctoring" the image as much.

Different programs for different uses. Some things overlap, but I wouldn't consider them competing programs.
 

FrankieTDouglas

macrumors 65816
Mar 10, 2005
1,490
2,094
I use Bridge, but get frustrated that it always has to reload the preview images of all of my raw files each time I reopen a folder. Is there a way to avoid this?
 

ChrisA

macrumors G4
Jan 5, 2006
11,610
408
Redondo Beach, California
lamina said:
So, what is it about Aperture that would make someone consider it better than Photoshop?
Aperture is not better than PS. They do different jobs
Aperture is not an image editor. It's purpose is to streamline workflow and catalog images