Which would explain why the price has dropped to about half of what it was and might also have something to do with the “quiet” launch of this version.
Going to be some awful gnashing of teeth when Aperture finally kicks the bucket. Not at all easy to extract original files from it, once they are assimilated into the Aperture Borg.
And those using it don’t seem to think five minutes past beer time, when it comes to stupid archival digital. Aperture, at 6% penetration, is about as dino as it gets.
Rubbish Stupid, that’s like saying Apple is irrelevant in the computer world because they have a market share of 6%.
I use Aperture for everything now, but I do have newer machines. As long as Apple puts in the money, and once everyone’s running intel machines, they’ll be right.
The first version did them no good with the likes of us. Might take a while for people to give them a second look, that’s their biggest problem.
My beef with it is how and where it stores my stupid originals. Need a Mac degree I’ll never aspire to, in order to find out. Know where your Aperture digested originals are? Congratulations, you’re one of the chosen few.
apple, right click, show package contents… yup it’s brain surgery alright!
The only thing they did was encapsulate it within a pseudo format that everyone has got their knickers into a knot about. Once you drill down, you will see that it’s exactly the same layout as you have your projects/folders within Aperture, so removing them is piss easy.
If everyone is that confused, i’d be happy to whip up a small apple app to view into the format and grab the originals?
1. You can ingest pictures into an Aperture library file or choose to have them kept externally by “referencing” your own folder structure from the outset. So not a drama. Granted this came about after 1.5 so alot of people had moved on by then.
2. As Daniel said you can open the library file like a folder, and see the structure beneath it. What is true, is you can’t drill down and pull out individual files with any ease because they’re all sitting within a convoluted hierarchical system. But if Apple got bought out by Getty, and they started selling the company off in $49 chunks, and we all needed to get our pictures out, there are plenty of ways to do it – and the easiest would probably be the “Import from Aperture” function Lightroom could roll out within days.
So there shouldn’t be any fear that Apple’s put together some proprietary file format like that Adobe RAW format or anything like it. The real, central complaint people should have about Aperture would be its appetite for hardware!
Wade, you’ve put your finger on why. As stupid as I am, for the sake of the generations of morons coming after I croak, I have to avoid the convoluted, dino monster you described.
Stupid, we are still using decades old programs (TCP and IP) to run this intaweb, they are crap and old and still work….
Let’s face it, decades from now we will have our leica retina chips and store the data in a side slot in our head. Oh and when we do get into our jetson bubble car, we can download them onto what ever we want…
TCP and IP are not 5% niche products. Nor are there proprietary issues with them like there are with Versions, Masters and Metadata. But not up to stupid me what people use and why, so enjoy!
Very true, look even if Apple did pull the plug, the software will still be available to use. Personally I see a better version of RAW being developed soon, which leaves many who now shoot with RAW in a awkward position if, and when, that does happen.
I’d like to see a unified open solution for XMP and RAW, which is supported by all the vendors. Then again… the chances of that happening, well :0)
Masters are just RAW files – any RAW file. That can be a .CR2 sitting anywhere on your hard drive. Metadata is in an XML “sidecar” file which is industry-standard stuff, not proprietary, and sits separately to the image.
Seriously, this is not one of the flaws you should be worried about. If you want to talk about performance relative to hardware dollars you might have something. Although, dunno if they’ve picked up their game with v2. Wouldn’t seem as though as it has the same minimum specs.
(Also, Apple’s still a 5% niche product, and no one seems to worried about its forward compatibility right now).
The article I linked indicates sidecar issues. Nobody dealing with industry standard image files need be stupidly concerned about Apple being a 5% niche product because industry standard image file protocol on Macs is identical to that on PCs. Not a relevant comparison. Anyway, as I said, not my problem, enjoy!
No I was referring to people (corporates) investing in a platform that has about a 6% hold on the market; so they’re putting money into software, hardware, user training, support infrastructure, etc, which leaves a lot of eggs in one small basket.
No stupid argument from me on that. But as I said earlier, in terms of image files, if they are industry standard, Mac or PC doesn’t matter now or in the future, far future being my original concern expressed here.
Hey all. A few points – First off, Aperture has had the ability to export images with XMP sidecars since version 1.5 (October 2006). So even if Apple were to hypothetically pull the plug on the program, there would be no problem exporting files with XMP sidecars. And since Aperture 1.5 added the ability to leave your images anywhere you want, nothing would happen to those original raw files.
Aperture 2 has added the ability to export Masters with IPTC data in it, which is handy as well
The free plug-in LightboxXMP for Aperture offers the ability to export files with full IPTC instead of just Core.
Wade is completely right about where files can live. Referenced files can exist anywhere, the original raw files don’t have to be in the Library. Personally I’ve got my files across several external volumes based on years.
We’ve got TONS of content on Aperture 2 up on our site, ApertureProfessional.com. It’s all free to read. Much of the content answers some of the points that were raised here, and if you’ve got specific questions you can post in the Troubleshooting section, and I get the notifications that new posts were added right away.
That’s a great resource David, and honestly I think Aperture us a decent product. I am an Apple certified Aperture trainer, but frankly, Aperture is a good textbook case of how to botch a product release and development.
First, Apple released Aperture in what should have been a public beta. I don’t know if you remember, but it sucked. I tried it once and the processed file quality was NOT even as good as a jpeg out of any camera.
The controls are re-inventing the wheel. Aperture was designed by the Final Cut Pro guys… and the controls are straight out of FCP. Photographers work with Adobe, which has a different interface, etc. Do the math. Almost every RAW processor I have used, and I have used every major one, uses essentially an Adobe “creed”. (An example, “Command +” zooms. How hard is that?)
After admitting the Aperture team sucked, Jobs fired them. At that point, Aperture 1.1, I got certified because it looked like Apple was seriously trying to pull this one out of the fire. Even though my experience in digital imaging has been you get one shot, and after that it’s history (the Kodak pro digital camera line, for example.) I was wrong.
Aperture STILL doesn’t support my camera, by the way. Camera support has been spotty at best. It’s frustrating enough to be using Photoshop and have to wait a few weeks for the Camera RAW plugin to be released for your spankin new camera, but Apple seems to think this is a secondary priority.
A friend of mine once told me, never underestimate the Great Yellow Father in Rochester when we were talking about films to depend on for a commercial shoot… well Adobe is the GYF today, and you better have your ducks in a row if you want to come knocking on their door. Not only did Apple not have the product or the launch ready, the development has been a model of how to screw up a product.
BTW, Lightroom was on the back shelf at Adobe when Aperture was released. They had decided to wait, but when Aperture was released they dusted it off and popped it out in public beta form. THAT’s how you handle a release like that.
THEN there is that whole issue about the containerized files, etc. The fact is, Aperture does let you deal with them in a reasonable way, and there is a method behind that madness, but two questions… WHY? since the speed advantages simply went away when Adobe started utilizing RAM better, and why not offer an OPTIONAL WORKAROUND like Lightroom did right off the bat? sorry, I’m going to say it. WTF????
So Aperture2 looks great, but, about 6 months late. About 2 months ago several of my friends that bought into Aperture (on MY advice, btw) decided to finally give it up and go to Lightroom.
Where does that leave Aperture? In my opinion, right where it should be, in the toy shelf with iPhoto, for all the “Prosumers”.
Oh, right… that doesn’t even address the fact that if you want to update to a product that might even work for you, after holding out past the point of good sense, you have to pay another $100. Great.
At this point Apple should give the Aperture Loyal a frikkin Macbook Air for their support.
Thanks for the comments Ted, though there are some real big inaccuracies in this.
After admitting the Aperture team sucked, Jobs fired them.<<
Actually, Aperture was in a crunch to launch at PhotoPlus, the obvious springboard for the program. Just about every free developer around was on the product. After launch, they went back to what they were doing. Some people left the development team, some people came in. A lot of the original team are on the product, and a lot of new people are there.
BTW, Lightroom was on the back shelf at Adobe when Aperture was released. They had decided to wait, but when Aperture was released they dusted it off and popped it out in public beta form. THAT’s how you handle a release like that.<<
This also isn’t quite right. I was on the Alpha team for LR (called Shadowlands then) and it was not on the back shelf, it was in active development. It was just in development to be something else. It was designed to be a raw processing program as an alternative to having to use Photoshop.
When Aperture shipped, the alpha ground to a halt and Adobe announced the LR beta. A year later a product shipped.
So Adobe missed the development of a major new tool (an all-in-one product to manage, adjust and output your images), pretended they were in development the whole time, and scrambled to make a product that was to compete. And that’s how you handle a release like that?
THEN there is that whole issue about the containerized files, etc. The fact is, Aperture does let you deal with them in a reasonable way, and there is a method behind that madness, but two questions… WHY? since the speed advantages simply went away when Adobe started utilizing RAM better, and why not offer an OPTIONAL WORKAROUND like Lightroom did right off the bat? sorry, I’m going to say it. WTF????<<
I’m sorry, I don’t understand what you’re asking. Aperture’s had the ability to reference files since 1.5, and to move them around with ease via the Aperture interface. That’s been true since October of 2006. Lightroom requires Finder or Bridge to move files
So Aperture2 looks great, but, about 6 months late. <<
No doubt that everyone wished Aperture had arrived earlier. Of course there are more photographers not using either LR or Aperture than there are using either of them combined. And for them, that six months doesn’t matter at all, because they weren’t using an all-in-one tool for the last six months.
Aperture STILL doesn’t support my camera, by the way. Camera support has been spotty at best. It’s frustrating enough to be using Photoshop and have to wait a few weeks for the Camera RAW plugin to be released for your spankin new camera, but Apple seems to think this is a secondary priority.<<
Apple spends a huge amount of time on the supported cameras making custom tone curves, as all the tools in Aperture rely on that. Each tool works differently depending on the camera file it’s on. Should the process of creating those conversions be faster? Absolutely.
But Aperture 2 now DOES support those cameras, because you can bring DNG files into Aperture. So while Apple’s off working on their tone-curve-accurate files, you can use DNG converter to bring in your images.
The controls are re-inventing the wheel. Aperture was designed by the Final Cut Pro guys… and the controls are straight out of FCP. Photographers work with Adobe, which has a different interface, etc. Do the math. Almost every RAW processor I have used, and I have used every major one, uses essentially an Adobe “creed”. (An example, “Command +” zooms. How hard is that?)<<
That’s sort of like saying that Windows is the predominant interface, so all programs should work like Windows program. Why use a Zoom command when the Loupe works so well, and is so much more analagous to working in photography.
“But keep in mind there are plenty of professional photographers who feel otherwise.”
And I am one of them, David. I’ve been looking at v2.0 (.CR2) conversions today and I can tell you they have been significantly improved. Migrating old 1.1 conversions to 2.0 shows great improvement.
So, Aperture 2.0 is faster, conversions (at least for Canons) are much better, the interface makes more sense, it costs less, and I haven’t really begun to look at the new feature set yet. Althooooooooough, I did have a minor scare this afternoon, so I would remind everyone that we are dealing with a point zero release so maybe keep a copy of your old v1.56 library around for a little while yet.
And David – why such a low-key launch, do you think?
Thanks for those points, David, although I’ve got to say many of them are in direct contradiction to what I have been told by people on both sides of the fence. The bottom line is I’ve spent a great deal of my time and energy selling and supporting Aperture, and although the team (some of whom I do know personally) have no doubt worked very hard, it’s not a product I can stand behind recommend, or use.
I have also spent enough of my time discussing it, frankly, so I’m not going to get into it with you point for point.
The second post in this thread speaks to the acceptance of this product, or lack thereof, in the pro photo market, and that, to me, is the bottom line.
“THEN there is that whole issue about the containerized files, etc. “
I do want to at least explain this…
Lightroom has from the first allowed you to use the files where they are, or copy them to another location, or move them.
The rationale behind the Aperture Libraries has always been speed. I have run the tests on “Optimum” machines with both Aperture and Lightroom, and the speed claim doesn’t hold up. Lightroom has been, up until now, faster (haven’t tried A2, but probably won’t bother doing a comparison test). So tell me again why I need to work with these containerized files? And is there a problem with moving files with finder?
Seriously, I know the Apple “answers” to those rhetorical questions, and I simply don’t buy them… or it.
..and another thing… hahahah! sorry, im out of control today.
Every SINGLE thing I’ve EVER read was that Jobs fired the team out of frustration and the opinion that the architecture was almost fatally flawed. ...and that was right before a major retool and improvement. AND the guys on the dev. team AND my instructor (all of whom I can’t name, some of whom you know) corroborated that.
The rationale behind the Aperture Libraries has always been speed. I have run the tests on “Optimum” machines with both Aperture and Lightroom, and the speed claim doesn’t hold up. Lightroom has been, up until now, faster (haven’t tried A2, but probably won’t bother doing a comparison test). So tell me again why I need to work with these containerized files? And is there a problem with moving files with finder?<<
You’re talking about Aperture 1.0’s requirement that images live inside the Aperture Library file. That was eliminated with Aperture 1.5, which came out in October 2006. So you’re talking about something from the life cycle of the program that’s more than two years out of date.
There aren’t containerized files in Aperture. Images can live wherever you want them. Aperture has a database file the same way that Lightroom does, there’s no requirement to keep your images inside your Library. (Of course you can keep them all in the Library if you’d like, but there’s no requirement to do so.
Meanwhile, we’re discussing Aperture 2, and you’re bringing up Aperture 1.5 speeds vs. Lightroom relative to Aperture 1.0’s file structure. Which would be fine, if either of those were the version of the program we’re on.
One of the major advances to Aperture 2 is the increase in speed, but you’ve already decided you’re not going to do a comparison test, so you won’t get to see that.
And is there a problem with moving files with finder?<<
Nope, no problem. And you can do that on Aperture as well. But it seems to most that when you’re working with tens or hundreds of thousands of images, it makes sense to be able to manage their location while you’re LOOKING at the image in your workflow tool, rather than having to switch to another program (the Finder in this case) and manage them, then switch back to your “workflow” tool to get started on your work.
Incidentally, regardless of the conversations you had with development guys, neither of us were in the meetings with Steve, and even if we were, it’s still moot when talking about a version of a program several years later. I’m sure there were some interesting meeting at Adobe as well when Aperture released and they didn’t have a program to show off as an alternative product. But that doesn’t change the fact that Ligtroom’s powerful, but also suffers from being a 1.x version.
You are, of course, in no way forced to use Aperture. But it would be handy if we could at least talk about the current version with the current features as a comparison to the current Lightroom in the discussion of the features.
I’d be interested to read speed reports, if there are some out there that match up the two fairly. I just can’t justify the time to do them myself. I suspect they are pretty much toe-to-toe, but I’d be happy to be proved wrong.
Sorry for the noise. It certainly isn’t really helpful to those working with the program, and maybe not too helpful to those trying to decide about it… one friend pointed out that Final Cut Pro wasn’t a viable product until v3, and didn’t “take over the world” until then… maybe there is hope for Aperture, I can’t imagine it, at this point though.
I always am amused when photographers start kvetching about products and start into the “Epson should do this, and Adobe should do that…”, when most photographers I know have never even held a job in a major corporation, forget had any part in developing a product (myself included, and no disrespect intended whatsoever…) We just have no idea of what these guys have to deal with.
...and now I hear the same crap coming from my own seff.
OK, a 1.33 G4 Powerbook with 1.5GB of RAM. Pretty normal rig out there I’m guessing for you guys?
Import about a gig of Canon 1DM3 shots into an Aperture Project (the default setup… did not “Reference” ‘cause I couldn’t remember how, and figured it’s not really Apple’s “suggested” workflow. I’m just working right out of the box here.) 2 minutes, 15sec. to workable thumbs.
Lightroom, same thing. 15 sec import. Thats right, 15SEC.
And this is after an hour of downloading an OS update required (yeah, I know, Wade, but Aperture leverages the OS and I didn’t want to get called out on THAT)
Ted, let’s face it, Apple is in the business of selling hardware, Adobe is in the business of selling software.
Aperture has always ran like a one-legged leper in a egg and spoon race for me. Personally I don’t reckon any of the laptop offerings are currently built for Aperture. Years ago when I used to break into stuff, developers were always given bad machines to develop on, as they often had to optimise the code to run nicely for them. I somehow see the Aperture developers using the Mac Pro range to code with, hence they have no idea that it runs this slow compared to Lightroom.
Look don’t get me wrong, I use Aperture heavily with my film scans and those large Phase One backs, but the speed issue just annoys me and makes me want to cry.
1. Aperture’s real problem is its appetite for hardware. If you aren’t using an Intel Mac then just forget about it. You’re using a minimum-spec machine unfortunately and with it Aperture is out of the game.
I don’t know if they’re trying to make me buy newer hardware or whether their R&D people just imagine that we all run the highest spec machine like their FCP clients, but either way they appear base their development on an assumption of top line machine.
I have a 1st generation Mac Pro and a 1st generation MacBook Pro. A1 was unusable, A1.5 was very usable and A2.0 is heaven (all with respect to speed).
2. I don’t know what Lightroom is doing in those 15 seconds (it takes me longer than that just to duplicate a GB of data to the same disc) , but be aware when you ingest your pictures into an Aperture library it (a) copies them in to the library, and then (b) it generates JPG “previews” for each and every image so that future display of your pictures doesn’t necessitate loading and decoding a RAW file every time. You can turn preview generating off if you prefer, or decrease the size to speed up the process. The preview generation happens in the background, so you can get to work as soon as the copying is done.
But if you’re an Aperture certified instructor you know all this already and you know whether you’re comparing “apples to apples”.
Were not seeing Ted’s speed times AT all here, but here’s some tips and benchmarks. (And for the record, a Powerbook is NOT a pretty normal rig these days for pro shooters. The Powerbook you’re using was introduced in 2003. It was discontinued in 2004. That’s not “normal” for a pro photographer to use a four year old computer. But regardless…
1) Turn on Quick Preview prior to import by pressing the P button. Quick Preview mode is essentially what Lightroom is doing, it’s not looking at the raw data at all when generating images on the screen. I suspect what Ted’s seeing is that Aperture is in fact importing faster, but it’s taking time to display the first image on his (much older) Powerbook.
2) In preferences, if you want really fast import turn off “New Projects Automatically Generate Previews” under the “previews tab. This will tell Aperture to NOT build a high-res preview to share with other apps on import.
3) Import
We put 523MB of 1Ds Mark II images on a CF card and imported into Aperture and LR on a Macbook Pro. Aperture’s first thumbnail shows up in under a second, as does LR. The whole project imported as thumbnails in 21 seconds. The LR project took 16.
There’s just no way that an import takes 2m 15 sec to go to “useable thumbnails” as I’m sure that Wade can verify using whatever images he has handy.
But of course speed’s not only about import, it’s also about working in a program. So load up a good 10,000 images (which photographers should have readily) and hit that P button for quick preview, or jump to browser mode and give it a spin. Take some comparisons of the apps.
I’m not really sure how you’re a certified Aperture instructor, as you said, and don’t know the process for importing images.
I’m glad you gave Aperture a try. I’m sorry you came to the (errant) conclusions you did about machine status and performance, and I’m very happy that you have a solution you like in Lightroom. If that works for you, bless you.
If you’d ever like to attend one of our Aperture Road Tours (apertureroadtour.com) for free, let me know. I’m sure I could show off Aperture’s strengths more powerfully if I could directly answer you questions and criticisms directly rather than after you post them here and there’s some lag. But as people like Wade and I have realized, this is in fact a great application, regardless of what you’re thinking.
Wade, here’s my experience with that Apple hardware issue.
Aperture 1.0, for the record. We ran a series of tests between Aperture and Lightroom, and noticed that on basic machines there was little difference. We ran them on a built-up machine with ample resources for the “leveraging” to work, and saw a significant improvement in Aperture’s speed, relative to Lightroom, but honestly Lightroom didn’t do bad.
Then we jammed a huge amount of RAM into the same machine and guess what. Lightroom walked away with it.
And please, I’m sorry, but in this neighborhood there are a lot of working pros who will still be dragging their 4 year old laptop out to shoot to it. These are people who are paying the rent, not supporting Apple by buying a spankin new laptop every time one hits the shelf. Again, my comment. PS CS3, Bridge, Lightroom (and every one of 5 other RAW processing packages I have on it) runs just fine thank you, on this “obsolete machine”.
So this has been my issue all along, in every aspect of Aperture. Apple asks you to make this investment in their hardware, in training, (and software, as I had to this morning, in my time…) claiming that it will be worth it later. The next time Adobe releases a ver. the advantages disappear.
For the record, running Lightroom on the admittedly sad old laptop has been without a hitch. No upgrades needed on anything. Download the shizzy and work.
That would be my argument regarding the controls, too, David. I actually think some of the controls in Aperture are very good indeed, and well worth the time investment to learn, but when push comes to shove, and when I need to process files I use what I didn’t have to re-learn, that is, Camera RAW.
I was pretty much anticipating the “you didn’t do the import right” comments, but my point was most people will do it this way, and it’s about speed and ease. I can go in and fine-tune Bridge, even, to optimize it, but that is not my point… let’s see what happens when you go by everybody’s default, and how it works. RATHER than demanding that I learn an entirely new philosophy of processing built on a video-editing architecture.
I’m going to respond to the dig about my training in kind… clearly you have a drum to beat if you’re supporting the site you are, and doing the Road Tours, and bless you, everybody has to make a buck, and the people who are using the product surely appreciate your support. ...but most of the people I’ve worked with have come to the conclusion that Lightroom, even Bridge, for that matter, does essentially everything Aperture does at about the same speed if not faster.
So although you want to support Aperture, and Apple wants to sell hardware, my best advice is for photographers to consider the Adobe solutions.
In the words of an old friend, I need fewer blades on my swiss army knife that work better, than more blades… and Aperture is just one more “blade” I have to deal with.
You’re over stating the point just a little. You don’t need to renew your hardware annually. You just need to have bought a machine in the $1,500-$2k range in the last couple of years. So a first-gen MacBook Pro or a 2nd-gen MacBook or an Intel iMac and you’re laughing. $US1,500 is at the cheaper end of the spectrum for a photographer to outlay I would imagine. The problem is you might have dropped $5k on a fully decked out G5 three years back and now it’s better off used as a door stop than for running Aperture.
I guess it comes back to the point that A1 was rubbish in the respects you outline, but there’s little point in continuing to analyse version 1, which has been updated twice and we all know to have been a dog. I wasn’t prepared to use it either. I didn’t even have a machine that could LOAD the thing until six months after it was released. I understand you looked at it back then and made your decisions, and of course you aren’t going to change back if it’s all going swimmingly for you. But that doesn’t negate the fact that they’ve managed to take it from being near useless in V1.0 to quite good in 1.5 (which was the release that convinced and enabled me to shoot 100% RAW) to reaching outstanding-status in the latest release – IF you have an Intel Mac bought in the last 2 years or so. So we go back to the original, undeniable point – it’s hardware hungry compared to LR.
I’m going to respond to the dig about my training in kind… clearly you have a drum to beat if you’re supporting the site you are, and doing the Road Tours, and bless you, everybody has to make a buck, and the people who are using the product surely appreciate your support. ...but most of the people I’ve worked with have come to the conclusion that Lightroom, even Bridge, for that matter, does essentially everything Aperture does at about the same speed if not faster.<<
I still don’t know why we’re talking about Aperture 1.0 in these comments.
I’m not trying to take a ding at you, you say you’re a certified Aperture trainer, and yet you’ve told us that Aperture files have to live in a “containerized” environment (not true for 2 years now) that you say you used “the default setup… did not “Reference” ‘cause I couldn’t remember how, and figured it’s not really Apple’s “suggested” workflow” which is a major tenant of the program, and then said that the “normal” machine for professional photographers is a four year old Powerbook.
Again, if you like Lightroom more power to you. But your comments don’t jive with what’s going on.
I’m sorry, rereading my posts I can see how maybe you could come to the conclusion that maybe I don’t understand what is going on. Especially regarding the “containerized files” comment, my point was exactly that, that I DO understand Apple gave some options after v1.0, etc.etc. The assumption I had hoped you’d make was that I didn’t need an explanation of all that, and that we could move on. I have given the product over a year and a half of a chance, including investing in formal training, and have come to my conclusions. I know full well Aperture can run without the “container” protocol, but I also know full well that Apple claims that is the fastest and best way to work.
I don’t see where you think we’re talking about Aperture 1.0 in these comments, David. OR what that has to do with my point.
Again, I guess I wasn’t clear on my Powerbook, either. I had it lying around, I thought it was a decent seat-of-the-pants test platform. My equally SOTP conclusion is on a tired old machine Lightroom runs great, and Aperture 2 does too, although not, from what I saw briefly, as well, and certainly not significantly better. Out of respect, I sent a link to a thread where some much more credible and serious testing had been done. (Interestingly, the challenges to that guys testing were all around hardware flaws… people were saying that his hardware must be having trouble, yet that trouble didn’t seem to make a difference to Lightroom…)
My point in this whole mess is really quite simple. Apple is asking me to make an investment of time, equipment and education to give me a product that is only marginally living up to Apple’s claims. It’s not significantly faster, if at all, than Lightroom. The processing I have seen is not better. It’s not more efficient.
I can jump into an Adobe product that does not ask me to tool up my system, or learn much different skills, or work within a different file structure protocol to get these advantages, so why use Aperture? THAT is the question I’d like to hear answers to…
And honestly, this is not even my own question. This is a question I’ve been asked repeatedly by photographers. It’s not about selling your soul to Satan, or Apple, most everybody I know would gladly do that for a benefit like, say, half the processing time for example.
I am bone-tired of hearing manufacturers explain how a product design is going to revolutionize my life. Everything sounds great, as did the design of Aperture, until I look for the beef.
Apple is asking me to make an investment of time, equipment and education to give me a product that is only marginally living up to Apple’s claims. It’s not significantly faster, if at all, than Lightroom. <<
Apple’s not asking you to do anything. If you’re entrenched in a workflow that works for you on your legacy equipment, then great.
If though you’d like to have a list of the features that Aperture has that Lightroom does not, I’d be happy to list them.
These are the ones off the top of my head, I’m sure I’m missing some.
I’ll break this down into Aperture features in general (1.5 and before) and then 2.0 features. These are sort of in an off-the-top-of-my-head order.
Aperture, General
File Management and workflow —-—-—-—-——- • Ability to move files around to any location via the Aperture interface, copying, moving and relocating files as you do so.
• Direct integration with iLife and iWork applications—all Aperture projects are available in all Apple iLife and iWork programs via the Media Browser for drag/drop use in creative process. For example, drop images from Aperture projects into your Podcasts created in Garageband. Drop multiple photos into Keynote to create slideshows with work (especially cool with new Smart Builds). Sync images from Aperture to your iPhone automatically. Drop photos right into Pages documents. All of this happens without having to ever export a file. The Media Browser just gives direct access to your Aperture (and iPhoto) projects, smart albums and images.
• Dual-monitor support for side-by side extension of the workspace. For example, display browser on one screen and full-size image on second display.
• Onscreen soft proofing of color space for output.
•Ability to send email attachments of images in any format at the click of a button.
• Non-modal interface that doesn’t require jumping into a mode to develop images, a mode to adjust them, etc. Ability to perform adjustment or metadata tasks at any time.
• Automatic web upload to .Mac account.
• Automator and Applescripting.
• Light table layout mode for image preview and previewing.
Interface ——- • Loupe – resizeable, moveable loupe that pulls data from original raw file, allowing zoom of up to 1600% on an image. The loupe can also display color data and values, and is used for pixel-level precise color sampling for tools like White-Balance and Color. (As opposed to the “Loupe” in LR that’s simply a zoom mode.
• Configurable layout that allows for the rotation or swapping of position of browser and viewer, and resizing of interface elements. Interface elements can be toggled off to expand view (see Aperture 2.0 for more changes to this) and HUD use for non-invastive palettes that can be toggled on and off and repositioned.
• Hierarchical keywords – Nested-multi-layer keyword support for assignment and search of images.
• Keyword buttons and drag/drop – Keywording allows for drag-drop keywords onto multiple images, or assignment (and removal) of keywords via button sets.
• Smart Albums – Create albums based on search criteria that automatically update as images match those criteria. (For example,
• Smart Web Albums – Web albums automatically created via smart search criteria.
• List tool that displays images as a sortable list based on EXIF/IPTC attributes.
• Custom IPTC and metadata view modes.
• Customizable metadata overlay available for Viewer, Browser and as a tooltip (with two different display modes for each).
Editing/Adjusting —-—-—- • Batch change of all metadata at once.
• Ability to lift and stamp • Raw fine tuning controls that adjust the baseline tonal curve of the imported raw file, and allow for a camera-model level adjustment to be applied.
• Highlight and shadow tool.
• Edge sharpen tool.
• Straighten tool (enhanced in 2.0) that both straightens and crops images.
Output —— • Print presets allowing for instantaneous printing to specified printers using pre-saved print output settings, paper types, and color management settings.
Content Creation —-—-—- • Books and prints – Custom books or prints ordered directly through Aperture interface, delivered right to you. (Sizes from 4×6 to 20×30)
Backup —— • Vault – One click backup of Library to multiple drives at once.
Aperture 2.0 —-—-
File Management and Workflow —-—-—-—-—— • New Raw 2.0 engine, which gives the RAW Fine Tuning tool a Hue Boost slider and Moire adjustments.
• Tethered shooting with Nikon and Canon cameras.
• Task pausing via Activity display Interface ——- • Quick Preview mode, which can use either an Aperture generated or camera-generated preview for display on screen. (By default, btw, Lightroom is showing you just a preview, by default Aperture is showing you the raw data.
• Customize keyboard settings for any Aperture tool and menu item.
