|
Apple never releases info about their applications before they're released. The most I've ever seen them do is let everyone know that they would no longer be updating or supporting Shake because they are working on a replacement for it (possibly coming out in a couple weeks at NAB).
All that aside, I haven't even heard any rumors about what will be in it or when it will be coming out.
Posted 38 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
i'd say jump and do it quickly ...
Posted 38 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
@El TiDy -
Why? What do you think is going to happen?
Posted 38 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Thomas, I agree very much with your points above, maybe except #4 which has no real relevance to me.
Global presets are what I miss the most, and I'm sure Apple knows that this has to be implemented in some way in version 3. Actually, global presets would solve both #1 and #2, as #1 seems to be nothing but camera/setting specific global presets.
Of course, better RAW decoding and faster camera support updates would be nice, but that might be too much to ask.
Posted 38 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Actually #1 in lightroom doesn't effect the development parameters at all. It creates a new baseline to start from based on what the camera's picture profile setting. It's doing this quite well. It's much more like Capture NX (I'm a nikon shooter), but without the miserable interface of Capture NX.
#4 doesn't matter much to me either... but it might some day.
Posted 38 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
- i was being sarcastic ... every aperture forum is full of people whining about this and that and it not being updated and threatening to jump ship to lightroom ... thinking that apple is abandoning them - boo hoo ...
same flipping crap that was being spewed the few months before 2.x came out ... then all of the sudden aperture was god again ... pardon me but i get tired of it ...
i like to think that they are hard at work behind hte scenes and will once again blow people's socks off with the next release ... and then people using lightroom will cry and whine and threaten to jump ship to aperture ... it is never ending ...
Posted 38 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
That's what I'm hoping for. I'm a total Apple fanboy. I'd MUCH rather use Aperture.
Posted 38 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Last rumour was that it would come out sometime in next few weeks, around same time as other pro apps get updated ahead of the NAB conference. Whether it's a minor or major update I don't know. it's due for an update though, since it's been months since anything significant was updated.
Posted 38 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I'll cross my fingers.... because I'm playing with the 30 day trial of light room and the "collections" is driving me nuts. Aperture really dominates when it comes to the "DAM" features.
Posted 38 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I much prefer to work in Aperture, but I have to admit there are a few nice things about Lightroom. The mentioned global presets and the colour profiles are good examples.
Another is actually of a more serious character. Being made by Adobe, a company fully dedicated to professional image software through decades, I expect Lightroom to be a better longterm investment. If one day Apple decides to pull the plug on Aperture, what then? Will there be a way to export or migrate the library to another system or platform, including edits, adjustments, metadata and so on? I think that unless Adobe for some reason ceases to exist one day, Lightroom will always evolve in ways that allow for seamless migrations of older libraries.
Here and now, it's not a problem, but the nagging feeling that some day Apple will pull the plug on Aperture arises every time a major update is due/overdue.
As Lightroom gets better and better, I more and more often consider switching. More secure future, global presets, colour profiles, Nik Software plugins - it all sounds nice. But still Aperture is so much better to work in, so for now I stay. But the longer I stay, the more work I'll have migrating tens of thousands images when I eventually make the switch. If ever. Let's hope Aperture 3 is not the last.
Posted 38 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Lightroom gets better? I used it in it's beta days and I kept listening to Adobe promise that it would be the product we were all waiting for. They kept promising improvements, and they were given tons of ideas for such improvements.
They didn't listen.
They are now on version 2.3 and they haven't fixed the ancient interface they used for the beta. I kept thinking that would change for v1, but it didn't.
They still use the module system, which most of it's user base complains about. Because of the module system you still can only have one image viewable in the develop module at a time, which means no side by side comparisons while editing.
Collections are still kept separate from Folders, or whatever they are calling it this version. Makes for a complete mess in my opinion.
While I like the new adjustment brush, it is sluggish at best on my not that old MBP. It's just doesn't tip the scales enough for me to overlook all the bad.
While global presets are nice, I rarely used them when I used Lr. I couldn't find two shoots that required the exact same edits. Once the perfect edit has been achieved within a shoot the lift and stamp tool works perfectly.
Each app has it's pros and cons and each user has to decided what is important for them. For me Aperture is still leaps and bounds ahead in the areas I need. In either app I am likely to use Ps for the real editing so the DAM is more important up front.
Posted 38 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
if i recall correctly this is a similar situation to adobe premiere and apple final cut ... where are those two today ???
Originally posted 38 months ago.
(permalink)
El TiDY edited this topic 38 months ago.
|
|
When I started film school an editor friend who was in fourth year justified taking out a bank loan to spend five figures on an AVID system because he was convinced that Final Cut, which was then in version 1.0 or 2.0, would go nowhere if Apple didn't launch dedicated hardware to go along with it.
When Final Cut turned out to be a very usable product, he stuck with the AVID system because he was sure AVID would do whatever it had to to keep on top of the market. After all, video was AVID's only business; it had noplace else to go, while Apple would get bored and walk away before too long.
By the time I graduated I was running FCP 3.0 on a $900 iMac. Not the speediest thing ever, but by output nobody would be able to spot the difference between it and the $12,000 worth of hardware/software that John was running.
Today Apple has 49% of the pro market, to AVID's 20% and Premiere has gone from totally dominating the home market to...well, the BBC uses it!
I'm not stumping for Apple on this one, I'm just saying buy the product that you feel offers you the best features and value in the present because the future is utterly unpredictable.
Posted 38 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
- excellent analogy ...
Posted 38 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Anybody know if you can shoot tethered to 40D with the newest version?
Posted 38 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
"I met Vincent Laforet in Austin, TX last week, and he dropped that the new Aperture (3.0) was definitely a significant upgrade, and most would really enjoy the new features and algorithms."
given how closely apple holds even the existence of updates, i find it hard to believe that laforet would say something like this for fear of violating his NDA.
Posted 38 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
If Apple was going to be announcing new releases, when would this happen? I've been teetering on the edge of buying Final Cut Express, and don't want to do that just before a new release.
Could I assume that if they haven't announced something by next weekend, the next 'window' would likely be the summer?
Posted 38 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
What's next weekend?
Posted 38 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
my guess if they announce anything it will be this week to coincide with NAB
Posted 38 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Thanks Proggie. I'll hold off making a decision for a week, then.
Posted 38 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
dc716: technically he could get in trouble just for saying there WAS a next version, since Apple likes to keep even existence of products secret :)
Posted 38 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Hi all, I'm sorry to have stirred any kind of pot here. I'm quite sure a seasoned pro like him knows the bounds of his agreements and obligations far better than any of us, and that he lives fully within them. I've removed my comments so as not to aggravate the issue.
Posted 38 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I appreciate that you mentioned it, as it definitely gives me hope :)
Posted 38 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@etherflyer - If you buy FCE now, there's always the upgrade version in the future. Currently it's $99 to update a licensed V.3 to V.4, and there's some precedent for Apple offering reduced price upgrades to recent purchasers of an obsolete version (when the latest iLife dropped, anybody who had bought the previous version or purchased a new Mac within, I think it was 90 days, could upgrade for $10).
More importantly, unless they add native AVCHD cutting (which seems like it would roll out in Pro before it comes to Express) the improvements in FCE are likely to be incremental. I was running FCP 3.0 (it's now in version 6) until very recently, and it did everything I needed to do.
Posted 38 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Well, I don't need Final Cut; it's a bit of a luxury for me, so I'm not looking to buy an upgrade soon after I bought the program. And while there's precedent for free upgrades, I wouldn't count on it.
What is AVCHD cutting? And why is it important?
Posted 38 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Hi Definition camcorders that don't use tape (i.e. those that use hard-drives, flash memory, or mini-dvds) encode their video in the AVCHD (Advanced Video Codec High-Definition) format. It's basically a way of packaging Mpeg-4 files so that they're really, really small compared to the resolution size of the video.
Currently Final Cut can neither play-back nor edit AVCHD video, so when you're importing your footage it rewrites the video as Apple Intermediate Codec at high-definition. When this happens, clips become about 10 times larger (in terms of file size, not duration) on your hard-drive than they were on the recording media.
Standard Def video is about 13gb per hour of footage, and in AVCHD format Hi-Def video isn't too much bigger. In the Intermediate Codec you have to use to cut it right now, HD video is closer to 100gb per hour, so working with HD footage is a beast if you're not running huge hard-drives in fast arrays.
Originally posted 38 months ago.
(permalink)
theaterculture edited this topic 38 months ago.
|
|
i reckon aperture 3 this week, as its NAB isn't it?
Posted 38 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I would bet we'll see FCS 3 this week. I highly doubt Aperture will be updated as well unless they decide to include it and Logic and turn FCS into kind of a pro-level iLife which is very unlikely.
I don't think Apple would want to take the spotlight away from FCS, and I think they'll want to make a big deal when they do update Aperture.
Posted 38 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Seeing that NAB has already started, wouldn't you think it would already be announced?
Posted 38 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I don't think Apple is at NAB this year. They didn't have a booth last year either.
Could be there'll be a delay in new apps until the next OS drops, if they're being built to take advantage of some of its new bells and whistles. At any rate, Apple seems to be getting way from the trade show circuit of late...they're also ending Macworld.
Posted 38 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
When is the new OS "due"?
Posted 38 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
At the last WorldWide Developers Conference, they said it would be out before the next one. So, before July.
Posted 38 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I was thinking this too, but hoping it's not true because I'm on a PowerMac G5.
Posted 38 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
According to new rumours all the pro apps will be updated at WWDC.
Posted 38 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
@ Rune Johnsson
when you think so, you must buy a window system and not a mac.
what happens, if Steve is not boss of apple? who has the great ideas and innovations?
we all hope, that aperture will be better in future. And the more people switch to lightroom, the more probable is one day Apple decides to pull the plug on Aperture. so what.
Posted 38 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
What bothers me most about Apple's development of Aperture is that they use much of the same team for iPhoto, which of course has a much larger installed base and is a higher profile application. It feels like iPhoto gets the lion's share of attention from Apple. They only seem to work on Aperture when iPhoto updates are complete.
Posted 38 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
@rustyjaw AFAIK, that is totally untrue with regard to the Aperture and iPhoto teams.
Posted 38 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I should have said that this is a rumor I have read and not stated it as fact. I suppose no one outside Apple really knows how the teams are organized.
However, I would be very surprised if the teams and code were totally isolated. For a company Apple's size, that would seem to be a wasteful way to do business as these two apps have substantial overlap in features.
If it is true that any significant code is shared between the programs, then it stands to reason that Apple would prioritize iPhoto over Aperture because of iPhoto's higher profile role in selling Macs.
Originally posted 38 months ago.
(permalink)
rustyjaw edited this topic 38 months ago.
|
|
|
@Gerha - When Steve Jobs leaves apple, the same people that has the great ideas and innovation will continue to have great ideas and innovation. The Apple employees. Jobs is a great leader, but don't think for a second that he's the master mind behind the innovation. He's failed to know how to turn a few things on in past WWDC key notes. Apple's culture will continue the innovation.
@rustyjaw -
Good development works like that. Microsoft has very segmented (silo'd) development teams. And that's why their stuff sucks. They don't collaborate and reuse.
Why have two teams writing code on how to render an image? Do you not enjoy the fact that things work the same in multiple applications on a Mac? Non-silo'd teams is what makes that happen.
Good development is all about reusability.
It's also not a "prioritize one over the other". It's quite common to release consumer versions of technology that will make it into the "pro" or "enterprise" application. Consumers are a great testing ground. They are much more forgiving when they only use it for their stuff and only paid $50 for it. A Pro or Enterprise user is a lot less forgiving when down time means $100,000 a day or more.
Last... i think Apple may know a bit more about how to run their own company that we do ;-)
Posted 38 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@Gerha:
That may be so. Nothing lasts forever, especially in the world of computers and software. However, if I should choose to go with a cross-platform solution like Lightroom, it doesn't really matter if Jobs pulls the plug on Apple (however unlikely). In that case I could migrate my entire library to Windows (or whatever exists in that future). I don't have that option with my metadata in Aperture.
A lot can happen in the next 2 or 5 or 10 years. I still have a lot of old documents in my archives from my days in university, but I doubt I'll ever again be able to open my WordPerfect documents or DrawPerfect drawings or run my old TurboPascal programs. And it's only been 10-15 years. However, I can still find my old film negatives from then (and earlier) and have prints made anytime. Will I be able to do the same with my current digital image library in 15 years?
I know, it's not the end of the world, if at some point in the future I'll have to let go of my metadata and just migrate a bunch of TIFFs, but I can't help wondering sometimes if all my work in Aperture is for nothing in the long run.
But, enough pessimism for now. So far Apple has honoured their promise to make a great piece of software for photographers, and it still is better than anything else I've tried. Let's hope it lasts a long time. And, according to the crackpots, the world will end in 2012 anyway, so who cares?
;-)
Posted 38 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Just for the record... Jobs doesn't own Apple. He can't "pull the plug". He's just the CEO. Apple is a publicly owned company governed by a board of directors.
Posted 38 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Oy...an administrator in my academic department clung to WordPerfect until it became completely unsupported by any reasonable computer she could get. We still have to work with her files from that era and guess what - EVERY word processing program currently in use by department members (Pages, Word, OpenOffice) opens them just fine! Sometimes the format is a little wonky, but the content is always perfectly intact.
If Apple ever discontinues Aperture (or I guess WHEN they do, as nothing lasts forever) they, or some enterprising third party, will put out an automated script or a stand-alone program to export TIFFs (or whatever the loss-less image file of the day happens to be) based on the editing metadata. It will be a bit of a pain, but digital-to-digital migration is a whole lot easier than analog-to-digital was...
Posted 38 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Someone can always "pull the plug" for any software or whatever. That's why you have to use software that is good now not hate it and wait for updates to get better.
Who cares then if the plug is pulled? You can still work on it. Just don't drool over the improvements of other products and such...
I have tried Lightroom and fancied the grad filter stuff, but that's it. The lack of simple "Full Screen" mode and their "modular" approach turned me off. Yes I know you can press tab and then shift tab and then.... whatever instead of just pressing "F".
I chose aperture and am happy ever since. And did I mention it integrates 100% into Mac OSX system? ;o)
Originally posted 37 months ago.
(permalink)
sun|moon edited this topic 37 months ago.
|
|
I only want one new feature in Aperture 3: fixes for all the m*****f***ing bugs in Aperture 2 :-(
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
all your suggestions can be sent to
www.apple.com/feedback.
The development teams do see those requests/bugs/feedback.
Talking about it on this forum won't be as effective on what you would like to see in the future releases. Though they won't write you back, they do see the feedback.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Well, today Apple released new versions of two "pro" suites, Final Cut and Logic...and both are for Intel only, so I would imagine Aperture 3 will follow suit. It's too bad because my Dual G5 is actually a very usable machine still (I use a quad intel Mac Pro at work and it's not massively faster).
Posted 35 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I'm pretty bummed out that they didn't at least *announce* that Aperture 3.x is coming. Seriously, I'm upset with Apple on this one. So much so I'm thinking of jumping ship to Lightroom. For a "pro" application, they sure give it rookie consideration. Poop.
Posted 35 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I thought the Aperture 3 would be released when Snow Leopard finally is released. Perhaps we can see something sooner?
Posted 35 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
@spacemoeba
Apple rarely pre-announces anything. You shouldn't have expected it.
Posted 35 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I am sure that an update is coming. I have heard from more than one source that it will come with Snow Leopard, which could mean that it will inherit some of the speed improvements that Snow Leopard will have. I've used Aperture and Lightroom and I really don't like Lr's interface or file handling so I'll be patient and wait for Apple on this one.
Posted 35 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Oh, I'm quite familiar with Apple's need for secrecy about everything they do. Still, they have on many occasions pre-announced expected things like Aperture. We all know Snow Leopard is 'coming', we knew about the iPhone months ahead of time, we knew of changes to Apple's online services before MobileMe was official.
Do I expect it? No. Would I appreciate it? You bet. At this point no one can even point to the certainty that Aperture 3.x will happen. Given the attention poured onto iPhoto, it's looking like they want to just go with that, and leave the Aperture users completely in the lurch.
I'm willing to bet that I'm not the only one considering jumping ship on them over Aperture. A simple "we've got you covered, just be a little patient" would go a heck of a long way to preventing that kind of exodus.
Thing is, they don't seem to care that people will go to Lightroom in droves, which makes me wonder if they really are giving up on Pro Photogs. If they were, they could also announce THAT. At least then I'd know and could eat the awful transition in relative peace.
This keeping users hanging thing though? It's not good business.
Heh. I didn't realize until I wrote all that just how upset this whole thing really makes me. Thanks for letting me vent. :)
Originally posted 35 months ago.
(permalink)
spaceamoeba edited this topic 35 months ago.
|
|
|
I've also used LR and Aperture, and I feel the same way as you about the UI, but it seems that LR is pulling away from Aperture in terms of features. And now, in an ironic state of affairs, it looks like LR will support more Apple hardware than Apple does if they make Aperture 3 require an Intel machine.
It does make LR look more and more attractive...
Posted 35 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
True, if Ap3 requires Snow Leopard, which requires Intel, then Adobe will have Apple over a barrel. My need for updates has me looking at Lr every few months, but I just can't get over their UI and poor file handling. That being said, if it comes down to getting support at all I will make the switch back to Lr if I have to. It's not really about the name on the app, it's about getting the work done.
Posted 35 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
They released new versions of Final Cut and Logic today...hopefully Aperture 3 is just around the corner!
Posted 35 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@spacemoeba
Yes they have pre-announced things like the iPhone. Which is by no means a comparable product. In fact its an new platform of computing that needed to be public for FTC approval, promotion, etc. You simply can't compare the two.
People freaked out about when is Aperture 2.0 coming? I'm going to switch - etc. It came and people were very happy. I don't know what you want Aperture to do that it can't do now. Could it be better? Of course, but is there really something thats limiting you?
Have you noticed that Lightroom and Aperture are on alternating product release schedules...So every time there is a new version people on both sides freak out - when in my update, oh it looks so good I'm going to switch...Now if Lightroom has another major release before Aperture is updated - then there is a problem.
Chase Jarvis uses Aperture - I'm pretty sure you can manage too.
Posted 35 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
>is there really something thats limiting you?
for me, 2 major things:
1) support for IPTC Core, which has been the standard since before Aperture 1 was released.
2) RAW decode speed. i'm way above spec on both of my machines, and the time it takes to load a RAW for processing is often a joke.
lots of people still use aperture, but more and more of them are forced to use another program to add IPTC before transmission. why should I have to use photo mechanic in addition to aperture?
Posted 35 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
>is there really something thats limiting you?
i've been very happy with 2.0, but yes there are things that limit me.
1. It STILL doesn't support my Lumix LX-3's RAW files. I'm hoping 3.0 will be able to support it, if it includes tools to fix its image distortion.
2. I need non destructive editing support from my fave plug-ins like Noise Ninja which are mostly useless for me right now. Same with localized edit plugins.
3. Everything else will be gravy.
Posted 35 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
>is there really something thats limiting you?
Hmm… That's a tough one
1. More RAW file support and faster turnaround on RAW file support. (Maybe some way to do a "unconfirmed" RAW rendering if it doesn't recognize the camera type but recognizes the RAW type and then you can right click and have it rerender (or it will rerender during catalog rebuilt) when complete support is added). Think of it as versioned support of RAW.
2. Fix the dang plugin/management bugs in Aperture. I delete the primary version and you delete the plugin'd versions? WTF! Hello! That's just wrong.
3. Smart filter support for plugins. Smart filters in photoshop rock and when stacked take up less space. Aperture is all about non-destructive editing and it’s about time it supported that with 3rd party stuff.
4. Stacked filter support (this way you don't have to keep editing the same file. I hate I have to split versions between edits if I have a destructive editor).
5. All a configuration to pass/select JPEG2000 instead of just TIFF and PSD. Why? TIFF is uncompressed giant of a file to work with. If you had smartfilter-style plugins, Aperture could just request the plugin re-render the image so there is no need for native TIFFs anymore. In some cases, I’d trade the speed of TIFF for the disk savings of JPEG2000. Quality is just as good too, esp. for previews.
6. Plugin support for Master exports. Right now this can be done via Catapult (scripting hack) and Maperture Pro does something similar (I think it is a stub that launches a perl script), but it’d be nice if they could standardize it. I’m happy with Catapult, but I’d like to see companies like DxO Optics Pro and Nikon Capture NX offer the ability to plug into Aperture like they do with Lightroom (in the former case).
Some stuff that I’d like that probably won't happen…
1. Better support for sidecar files. I’d like to group assets together like when I shoot a Pano and there is no way to do that. You can hack it using Catapult, but then you lose the intermediate files and have nothing on the export. It’d be nice if I didn't have to keep a separate organized photos.
2. Same as above for movies and audio clips which are often taken with the image.
3. The face recognition in iPhoto so I can get rid of iPhoto. Tagging is a chore in Aperture when it comes to faces, but it rocks relative to every other DAM out there.
4. DNG support. I don't like it, and hate that Adobe makes it a moving target so I understand why Apple doesn’t support it, but in one case I sort of need it: I could round trip with DxO Optics Pro without having uncompressed TIFFs. Argh!
Posted 35 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
tychay, is there a program out there that does all that stuff? You make it sound like it should be standard and can't be lived without so surely you have seen all of this implemented somewhere. I'd love to know the name of the app so I can test it out.
Posted 35 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
We're at version #2 and people want every possible feature. Not the Apple way.
Posted 35 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
i note that apple has just released a its prokit update version 5.0, and that's cited as being for all users of 'final cut pro .... aperture ... ' which is a crumb of comfort for aperture users anticipating version 3.0.
crumb of comfort or clutching at straws? how about clutching at crumbs for a mixed metaphor
Posted 35 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@House of Madsen: It depends on which stuff you’re talking about. Right now, when it comes to good Digital Asset Management, I think we’re at the point where it’s between just Apple Aperture and Adobe Lightroom. I think Aperture still has a clear edge when it comes to asset management (to me Lightroom management is not much better than Bridge) and its weakness is it doesn’t play as nice with 3rd parties as Lightroom.
On the RAW handling front, Lightroom allows 3rd party plugins to roundtrip the RAW processing. Aperture doesn't. You can fake it with Catapult, but in the end it’s really doing an end around the built in system. I don’t see any reason for this except it just didn’t occur to Apple at the time. If you want to see what I’m talking about, just download the trial key for Catapult. It’s clearly a feature that will be built into Aperture at some point.
On the processing front, the big issues are file size, non-destructive editing, and automation. The comparison products would be Lightroom and Photoshop depending on which part of processing I mean.
The files in Aperture are either TIFFs or PSDs. There seem to be some bugs in the roundtripping that when stacking them to cause the master/copy concept in Aperture to be confused. Since they’re bugs, I imagine they'll be fixed. I don’t know what about the filesize but the existence of Smart Filters in Photoshop show the way (basically, the application can request the plugins to rerender the scene with new base data). This would at least save file size when stacking things.
You can do non-destructive editing with Aperture bricks, but you can't with the plugins. This seems to be an oversight and the Smart Filter system introduced in Adobe Photoshop CS3 seems to indicate the solution to that.
As for the automation front, theoretically since Aperture is scriptable, you could use Automator to do all this. Also, if the applications are only applied on the bricks, the clone and stamp tool does an awesome job. However this isn’t true for the general set and Automator is too programmatic—it'd be like saying you could automate Photoshop only with the javascript executor…in reality most 3rd party stuff for automation works via Photoshop Actions and plugins. It seems to me making that more accessible (especially in light of a burgeoning 3rd party "preset" market appearing in Lightroom) looks to be another direction Apple should head.
Traditionally, Apple’s argument against building these features has been based on the fact that Aperture round trips with Photoshop. I feel that this is falling away, especially when you see Lightroom offering more and more Photoshop like features and the success of the Aperture plugin market (right now limited to destructive editing).
As for the rest, here is why I think it’s unlikely.
Movie import? Apple has the premiere movie editor both in the consumer space (iMovie) and the professional space (Final Cut Pro). iPhoto supports movies. However, until very recently movies were a consumer camera only feature. While the new hybrid videocams (D90, 5DMkII, Rebel X??, D5000, E-P1, HD-1) mean that it’s actually now a professional option (5D MkII certainly), I see that as an eventual direction, but too new. Photographers aren’t videographers. *sigh* I just like it because I want to manage all my assets in one place like I used to with iView Media Pro (now part of Microsoft).
Face tagging? This is built into iPhoto. Most people see this as a gimmick but it’d be a huge timesaver. It’s not going to happen and since iPhoto is parallel to Aperture, there won’t be roundtripping services like there are with Aperture/iMovie or Aperture/iPhone. I miss it, but I’m not going to manage my assets in iPhoto, Apple knows this, and they know no competitor in the pro space will offer this feature as it isn't compelling at this level. I’m just lazy.
DNG support? The simple fact here is that Adobe is a competitor to Aperture and they’ve turned DNG into a moving target. The standard "evolves" faster than anyone but Adobe can keep up. If Apple hitches their flagship feature (RAW camera support) to DNG, then they hitch it to a competitor who will make it impossible for Apple to keep up without giving all the RAW processing advantages over to Adobe. That isn’t going to happen. This is also why camera manufacturers are resistant to the DNG specification for their cameras… sorry, Adobe is many times bigger than even Canon in the photography world and there is no way they want to give their processing edge over to a competitor. Similarly, Apple isn’t going to support it. I’m just noting that because of limitations in the TIFF specification, there are some valid arguments for DNG support outside of RAW processing specifically (file size arguments).
Misc asset management? It seems Apple is slow on the uptake of this. Apple will make the argument that you can embed metadata along with the file using the plugin system. With good encoding, all the metadata can be bound. I just run into edge cases that won't be covered (say multi-image panoramas or HDR merges) that I don’t think Apple feels is that compelling.
Note
This isn’t a complaint, just some thoughts. I’ve probably been using Apple products longer than most people (since 1978), Macintoshes longer than most (since 1984, owned since 1985), Aperture longer than most (I bought it on release day and went to a local pizza joint in Palo Alto, someone came from the party at the long table and said, “Hey, half the Aperture team is sitting there celebrating the release of their product, you’re the first person we’ve seen buy it. Thank you.”) When Aperture was deep discounted and a bunch of people at Apple shifted teams out of Aperture, I pointed out that, unlike the pundits that were saying this meant Aperture was EOL, this meant the opposite—a new Aperture upgrade and renewed support for the product. I own a pretty expensive edition of Adobe Creative Suite 4, so I’m not looking for a Photoshop replacement here, nor do I think others are. We’re mostly looking for something that manages our assets and relieves us from having to round trip Photoshop our selects.
Right now all indications are that there is an Aperture 3.0 coming soon. What we say here will have no influence on the product since if this is the case, they’re doing QA. I just thought it’d be fun to speculate and I, for one, feel fortunate that I have a choice. If I used Windows, what choice would I have? Photosynth? Haha. No really.
Originally posted 35 months ago.
(permalink)
tychay (a group admin) edited this topic 35 months ago.
|
|
|
BTW, see also this thread here.
And to summarize the above, there seems to be mounting evidence that Aperture 3.0 will release after the new operating system (Snow Leopard).
Remember the new version of Final Cut is not 64-bit yet (and yet Adobe Photoshop is). My guess is that Aperture 3 will depend on things like that and Grand Central Dispatch for performance improvements.
Originally posted 34 months ago.
(permalink)
tychay (a group admin) edited this topic 34 months ago.
|
|
|
I'd like...
Better sharpening
RAW processing for dodge/burn/etc, LR kills Aperture at this
Selective edits like in LR, not sure how to phrase this, but like only applying certain effects to certain areas of the photo
Better noise reduction
Better saturation and contrast control/implementation - darks get way to dark, way too fast, colors pop way too much way too fast
Overall, I love AP2.0, but I still go into Photoshop way too often for my top picks to get that extra pop. Of course, this may be the case for everyone, I'm really not sure how many folks solely rely on Ap or LR for their 4 star photos (I don't personally have any 5 star and my 4 star probably should be 3, but hey, I'm new at this). I certainly don't expect a $200 program to perform like Photoshop, but there are some areas where LR really has an edge and I'd like to see Apple step it up and overtake Adobe in those areas.
Posted 34 months ago.
(permalink)
|
 |
nikplayer [deleted] says:
I moved to LR about 6 months ago... but I'm praying that Aperture 3 will have 'ACR like' tools so I can swap back to a more sane DAM !
Posted 34 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Switching workflow apps back and forth sounds counterintuitive to having a workflow.
Posted 34 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Like the rest of you, I'm itching for Aperture 3 to come out. An article today piqued that a little further:
thedigitalstory.com/2009/09/its_time_for_apertur.html
One of the commenters at the end of the story alluded to knowing some Apple sources, who would only say that they're "working on something special". Let's hope that this is genuine!
My prediction? Aperture 3 will be released late this year, and it will showcase the new Snow Leopard technologies. I doubt that Snow Leopard would be an actual requirement, however.
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Just to toss out an alternate train of thought, I look at it this way;
Am I getting my work done? Is something in my workflow broken and in desperate need of fixing?
First answer, yes. Second answer, no.
In that case, I'll worry about the "next" version when it comes out. Frankly, it's always a bit of a pain in the ass when you upgrade software... the changes, bugs, etc.
This is one of our human flaws. It's why men want to hold the TV remote... we don't care whats on TV... we care WHAT ELSE is on TV.
I don't care what Lightroom has or doesn't have. I like Aperture, I'm getting my work done... and it's not broken.
Would I like ti to be faster, yes. Are there a few new features I'd like to see... of course.
But at the end of the day, my workflow is good. When the new version comes out, I'll upgrade. Until then, I'll keep doing what I'm doing.
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
John, you have hit the nail directly on the head. While it's fun to get new toys from time to time I am getting my work done just fine with the tools I have.
Speaking of new toys, I did buy a new camera a few days ago so I wouldn't mind a new raw update for OS X.
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Aperture does look interesting, but I'm still on the sidelines. I'd like an exit strategy before I commit to a product. And I don't see that yet with Aperture. In addition, I want to manage images on multiple drives. Perhaps version 3 will add what are, for me, critical features.
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
You can already manage images on multiple drives by using referenced masters instead of managed. It's exactly what I did before committing whole heartedly. With referenced masters it is also easy to stop using Aperture and use something else instead.
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
it is very slow, needs to be much faster for bigger sensor files
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
>bob_budding: Aperture does look interesting, but I'm still on the sidelines. I'd like an exit strategy before I commit to a product. And I don't see that yet with Aperture. In addition, I want to manage images on multiple drives. Perhaps version 3 will add what are, for me, critical features.
None of this is an issue with the current version. I currently house 6TB over 7 external firewire drives.
Keep in mind, you wouldn't want one large library like that anyway. If you're looking at managing that many images, you need to think through an architecture and hierarchy that would follow "obvious" breaks in your work. Maybe by year... or by category... etc.
I'm a motorsports photographer by trade. I will establish an annual motorsports library every year. So, I have motorsports 2006, motorsports 2007 etc. In each of those, the events I've shot account for the individual projects. Likewise, I have a "family" library arranged by year(s). So, try to design your hierarchy in advance.
As far as an exit strategy, while it would be a sizable project, I think anytime you "exit" anything with that many files, it's going to be a tedious task. That said, however, I think the methods applicable in Aperture, while still time consuming, would be very accurate and easy to wrap your head around. Realistically, if you wanted to be sure each image AND version was a fixed file, you'd simply use Aperture's export tools to send them where ever you'd like. I maintain a "cloud" archive of full res images now. It's a lot of data... but it is what it is.
JT
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
>chrsps: it is very slow, needs to be much faster for bigger sensor files
You'll get no argument there. But that's just live in the fast technology lane. I wish camera technology would "back-off." Honestly, it's getting stupid. The files from my 5D MK11 are like wall murals already.
Give me my Leica Digilux 2 images all day, everyday.... 5mp of pure butter. :)
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
It is an interesting application. But I have some really huge film scans to keep track of, too. A 16 bit 6x7 shot scanned at 4,000 dpi is over 500 MB.
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I have PSD files that are over 500MB and Aperture handles them fine for me.
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
One thing to check is exporting the images again. I have some big panoramas that I can't export at full size at all — the message is that the file is too big.
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
So, to get back to the topic at hand and gripe just a little more before tossing it all and going to Lightroom, seems that now Lightroom enjoys substantial success over Aperture:
www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/09/22/ipod_nano_privacy_...
And here we are, post Snow Leopard, so there's no more excuse for waiting for 64 bit apps, and still not even so much as a peep about Aperture 3.x.
Apple stinks.
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I checked out Lr again the other day. The interface still sucks and there is absolutely no real asset management in it. It's just an ugly version of Bridge.
The thing I really found funny is that most of the videos i find for Lr tout it's ability to interface with Ps and most of the video authors mention that they still send nearly all of their images to Photoshop for at least some tweaks. Well, if the images have to go to Ps anyway, what is the point of the extra editing tools in Lr? I can send an image to Ps from Aperture just as easy, but with Aperture my resulting edited image is shared by every application on my Mac. It convinced me to stay the course with Aperture.
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
The data shows no significant changes in Aperture's market share - the variances are within the expected sampling error for a survey of that size. Lightroom is clearly cannibalising marketshare from Photoshop, but that's not how Adobe is spinning it.
You also know that, for better or worse [and unlike Adobe], Apple rarely gives advance notice of product releases and so you've no idea if 3.x is in final beta or if it's vapourware. [And remember that we're dealing with a company that released 2.0 the day after a major photo trade show]
If the next version of Lightroom comes out before the next version of Aperture then I think that'll really be the final nail in Aperture's coffin.
Originally posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
davefitch edited this topic 33 months ago.
|
|
Nobody mentioned Vaults.. I think that should be replaced with Time Capsule compatibility.
Posted 32 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Last rumour was that AP 3.0 would come out sometime in next few weeks, around same time as other pro apps get updated ahead to 64bit.
Posted 32 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Ha! It'll be just my luck if there's an AP3 in the next couple of weeks - having just bought v2 !! Oh well! :-)
I'm currently running a Pentax DSLR having tried but dismissed a new Sony A230. What I noticed while doing all the testing was that Adobe's products - specifically Camera RAW 5.5 - supported the new Sony format, seemingly an upgraded version of the ARW RAW format which Aperture and OS X was listed as supporting, but actually didn't. The latest version (2.1.4 I believe) was published around the end of August but still didn't support the new ARW. Odd given that Sony are surely considered a big player by now in the camera market.
Independently of this thread (which I've just read beginning to end!) I began to wonder if there was some hiatus in Aperture development. If such an important update was missed, what other cameras were missing etc?
All the predictions above have proved wrong so far...
For me the Aperture "way of doing things" appeals much more than the Lightroom, though I've tried it and do appreciate it's quality. It would be a shame if Aperture vanished as we OS X users don't have the range of products to chose from that a certain other platform does!
Posted 32 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
My thought is probably different from most posts out there (not just this site) about Aperture vs. Lightroom.
In my opinion, Aperture is, or should be, a high end consumer product, instead a professional one. Apple should target it to those customers who 1)shots RAW; 2) wants a little more than iPhoto; 3)does not want to pay $600 for Photoshop.
If based on the assumption that Aperture was for professional photographers, then lots of things were wrong with Aperture:
1. Image adjusting and art design: No body can compete with Adobe on their bread and butter stuff, even Apple.
2. Instead of the good integration to the OS and other Mac applications, integration with other Adobe applications is more important for professionals. And who can do a better job than Adobe to integrate into Adobe’s applications.
3. Professionals already know how to use Photoshop. They almost do not need to learn Lightroom, or the learning curve is much easier.
4. Adobe’s open and friendlier strategy. (Apple is stupid on this one)
However, if you thought Aperture as “high end consumer product”, suddenly, it started to make sense:
1. Aperture is a better DAM application. Where the hell Adobe got those “module” ideas? Lightroom has more and better adjusting tools. But I always over-did my photos with it. I do like it more if Aperture got the same tool kit as Lightroom, but not for $100 more. I am not a professional. I do want better image quality, but not need to depend on that for a living.
2. Aperture is a Mac app, with Mac UI, Mac’s way to do things, tight integration with the OS and other Mac applications. (For this, some body at the Adobe site called us Mac users “retarded”. Well, I will not use such words. I can understand the integration with other Adobe applications could be more important for a professional).
3. I was already familiar with iPhoto before, so that moving to Aperture is nature for me.
When I started to shot RAW, I tried both apps, both in their version 2. And Lightroom was my choice. I liked it, playing with it. But after two projects, I suddenly found it was too hard to “enjoy” my pictures, without I either run Lightroom or do the export. How to display a slideshow from outside Lightroom without export? How to design a book in Lightroom? I can not see my photos from any where except in Lightroom. Maybe I am “retarded”, but as a Sr. Software Engineer, I guess maybe I know a little about how to use an application.
Forget about it! I take pictures to enjoy them. I do not have the intention to sell them.
Originally posted 32 months ago.
(permalink)
zwzhang edited this topic 32 months ago.
|
|
|
"In my opinion, Aperture is, or should be, a high end consumer product, instead a professional one. "
I agree on this one., but probably not for the same reasons.
"No body can compete with Adobe on their bread and butter stuff, even Apple."
It's a good thing that you didn't work for Microsoft when Word Perfect dominated word processing. Would you have advised them to abandon Microsoft Word?
A lot of folks use Lightroom because Photoshop is too involved and too clumsy. Adobe recognized that Photoshop was not originally designed just for photo editing - it's a graphics design tool.
"Professionals already know how to use Photoshop. They almost do not need to learn Lightroom, or the learning curve is much easier."
And most professionals would toss out Photoshop if there was a faster and easier way to achieve excellent results.
"Aperture is a better DAM application. "
And Aperture still falls far short of the best DAM solutions, such as IDImager.
"Aperture is a Mac app, with Mac UI, Mac’s way to do things, tight integration with the OS and other Mac applications."
The bigger issue is that Aperture only runs on the Mac OS. But a Windows version of Aperture would beg the question of why bother with the Mac OS.
Posted 32 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I am new to Aperture and Mac; I love the Macbook Pro, but i am trying to find a reason to use Aperture. The photo editing is inferior to Capture NX2, and the image management isn't even as good as iPhoto. What am i missing? I am not crazy about Lightroom either so i bought Aperture w the Mac. Willing to give it a chance, but I am running out of interest. Comments?
Posted 32 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
>the image management isn't even as good as iPhoto
how so?
Posted 32 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
For $200 I got a crappy editor and a marginal DAM. What else can I say?
Posted 32 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
>What else can I say?
well, you could maybe explain how iphoto is a better DAM. i'm genuinely curious.
Posted 32 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
While I like playing around in iPhoto I find Aperture to be a much better DAM. I guess it depends on what you use them for. I would kill myself if I had to organize and process a wedding using iPhoto. Fortunately I don't shoot weddings any more, but even my personal work is easier to deal with in Aperture. For me, anyway.
Posted 32 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Hello all!
I'm no pro but I like iPhoto and Aperture AND Photoshop Elements. I've not yet decided whether to allow Aperture to be the default image download tool, or leave it at iPhoto. The library sizes seem very similar for the same photos. I use the free Maperture plug-in for Aperture to give it the Places functionality.
To make things even more confusing I use Extensis Portfolio for most of my off-drive images and artwork - i.e DAM.
This wasn't all a deliberate plan, it's just how my needs evolved. I think iPhoto's organisational ability is just about perfect - much the same as Aperture - but it doesn't really do off-line stuff. Aperture does, that was the main reason for my upgrade (the other reason was RAW handling).
As a lot of my images aren't necessarily my own photos (artwork and web-images etc) I use Extensis for true DAM in all it's glory. All files are referenced rather than copied in to the library so that keeps file size small even for humungous amounts of images.
Photoshop Elements is as much an editor as I need, and the quality is the same as it's big brother. The included Bridge is well-built but I have no use for it. PSE is only really needed for layering and panoramas etc.
All in all the only problem I have left is the decision to swap to Aperture full-time and leave iPhoto.... But as iPhoto gets more updates I get the feeling the commitment back at HQ is on this more popular app.
Posted 32 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
The library sizes seem very similar for the same photos.
When I converted my iPhoto library to Aperture I saved a lot of disk space. iPhoto saves a duplicate version of every photo you manipulate, which includes rotating a photo so it's the right way up! Add in basic manipulation of most photos (levels) and, well, when I converted I recovered almost half my disk space!
Posted 32 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Well, compare to LR, the AP library size is still larger. But, again, I am not a professional, (means I do not have a lot of images), so this is not a big issue for me.
Posted 32 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
"But a Windows version of Aperture would beg the question of why bother with the Mac OS."
Why bother with the Mac OS? Well, I find it is better than Windows OS for day to day life. I like to use it after work.
Please do not get me wrong. I like Windows and Microsoft. I have to.
Here is the list of the most important applications in my work or "professional" machine:
1. Most important Office app: Viso 2007, (except Outlook).
2. Visual Studio 2008 and 2005 (Both versions).
3. SQL Server 2005
4. Biztalk Server 2006.
5. Oracle Clent 11g.
6. Eclipse and Weblogic (For some legacy Java support).
.....
As you can see, without Windows and Microsoft, I would not have a job, a career. But I believe that I still have the freedom to choose a Mac for my "non-work" life.
Posted 32 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
yeah, well if you think iPhoto is great wait til your library gets big then you will watch it grind to a halt like mine did. NX is not better than Aperture at all. I have tried them both and proved this to myself. NX is also a dog as far as interface goes. The only really irritating thing for me, is just how slow it is when using large files, (and they are getting bigger) and then there is the dust/sensor issue, oops, maybe I should just go back to film. Ha ha.
Posted 32 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
"NX is not better than Aperture at all. I have tried them both and proved this to myself."
That's not something to 'prove' in an afternoon. It takes time to learn an application well. I've used NX for about 1.5 years and the u-point technology alone makes it worth while. And it's far more user friendly than Photoshop!
I've only played around a bit with Aperture. I want to like it. I really do! If it had the DAM functionality of IDImager I'd be happy. And if the plug-ins were integrated into the non-destructive work flow, that would be great. And if a frog had wings he wouldn't bump its butt every time it hopped. So here's hoping that Apple gets off its butt and makes a competitive offering.
Originally posted 32 months ago.
(permalink)
Dismayed & Perplexed edited this topic 32 months ago.
|
|
Squire> “The photo editing is inferior to Capture NX2, and the image management isn't even as good as iPhoto.”
Squire, could you be more specific? I don't have experience with NX2, but I can't imagine what you mean when you say iPhoto has a better management system than Aperture. Both are nearly the same, but Aperture has advance features.
macphotographytips.net/
Posted 32 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@etherflyer Sounds impressive! Yes, I take on board what you say about duplicate files - just hadn't noticed much difference with my images :-) Having said that I'm only just recently crawling into the RAW world!! :-D
Do you know, the deal-maker for me, between Adobe and Apple (I now realise in a very amateur kind of way!) is that magical "Shadows" slider, in both Aperture and iPhoto. I don't remember it being so quickly effective in Lightroom. I seem to remember having to reprocess a couple of times to get such useful results - but I was using version 1.3 (if I remember correctly.)
Posted 32 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
thanks Bob, I actually spent a long time on this with Capture NX and then with NX2, after the three month free trial I did not purchase NX2. I do agree with you that Aperture and Apple do need to raise there game, but still fundamentally I prefer Aperture to NX2. The plug ins are annoying but I rarely use them, maybe because I have come from film, I get a lot of it right in camera and don't need a lot of photo manipulation, but but but, I still have the horrible feeling that sooner or later i will have to adopt PS.
Posted 32 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@bakari "Both are nearly the same, but Aperture has advance features."
i really don't understand this - iPhoto's film roll and shoebox metaphor for managing images is nowhere near as sophisticated as aperture. I was a long-time iView Media Pro user, and it was great actually, for its time. some things even had the edge over aperture (the calendar view for example), but aperture has a huge number of ways in which to organise. it's the best DAM software i've used. it was this which won me over from choosing LR.
Posted 32 months ago.
(permalink)
|
Aperture Users /
Discuss
- i was being sarcastic ... every aperture forum is full of people whining about this and that and it not being updated and threatening to jump ship to lightroom ... thinking that apple is abandoning them - boo hoo ...
- excellent analogy ...
I've also used LR and Aperture, and I feel the same way as you about the UI, but it seems that LR is pulling away from Aperture in terms of features. And now, in an ironic state of affairs, it looks like LR will support more Apple hardware than Apple does if they make Aperture 3 require an Intel machine. 
Feed – Subscribe to Aperture Users discussion threads
