.
  Lightstalkers
* My Profile My Galleries My Networks

i hate aperture

hi all.
i reccently bought aperture. unfortunately i was only able to see the first presentation at the soho store in nyc and i was relly excited to revolution my entire workflow with this wonderful software. i opened the box in the Ramadi US military base where i’m living ready to spend some time to learn the new application with the certainty that it would pay off in the long term. i tried using aperture for two weeks and i was about to have some soldier come and light up my powerbook. i was running it on a 15 inch pb 1.67gh with 1gb of ram and the right graphic card. it was still slow and it took forever to do anything. the interface is elegant but that’s about it. i don’t think it was designed for people like me, that live out of suitcases and only work with laptops. i read though that many problems still exist when running it from a high end g5 machine. the captioning system is slow and batching is not as smooth as it should be. the keyword interface is real nice though. i don’t keep my cards on my lap top, and selecting the images to upload in the library is not as easy than with other applications. i shoot a lot of high ISO frames and the raw converter is far more noisier than camera raw. plus it doesn’t have a shadow tool. the sharpener is hard to manage compared to the photoshop one. their initial idea of using metadata was bright but most of us are used to work with photoshop and jumping from aperture to ps and back is not a fast process. the web galleries and books are nice, as well as other secondary tools, but the core system is not suited for what i do. sorry apple. 500 dollars wasted. i just hope that they realize that we need to work with our images without seeing that spinning wheel all the time. i don’t know much about bugs but it seems that many commands just don’t work as they should. i updated to 1.01 but it did not help. there is no real batch captioning except for the lift and stamp tool. takes many clicks and frustration to work on several images at a time.
i don’t know who were their photo advisers but for sure there were no photojournalists that work the way i do. on the ground, dusty and dirty, with a few fire wire hard drives and not so much time to edit entire stories before filing. i switched to apple because i wanted a machine that worked better and using aperture feels like working on my old DELL. far too slow and not focused on the important things. so i’ll go back to my fotostation and photoshop for every image. hoping that the california dudes will listen to the chatter and adjust. or in adobe lightoroom I ll need to trust.

by [a former member] at 2006-01-21 06:12:49 UTC (ed. Mar 12 2008 ) Ramadi , Iraq | Bookmark | | Report spam→

Guy, my findings are the same that thing is UNUSABLE, PERIOD. I know some wedding photographer in the midwest might contradict, or a fashion shooter in NYC with 4 assistants sitting in front of 2 quad G5’s with twin 30" monitors each, but for the rest of us, it is simply a non starter. The conversion plainly sucks (pardon my French, it is my mother language after all) and everything else you mention is sadly true. iView/ACR/PS CS2 or C1/CS2 anytime instead of this (lame) dog. (pun intended).
Stay safe.

by [former member] | 21 Jan 2006 07:01 (ed. Jan 21 2006) | back home in Brussels, Belgium | | Report spam→
guy: have a go at Adobe Lightroom, which has been released as a beta-version.  it is smaller, faster,  simpler and more importantly works better.  you can download it here: http://labs.macromedia.com/technologies/lightroom/. you can also read a preview of the product here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/software/lightroom1.shtml.  so far i find it a far better product that Aperture, and it even works on the old G4 powerbooks!

by [former member] | 21 Jan 2006 07:01 | stockholm, Sweden | | Report spam→
Hey Guy, I am sorry. I know my enthusiasm for Aperture after the demo in Soho was a major factor in your decision to purchase. I to thought it would make our life much easy and there are many features that I like BUT the all the bad things are showstoppers. I also feel that Apple have been underhand with the marketing and demos, I don’t believe they were working in RAW. I have tried Aperture on a quad core powermac with 8 gigs of RAM with the top-of-the-line video card and it just does not flow like the demos.

I really want Apple to get this right but having seen what they have done for us photojournalists with the new MacBook Pro maybe not. Why take away the bus card? and replace with something to small for CF card reader and no more Firewire 800! So much for the drives they sold me.

So, sorry again Guy. No more Christmas cards for me then ?

by [former member] | 21 Jan 2006 09:01 | London, United Kingdom | | Report spam→
Guy, Couldn’t agree more. It’s clunky, complicated and in general, very disapointing. The lightbox feature is useful, but that’s about it. Bruno is right, it seems that Apple designed this for the tiny number of photographers who have twin 30" screens and the desktop to match. For a photographer on the road, this is a real lame duck. Adobe’s Lightroom is much better, easier to use and it makes sense on a laptop, unlike Aperture, which on a 15" screen is just annoying. Lightroom is still in development, so is a bit slow and buggy for now. I’m heading back to Photomechanic.

by [former member] | 21 Jan 2006 09:01 (ed. Jan 21 2006) | New York, United States | | Report spam→
Actually, I agree.  I see no reason to switch to this cumbersome mofo, if iView and Photoshop together manage to do the job, and do it very well.  Btw, the beta version Lightroom only works if you have Tiger.  Those of us with Panther are out of luck.  I did, however, review the tutorials, and the program  does look good.


by Jon Anderson | 21 Jan 2006 11:01 | Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic | | Report spam→
I am agree with the program which was not designed for photographers on the road using Ibook expecially.
I found Photo Mechanic a fast program to select the raw, rename them and then of course work them in photoshop.
have a try
I will try the Lightroom in any case

by [former member] | 23 Jan 2006 02:01 | Phnom Penh, Cambodia | | Report spam→
Aperture is just iphoto on steroids and iphoto is useless too. Especially the fact that the app can only use pictures stored in the library! What about all the external drives, cd’s and dvd’s? No for me, photomechanic for sorting, captioning and renaming, Photoshop for editing and iView for my archival needs… Lightroom looks promising but it keeps crashing on my Dual 1ghz G4 (I know it’s a beta) and can’t seem to search IPTC captions and keywords.

by Guido Van Damme | 23 Jan 2006 04:01 | Lokeren, Belgium | | Report spam→
I think Apple has heard a lot of complaints and will probably work on getting them fixed. If Aperture stays in the product lineup, I predict it won’t be till v.3 that we’ll see a product worth the $500 price.

by Terence Patrick | 24 Jan 2006 01:01 (ed. Jan 24 2006) | Los Angeles, United States | | Report spam→
I tried the beta of Lightroom, don’t like it at all, very unprecise to use (to make big and smal the photos) and not so atractive with the interface…. the only things I miss of pc is Acdsee which is fast and easy to use, if apple can produce a similar software (perhaps also where you can work and save raw into tiff) that will be great…
I do work with bridge for sorting and look at photos (as I could not crack photo mechanic…. 450 dollars is far too much sorry) and fotostation to captioning, best so far i can use till now

by [former member] | 24 Jan 2006 06:01 | Phnom Penh, Cambodia | | Report spam→
thank you all. yes, apple indeed should listen more to us instead of focusing on high end presentations with a handful of names. Richard, no worries, i enjoyed seeing the presentation together and at the end im sure that sooner or late they will have to fix most of the issues. ill keep sending xmas cards….. actually we can talk about it in front of a good bottle of white wine in september!!!!!! cheers. and i appreciate all of you spending time sharing your thoughts. Bruno, you are always so precise and helpful.

by [former member] | 26 Jan 2006 14:01 (ed. Jan 26 2006) | Ramadi, Iraq | | Report spam→
Hi Guy
sure a bottle of wine is what I need in Asia…. let’s meet up in Perpignan in september and perhaps there will be a better software to speak about it

by [former member] | 27 Jan 2006 21:01 | Bangkok, Thailand | | Report spam→
I use Fotostation for the workflow, captioning and renaming etc, and I highly recommend it. http://www.fotostation.no/

by Eivind H. Natvig | 28 Jan 2006 03:01 | | Report spam→
I am agree about fotostation , for me the best program for captioning, someone in Perpignan told me about I-view as a better software but I didn’t undertand how to caption with it…

by [former member] | 28 Jan 2006 04:01 | Bangkok, Thailand | | Report spam→
Daniele, select the image(s) you want to caption, click on the ‘information’ tab upperleft, do your thing, then: action/sync annotation and voilà…easy and safe! I tworks, iView is by FAR the most user frienly cataloging software…I only drink pastis (a lot) in Perpignan…

by [former member] | 28 Jan 2006 05:01 | back home in Brussels, Belgium | | Report spam→
pasti in perpignan… this year was not so bad… the french wine is also good I have to admit (as italian hard to say that…)
but generally if perpignan was in italy would be a better food for everybody….
sorry france….
I will try iview, I heard some things for other photographers but I never had the chance to study it
thanks for the info

by [former member] | 28 Jan 2006 05:01 | Bangkok, Thailand | | Report spam→
Bruno, I tried the Iview, understand it better but still think that fotostation give me a better look at all the captions and info to fill up, better interface and stil thinking is better but I will try it more and will see
so far….

by [former member] | 28 Jan 2006 21:01 | Bangkok, Thailand | | Report spam→
I hate MAC!

by [former member] | 29 Jan 2006 02:01 | Minsk, Belarus | | Report spam→
Mikhail, ever used a Mac?

by Guido Van Damme | 29 Jan 2006 02:01 | Lokeren, Belgium | | Report spam→
Obviously not…Aperture is a dog, but macs and the Apple OS are by far the most elegant PC solutions, and have been so consistantly for the last 20 years…Sorry, Mikhail… by the way, I might come to Belarus one of these days….

by [former member] | 29 Jan 2006 03:01 | back home in Brussels, Belgium | | Report spam→
Guy, the day is coming when Apple will be listening to us here: we already had one example of this when Getty changed the terms of their contract for the Getty grant as a result of checking on the forum here.  Apple, agencies, camera companies, they should all start checking in here regularly to see how the photo community thinks.

Mikhail, how can you hate Mac?  they are so much better than PCs and windows.  Windows, ugh.  However, for those of you who are torn between the two, or like the construction of  a PC (easier to fix yourself and build too, after all), you can now run a Mac on a PC machine, so you get the best of both worlds.


by Jon Anderson | 29 Jan 2006 06:01 | Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic | | Report spam→
Right Jon about Mac on PC. The current question is whether Windows will run on the Intel based new Mac. I believe the jury is still out on that one.

by John Robert Fulton Jr. | 29 Jan 2006 07:01 (ed. Jan 29 2006) | Fort Worth, United States | | Report spam→
And as far as I am concerned, the decision will be moot as I have no intention of ever working with Windows again, unless i absolutely have to!  I have decided to build myself a PC/Mac down here, because I can do so cheaply, and that will be my desktop, but that is as far as I plan togo in this hybridization.  But it will be interesting to see what comes out of this  mixing of the two.

btw, John, I will b egetting back to you with a PM soon.


by Jon Anderson | 29 Jan 2006 07:01 | Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic | | Report spam→
Hi Mikhail, well if you say I hate mac to say I hate computers is a general but understandable sentences… we should all live in the trees, not using eletricity, not using cameras and so on… philosophy… but if you said I hate mac because windows is better… well this is a a rare and unusual statement… I have been using for all my life a mac computer (since 1995) and I had a break in 2001 when I stupidly bought a desktop windows… was the biggest mistake of my life… reformatted 7 times in 7 months… and hard disk of 250 gone mad and the logic of window xp… my god… really if you really have to be related to Bill Gates to hate mac… but even Bill Gates hate windows I suppose…

by [former member] | 29 Jan 2006 07:01 | Bangkok, Thailand | | Report spam→
I read somewhere that Bill Gates uses a Mac at home… But that’s propably Apple propaganda. I guess some like Mac and some like Windooze just like some like white and others red wine, blond vs. brown haired women, Nikon vs Canon, BMW vs Mercedes… It’s so strange that these things are so sensative to lotsa people.

by Guido Van Damme | 29 Jan 2006 07:01 | Lokeren, Belgium | | Report spam→
Wine is RED!
but no way I don’t think is question to compare nikon to canon, or blonde to black, I think window is far away in terms of quality to mac as perhaps Unix is the best systems so far… no way to do a kind of comparison, windows has several problems and it is quite evident
Bill gates for sure has mac at home…

by [former member] | 29 Jan 2006 07:01 | Bangkok, Thailand | | Report spam→
I am not sure that wine is RED! but I am with you on the Windows vs Mac — sorry this is not a "subjective" matter, the latter is superior to the former on all criteria you care to list.  Windows achieved its omnipresence only through market strategy not through superior quality.  Btw, Daniele, Umbria is beautiful!  Years since i was there though.


by Jon Anderson | 29 Jan 2006 08:01 | Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic | | Report spam→
Ok, Daniele, you’re right! I love red wine, use Canon, Mac and my wife has brown hair! :-)
But why all those millions of windooze users? Why do large companies trust on windooze? Despite all the security and other problems? Are 90 % of the computer users plain stupid are just ignorant? Most people I know (who are not photographers or in the graphic bizniz) just don’t know Apple computers are just don’t want to know them! But they all like the iPod but just don’t know or care about Apple computers.
I guess they like all the virusses… Strange.

by Guido Van Damme | 29 Jan 2006 08:01 | Lokeren, Belgium | | Report spam→
strange world… look at the music chart, did you ever seen Tom Waits in the first position? or do you why Mac Donalds all over the world are always full? I think there is a reason, the secret is marketing, how to market these things…
Abotu computer there is a big fear of buying apple “because there are not many software available”… this is marketing… why people say that and in reality isn’t true at all
For the Ipod I discover a web site from england where the people post their hate agaisnt it, they said is evil…. but this if funny too
strange… but is also true that people needs to follow what the majority do, security feeling

by [former member] | 29 Jan 2006 08:01 | Bangkok, Thailand | | Report spam→
It is not strange at all Guido, it has to do with the aggressive marketing strategies adopted by  Gates back in the early days of computers, and also the edge that companies already established, such as IBM, had.  Some economists like to argue that the market is a free space in which the best will emerge as a result of its inherent superiority and thus immediate and clear appeal to the consumer, but this is simply not the case at all.  Apple was an entirely maverick garage-style small company and it never had the clout or connections to compete.  Now with the inevitable hybridization it will be interesting to see what happens.


by Jon Anderson | 29 Jan 2006 08:01 | Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic | | Report spam→
Hey Jon
you are right Umbria is a beautiful region, I grew up with olive trees and good RED wine… that’s why my statement about wine… i will be back there in summer , welcome to come

by [former member] | 29 Jan 2006 08:01 | Bangkok, Thailand | | Report spam→
I’ d love to but it is doubtful. ONe day.  Maybe if I can think of an assignment I can shop around.  Umbria, red wine (INCREDIBLE red wine), good food,  beautiful countryside.  What  a dream.  THough I am also  partial to the South. Spent alot of time in Puglia, also a famous olive region, and Lecce is a beautiful city.


by Jon Anderson | 29 Jan 2006 09:01 | Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic | | Report spam→
Hi gang, here is another program  worth checking out!  Lighzone, download it at www.lightcrafts.com. I saw a demo at  the recent PPA convention and it has the feel of working in the darkroom.

Works on Windows, Mac and Linux. (Written in Java) It isn’t an all-in-one program, it just  makes toning and processing images quick and easy.  Designed specifically for photographers, rather than Photoshop which is trying to meet the demands of graphic artist, prepress production, video, webmasters and photographers.

At the show they reported an upgrade coming out later this year  with  features photographers have requested since it was introduced last year. They arre basing it on Ansel Adam’s way of seeing things, the Zone System.

Jim.


by Jim Domke | 31 Jan 2006 08:01 | Fort Worth Texas, United States | | Report spam→
I’ve used both Windows and Apple software and although Mac stuff used to be way better that’s not been the case for many years. Personally I find many aspects of the Mac interface clunky and clumsy and it’s not thru lack of familiarity, it’s that too much emphasis is put on pretty rather than ergonomic design.

Both systems are very good, both have flaws, but I find many of people who talk about Macs as if they were something special [it’s just a computer] usually have little experience of current PCs. And the insides are the same now too, funny how Apple have started using PC parts when for so many years they said they how rubbish Intel etc were.

I was quite excited when I first read about Aperture as it seemed like a excellent idea, but on closer examination it seemed deeply flawed. I am not trusted my work to proprietry software esp. as Apple has a habit of dropping [legacy] support for its customers. Apparently one reason it’s so buggy is they were desperate to get to market b4 Adobe, I also recently heard some interesting insider info about where the development/ideas re Aperture came from. The real cheek I thought was that they charged customers for what is rather obviously a Beta.

Jon, Apple were not a small garage company when it came to marketing they were/are very aggressive and high profile with their marketing in many ways. The mistake they made was not licencing an obviously better product to get deep market penetration. They foolishly assumed that people would buy the superior product. In fact people bought what they could afford and over time the poor relation improved so much that Apple started to be the laggard in many ways.

by AJP Lawrence | 26 Feb 2006 04:02 (ed. Feb 26 2006) | Sheffield/London, United Kingdom | | Report spam→
This thread seems to have wandered away from the original topic a little, and has clearly touched on the popular "discussion" of Mac vs Windows.    The original post was about Aperture.  I would hate for anyone to dismiss the entire Apple line because of one product.  I have lost count of the number of Aperture demos I have seen but the fact of the matter is, right now I don’t need it.  I shoot RAW and JPG’s.  I need to file fast and often in less than ideal conditions.  I do not have the luxury, nor the twin 30 inch screens, to ponder which image is better.  Aperture’s technology requirements are high and even though I run a 17 inch Powerbook with 100Gb HD, 2Gb RAM and whichever video card is recommended for driving big screens, I still would not move to Aperture without a high end G5 containing at least 4Gb RAM.  For field photojournalists, I really don’t see much need to move beyond Adobe Photoshop with Camera RAW, and/or the Canon Digital Photo Pro software.  I also revert to Capture One sometimes.

Aperture?  I don’t need it.  But it is unlikely that I will ever move back from a Mac platform to the flakiness of Windows.



by ABC | 03 Mar 2006 10:03 (ed. Mar 3 2006) | | Report spam→
i too was enthralled by aperture demo. left adobe bridge and bought aperture and intel-based macs for our dept. Hated it from arrival as the laptops sucked with aperture. eventually local Mac folk admitted it was computer issue and not an installation one – need 2 gigs ram to make it work decently. Also hated early version as it was a closed system, but now that is fixed (import pix onto HD and not into Aperture library) , and now I do like it. not perfect but great edit tool, and think Apple did bullshit us on this one.

by Greg Marinovich | 11 Jan 2007 12:01 | Johannesburg, South Africa | | Report spam→
wine is red, cameras are nikons, computers are apples, and all women are beautiful. Aperture is a dog, lightroom is ok, it is still only a beta after all, and adobe do seem to be listening to photographers as each new beat has been better than the last, all better than aperture of course. And AJP the mac interface clumsy? I don’t see this at all it just seems to work like it should do, but maybe thats just me. Anyway I can see a nice glass of Bourdeaux(red) sitting in front of me so I shall drink to you all
Paul

by Paul Blandford | 11 Jan 2007 14:01 | mellondorf, Germany | | Report spam→
I am with Bruno, Iview is the way to go, its the center of my workflow, editing system. Iview is a great program, you can have one image in ten “catelogs,” and copy imaages around to your various drives as you need to. You move them into catalogs by drag an drop as well. Concept is that the files remain in your folders and are just referenced in the catalogs, then when you need to move them you group select, copy, and there you go. If you need a smaller file, you can open into Photoshop from within Iview, resize and save into another folder for your FTP or even FTP from within the later versions of Iview I believe.

For caption, IPTC, and all of that Photo Mechanic is good too…lots of tools there.

The digital photography shouldn’t be that complicated….its not like editing video where there really are a lot of complexities. Try doing a ten minute video piece on Final Cut and you will see what I mean.

by [former member] | 11 Jan 2007 14:01 | Back home again in Louisiana, United States | | Report spam→
A lot of the challenges that the original poster stated about Aperture have now been addressed in Aperture Versions 1.5 and above.

Aperture does now use referenced files and the code has been optimized from the version 1. I use Aperture 1.5 on a MacBook with only 1GB of RAM, and yes there are issues that crop up occasionally and I do find that using the loupe on thumbnail pages freaks Aperture out and crashes my machine, but all in all the one reason I moved to Apple was Aperture and I believe as it goes through its various versions it will only get better.

I have tried Lightroom also but found it sluggish once the library size increased – it was practically useless after I passed around 65,000 images.

Use what ever tool you find most useful, use it to its full potential, read its manual – you may just learn new tricks, but most of all remember to keep taking pictures.

by Andrew Beckett | 10 Feb 2007 10:02 | | Report spam→
for what it’s worth, I was one of the beta testers for Aperture and have filed loads of bugs. The latest ver (1.5.2) has come a long long way since the early versions, which i’ll admit were crap.
Having spent the last 13 years breaking into machines and looking for security vulnerabilities*, I kinda know software and the software development lifecycle and any new product has glitches. Currently I use Aperture on a 17" mbro with 2gb ram AND a fast disk and have had no issues, this is with a multitude of digital cameras and 75mb backs and film.

Lightroom is ok, but nothing in comparison to the real strength of Aperture.

Again, it’s another tool and it’s how you use that tool that counts

  • you wouldn’t catch me running any version of windows, it’s just not secure enough, no matter how many extra security programs you install


by Daniel Cuthbert | 10 Feb 2007 18:02 | Bangkok, Thailand | | Report spam→
Sorry I don’t have time to read all the posts on this but I love Aperture. Just love it. I edit in PhotoMechanic and import only the selects because Aperture is too slow in that regard. I find the conversions to be as good as about any other, including C1, but they really really need to introduce curves. It’s just a huge, glaring stupid omission.

It is a little slow sometimes on my MBP 17" but it saves me so much time everywhere else by having my selects from all assignments captioned and ready for export in whatever size through the excellent export interface. And having the untouched original lying underneath the versions you creat is just how it should be.

For me, if they introduce curves and speed it up a bit it would be just great. I tried Lightroom and found the interface to be clunky and limiting, and I don’t like Adobe’s raw conversions anyway.

by Dave Yoder | 10 Feb 2007 18:02 | Milan, Italy | | Report spam→
you mean Mac Nerd : )

by James Brickwood | 11 Feb 2007 08:02 | Sydney, Australia | | Report spam→
i’m a proud mac nerd and must admit i was first seduced by aperture’s nice interface and flashy tools but now i plainly think it needs a lot of work before it’s up to being a really useful tool for serious photographers. it doesn’t even have a curves tool… wtf is that about? also it just runs far too slow and i have a near spankin’ new macbook pro all kitted up with ram.

they need to get rid of silly power-sucking stuff like the loupe tool and add a curves dialog. fingers crossed for version 2.0… or maybe aperture lite? more of a streamlined digital asset management tool than a half-arsed final cut pro for photographers.

by Ed Giles | 11 Feb 2007 12:02 | Sydney, Australia | | Report spam→
1) Never use Version One of ANYTHING
2) A Beta IS LESS THAN VERSION ONE
3) Try Photo Mechanic (http://www.camerabits.com/) for $150 if you want a fast, stable program to handle your ingesting, captioning, etc.

by James Colburn | 12 Feb 2007 03:02 | Omaha, Nebraska, United States | | Report spam→
Am I the only person that uses Bridge? Tried the others, but I found that they try to do too much, which messes up my workflow. Just give me the basic tools.

by Tommy Huynh | 12 Feb 2007 05:02 | San Antonio, United States | | Report spam→
I played with Bridge, but found it really unstable on my computer. Thought it might be because I’m running an Intel Mac and Bridge still runs through Rosetta…

by Ed Giles | 12 Feb 2007 06:02 | Sydney, Australia | | Report spam→
I played with aperture for a short while and didn’t like it. I missed curves, found the controls counter intuitive and it kinda was difficult to look at. The small font hurt my eyes. I like lightroon but I still prefer P’Shop. It seems like I have more control(might be because I am just use to it) and I don’t have to switch programs for masking or retouching(I’m not a photojournalist and I of course don’t use these features for my editorial work). A friend of mine who is an art producer said a lot of the fashion guys don’t like Aperture either.

@Ed

Are you using CS2? If so, have you updated to the latest vesion? I was having frequent crashing priblems on my Intel mac, untill I updated. No problems since.

by Fj Hughes | 12 Feb 2007 19:02 | Baltimore, United States | | Report spam→
I have just taken Photomechanic for a test drive and like the speed and simplicity. I usually use Bridge, as I have found the alternatives no better for my purposes. I find Bridge slow for some tasks (running G5 with 1.5G Ram Power PC) and thought I might try Aperature for faster loading etc. It sounds like I may as well not bother. Having stated all this I have a Question: how do I edit an image in photoshop once I have it selected in photomechanic? Double clicking, or right clicking then edit, or edit from meu bar only gets me to Preview on my Mac. I can’t find a preference setting to open my edits in P/S. Thanks all. Les.

by Leslie Philipp | 13 Feb 2007 04:02 | NWT & Alberta, Canada | | Report spam→
We have just implemented a workflow in automator that makes using aperure 1.5.2 with 2 gig ram a pleasure. I agree on curves and speed, but dramatic imrove in speed (and make sapetrure an open system shud you switch) is to import master files into your HD or pictures and only have references in aperture library. much faster, and don’t feel trapped by apple. still needs work, i am now hp[py to recommend aperture as a working tool, even on a laptop. Greg

by Greg Marinovich | 13 Feb 2007 08:02 | Johannesburg, South Africa | | Report spam→
any chance you could upload the workflow somewhere, greg? sounds brilliant…

by Ed Giles | 13 Feb 2007 10:02 | Sydney, Australia | | Report spam→
Leslie,

To move photos from PhotoMechanic to Photoshop: launch PM, open preferences, go to the Launching tab, under the default selection select Photoshop. Save your change. When you want to edit a photo in Photoshop, hit command – e. That will launch Photoshop (if it is not running) and open the photo. If it is a RAW file, it will open the photo in the Photoshop RAW converter.

jack

by Jack Kurtz | 13 Feb 2007 14:02 | Phoenix, AZ, United States | | Report spam→
You guys ever used Digital Photo Professional to develop your RAWS? You know: it’s the thing that comes FOR FREE with the Canons. I use it since three years and find the results FAR BETTER than any other software I tried (Capture One and Lightroom). Check it out and compare the same RAW file which has been gone through all three softs at 100%. Somehow the DPP results looks the most “natural”. It’s a teenie weenie clumsy to use but it really works and it’s only a matter of getting used to the interface. I combine it with iView (obviously) and a little shot of CS2 at the end. iView is a bit slow in rendering the RAWs but I am churning an old 1.84 Ghz G5 iMac. The trouble is iView was bought by Microsoft and I am a bit worried they’ll target the film industry, forgetting to improve the photography aspect of the software (new verison due in the spring).

by [former member] | 16 Feb 2007 12:02 | Phnom Penh, Cambodia | | Report spam→
What happens if you run out of space in Apertures ‘Vaults’ – if you plug in a new drive will it carry on from where it left off, or does it copy ‘all’ the data onto the new drive – in essence needing ever larger ‘vault’ drives each time?

Once on a vault can the files be safely removed from the computer – in my case, laptop. Is there some automated system built into Aperture which does this automatically as I can see me running out of space on the MacBook real soon, unless I work out some strategy for archiving the data.

I’ve tried PhotoMechanic in the past and I liked what it did, my first impression of Aperture was PhotoMechanic with numerous more bells and whistles. I have not tried PhotoMechanic recently but I can see the benefits of software which such a small ‘footprint’.

One piece of software often forgotten, maybe because its free, if your on a PC is Picassa from Google – I actually found that the optimisation and speed of the whole interface put some of the professional photo organisational tools to shame. The speed benefits that it gave me for some of the jobs I had with quicker turnaround times were palpable.

Saying all this, I’m still very happy with Aperture and wonder what benefits the upgrade to Leopard later in the year will bring. Perhaps Wade Laube, in Sydney, Australia can ask them.

by Andrew Beckett | 16 Feb 2007 14:02 | Manchester, United Kingdom | | Report spam→
What does photomechanic do that iView doesn’t? I have heard people say: CS2 for processing, photomechanic for batch captioning and iView for organizing. Isn’t it just either photomechanic or iView for the captioning and organizing? And what about Lightroom?

by Davin Ellicson | 16 Feb 2007 19:02 | Gt. Barrington, Massachusetts, United States | | Report spam→
I’ve been using Aperture on a MacBook Pro (2.33, 2Gb RAM) for a couple of months now. As has already been mentioned, the demos on high end machines are amazing, and it seemed to have been developed more for a tower with a couple of 24 or 30" screens.
However, I must say that the more I use the program and the more I pick up short cuts, the more I’m beginning to like it. It could run faster and even on a high end laptop it can sometimes slow down, but in two months of shooting Canon 5D RAWs, it hasn’t to its credit crashed once.
It is a sharp learning curve at the start, as the program doesn’t feel intuitive, and is a different way of working. However, trust me on this, give it time and once you get used to it, its a very nice way to work. I use it to import, edit, caption and apply all my adjustments in Aperture. I then export the files as 8-bit Tiffs into a folder, open them up in Photoshop for any further changes (dodging and burning mainly), crop them to size and then save as jpeg to wire. I then keep the Tiffs as “originals”, as well as all the RAWs.
I have a straight line of communication to Apple for Aperture, so if anyone has any constructive criticism or suggestions, please feel free to let me know and I shall pass them on. Please note though that I’m still learning this program and am in no way an expert!

Cheers,

Edmond

by Edmond Terakopian | 16 May 2007 19:05 | London, United Kingdom | | Report spam→
I’m preparing to purchase a MacBook Pro and after reading all of these posts I’m still not quite sure whether Aperture or Lightroom would be the better choice. I don’t use much photoshop and would like to do most of the simple editing in the program. I guess my question is whether or not I’ll be stuck needing to import everything back into photoshop or will Aperture (or Lightroom) allow me to do most of my editing in the program itself?

by _ | 16 May 2007 21:05 | North Carolina, United States | | Report spam→
Jonathan,

If you don’t need to do any dodging, burning or selective (i.e. with the lassoo or similar tools) changes, then Aperture will do it all. I can’t comment on Lightroom as I’ve only very briefly played with the program.

Edmond

by Edmond Terakopian | 16 May 2007 21:05 | London, United Kingdom | | Report spam→
i was about to get aperture, i’m so happy i stumbled on this thread, seems it’s from January? thanks guy. and guys. i’ll stick to the photoshop – fotostation combo.

by [former member] | 16 May 2007 21:05 | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | | Report spam→
Lightroom…

I shot two books last summer and ran 30,000+ NEF files through Lightroom. I am now using the release version, and I am very happy with it. The XMP files are now in sync with Camera Raw in CS3, so files worked in one, open in the other with the same adjustments. Same with DNGs. I put a Transmit droplet in the export presets folder so I can FTP my Digital Railroad archive right out of lightroom.

I taught a course at a university this spring using Lightroom and it worked well on all of the school’s Macs, including the older G4s. It is a very intuitive app, so it was easy for the students (second semester freshmen) to learn, and they could concentrate on making photographs. Students with PCs at home could run the lightroom libraries on their external HDs, and then print off the Macs at school.

by Peter Calvin | 16 May 2007 22:05 | Dallas, Texas, United States | | Report spam→
Guilad,

One little point; most of the problems are with v1 of Aperture. The v1.5 upgrade addressed a lot of the issues, and it works a lot better; its almost like its a totally new version under the hood.
I’d suggest you give it a try; just download the free trial. I’d suggest you flick through the manual as well just to get accustomed to it.

Edmond

by Edmond Terakopian | 16 May 2007 22:05 | London, United Kingdom | | Report spam→
Thanks for the answers. To be honest I’ve been a film shooter for as
long as I can remember so since the transition to digital I’ve been
looking for a program which lets me make the simple adjustments for
output (for assignments and personal projects) without having to toil
over photoshop for hours. I’ll deffinetly be looking at both
Lightroom and Aperture. I’m also curious about the B&W conversion
abilities of both.

by _ | 17 May 2007 00:05 | North Carolina, United States | | Report spam→
I don’t know about Aperture, but Lightroom does a great job at B&W from your raw files. It works a lot like the Photoshop channel mixer, only with more options and control. Download the 30 day trial and have a look.

by Peter Calvin | 17 May 2007 00:05 | Dallas, Texas, United States | | Report spam→
Lightroom is the way to go.

A buddy of mine mentioned it once, and when I upgraded to a MacBook Pro, I took him up on his word.

Best decision I’ve made in a wile. It’s quick, it’s easy, and most of all, efficient. A more practical workflow tool than Aperture.

by [former member] | 17 May 2007 01:05 | | Report spam→
Jonathan,

In the event you second guess yourself and buy Aperture, wait a few weeks, do a real big job, and then resist the urge to throw your laptop through the nearest window.

I promise we won’t say we told you so…

:)

by [former member] | 17 May 2007 01:05 | | Report spam→
Thanks for that Mustafah…looks like I’ll be picking up Lightroom then.

by _ | 17 May 2007 01:05 | North Carolina, United States | | Report spam→
ladies,
work with photomechanic on your laptops, and use aperture on your cuad g5. i know you all have one

by loqui and the loquer | 17 May 2007 04:05 | Madrid, Spain | | Report spam→
I recently tested out PS3 Extended for a couple hours and loved it. Supposedly it uses a lot less memory and other resources of the type to run. Which is good because PS2 is a bit slow and hulky. Adobe bought Raw Shooter not too long ago. if I’m not mistaken, and it seems they have successfully integrated all of it’s best features. Raw files in PS3 were a breeze to convert.

by [former member] | 17 May 2007 08:05 | Moscow, Russia | | Report spam→
I read with interest all your views and feelings about ways to sort and process your images using different programs.
I myself don’t use such things as aperture or lightroom or even photomechanic although I have been getting the urge to spend my hard earned money on such software to help me organise my work on my computer. Although I am not sure why as I find my free canon software, transmit and photoshop does the job.
Then again what do I know (not alot), but it does seem alot of money to fork out on aperture etc if they prove to be of no real use. I am now thinking that maybe Expression Media (ie the new i-view pro) is the best way to go seeing as it can be used for still and moving images.
More importantly I see that I-veiw media pro is going to be VERY useful if you have a Digital Railroad site using the uploader avaialble.
Getty seemed to be involved also if you like giving Getty your work?

I am now wondering wether any of you are considering getting i view media pro or the new expression media, Who uses I-view media pro, ANY OF YOU ?? tell us what you think.
Maybe all that money spent on aperture could have been well spent on I-View PRO, Instead guy.

by RUPERT RIVETT | 17 May 2007 14:05 | Brighton, United Kingdom | | Report spam→
I know this is a pretty old post… but I sure am glad I came across it. I was going to purchase aperature this summer, after being wowed by a demo at the apple store. But now I think I’ll go with Lightroom. Thanks all for saving me money and frustration! All best, erin

ps – Hi Guy! How’s life in Ethiopia? I ‘might’ be there in the fall!

by [former member] | 27 Jun 2007 03:06 | Texas, home, United States | | Report spam→
I get the sense that perhaps the point of Aperture is being overlooked. That said, it’s a difficult “point” to articulate.

If you’re looking for “quick and easy” then Aperture isn’t for you, yes Lightroom is a much more facile program for the on-the-fly work, as is Photo Mechanic. Until they optimize the application, deadline work isn’t really Aperture’s forte (though I’m so comfortable with it now that I do use it for deadline work, in a PhotoMechanic-Aperture-PS CS3 combination).

I see Aperture more like an uber-archive system of incredible convenience and flexibility, once you’ve decided on the parts you like. I love the export options and how quick it is to create new ones—so much better than the annoying and laborious creation of PS actions. Adding and modifying IPTC data is easy and fast. The loupe is invaluable, and the superb white balance tool and shadow recovery have saved me so much time it’s insane. Even the straightening tool, which I hated at first, has proved to be brilliant—straightening without wasting even a pixel unnecessarily is fast and easy.

That said, none of the laptops in my opinion should be relied upon for the really heavy Aperture + PS work when used together (I use PS like a giant plug-in for Aperture now). It just bogs down after a while. Perhaps the newest ones with 4 gig ram might do better but I found I had to get a Mac Pro with the X1900XT video card (very important) for it to really muscle through the big jobs.

The app desperately needs to be optimized, and it desperately needs curves and some interface simplification—it’s not intuitive—but it seems to be one of those things people don’t like at first, leave alone for a few months, revisit and it really grows on them. Of course, opinions vary and they’re all valid. At this point though I can’t imagine going back to lesser, simpler software that only did one or two things well for the sake of speed… I think I save much more time, ultimately, on the back end by having my work perpetually ready for export or available for editing in its original form as my PS skills improve. Aperture, for me, offers a huge amount of flexibility under one roof that nothing else even comes close to offering.

by Dave Yoder | 27 Jun 2007 06:06 (ed. Jun 27 2007) | Milan, Italy | | Report spam→
I agree Dave. Having used both Lightroom and Aperture I went with Aperture in the end. It’s is a bit difficult to “get your head around it” at first and there are some of the really neat features in Lightroom that I miss , but overall it’s good ,maybe even great..

John

by John Armstrong-Millar | 27 Jun 2007 08:06 | dusseldorf, Germany | | Report spam→
Dave, I second your points totally. I use it in exactly the same way, and yes, do use it for deadline work which most of my assignments are.
Once you get used to it, its actually very quick, especially for things like batch captioning. It has great export functions and I have yet to find a better straightening tool! The loupe is fantastic as are all the other bits you mentioned. Photoshop is used for selective work such as burning and dodging, but its amazed me just how much of my workflow is now done in Aperture.
Adding to all this, the one thing that PhotoMechanic (which is a big favourite of mine) does not offer is (and I’m quite sure Lightroom doesn’t, though I may be wrong) is image management in an archival sense – full search and backup facilities.
Its not perfect and does need a bit of a redesign to work well on the smaller screens of laptops, but I’m hopeful Apple will take this on board.
When I installed it on my MacBook Pro, I also kept my Capture One Pro, but its been months since I last used C1. I’d say give Aperture a chance, learn a few of the shortcuts and explore its capabilities. I was very pleasantly surprised!

Edmond

by Edmond Terakopian | 27 Jun 2007 08:06 | London, United Kingdom | | Report spam→

Get notified when someone replies to this thread:
Feed-icon-10x10 via RSS
Recommended
Icon_email via email
You can unsubscribe later.

More about sponsorship→

Participants

Jon Anderson, Photographer & Writer Jon Anderson
Photographer & Writer
Ocala Florida , United States
Guido Van Damme, Photographer Guido Van Damme
Photographer
Brussels , Belgium
Terence Patrick, First Assistant Terence Patrick
First Assistant
Los Angeles , United States ( LAX )
Eivind H. Natvig, Photojournalist Eivind H. Natvig
Photojournalist
(photojournalost)
Tromsø , Norway
John Robert Fulton Jr., Photographs John Robert Fulton Jr.
Photographs
Spring Lake, Michigan , United States
Jim Domke, Freelancer Jim Domke
Freelancer
(TexPix)
Arlington Texas , United States ( DFW )
AJP Lawrence, Photographer/Graphic Desi AJP Lawrence
Photographer/Graphic Desi
Sheffield/London , United Kingdom
ABC, ABC
Washington Dc , United States
Greg Marinovich, photographer Greg Marinovich
photographer
Johannesburg , South Africa
Paul Blandford, photojournalist Paul Blandford
photojournalist
By The Pool, At The Bar In Cyprus , Germany ( FRA )
Andrew Beckett, Andrew Beckett
Manchester , United Kingdom
Daniel Cuthbert, button clicker Daniel Cuthbert
button clicker
(..)
London , United Kingdom ( LHR )
Dave Yoder, Dave Yoder
Milan , Italy
James Brickwood, Photographer James Brickwood
Photographer
Sydney , Australia
Ed Giles, Photojournalist Ed Giles
Photojournalist
Sydney , Australia
James Colburn, Photographer/Photo Editor James Colburn
Photographer/Photo Editor
Omaha, Nebraska , United States ( OMA )
Tommy Huynh, Travel & Corporate Photog Tommy Huynh
Travel & Corporate Photog
Houston , United States
Fj Hughes, Freelance Photographer Fj Hughes
Freelance Photographer
Baltimore , United States
Leslie  Philipp, Odd job guy/Explorer Leslie Philipp
Odd job guy/Explorer
(Freelance)
Nwt & Alberta , Canada
Jack Kurtz, Photojournalist Jack Kurtz
Photojournalist
Sangkhla Buri , Thailand
Davin Ellicson, Photographer Davin Ellicson
Photographer
New York , United States
Edmond Terakopian, Photographer Edmond Terakopian
Photographer
London , United Kingdom
_, _
[undisclosed location].
Peter Calvin, photographer, educator Peter Calvin
photographer, educator
Dallas Tx , United States ( DFW )
loqui and the loquer, loqui and the loquer
Madrid , Spain ( MAD )
RUPERT RIVETT, Photographer RUPERT RIVETT
Photographer
Cardiff , United Kingdom
John Armstrong-Millar, Photographer John Armstrong-Millar
Photographer
Pau , France


Keywords

Top↑ | RSS/XML | Privacy Statement | Terms of Use | support@lightstalkers.org / ©2004-2014 November Eleven