Currently Being ModeratedJul 9, 2013 6:02 PM (in response to Terence Devlin)
I have to agree that there must be some cause for your issues. I've been using Aperture for a very long time. I used to keep snapshots, iPhone snaps in iPhoto. But then moved everythig to Aperture. I have no issues with performance at all. Don't hardly ever see a beach ball, frankly I can't recall one, in Aperture. Now iTunes, often.
I have 8GB RAM. I usually have quite a bit open, including iTunes, and onOne Perfect Photo Suite 7.5.
Just hope you find the culprit. And I hope Apple hasn't forgotten about Aperture. I think we can see features for everyone it a program. That's what preferences and settings, are for
Currently Being ModeratedSep 12, 2013 3:35 AM (in response to Don Trammell)
My MacBook Pro, an older Core2Duo model, is maxed out with 8GB. It's not enough. If I make lots of adjustments to lots of images, Aperture will very quickly devour all available RAM and slow down (the dreaded beachballs) as it begins to swap to disk. You should max out your RAM.
I have used Lightroom and Aperture side-by-side for about five years. There is a lot more that Aperture can do which Lightroom can't, and a few key things Lightroom can do which Aperture can't. Assuming that Aperture 4 (X?) comes out in the near future, I expect it to leap way beyond Lightroom in features and performance, and then the unfortunate cycle of Apple silence and user paranoia about Aperture's possible abandonment will begin anew.
This has been going on since v1.
There is zero chance that Aperture 4/X would fail to include lens corrections, noise reduction tools, improvements to its brushes and so on, so there's no need to buy Capture One. When Aperture 4 drops, I expect it to sport a whole new look (think Final Cut Pro x and Logic Pro X), and be loaded to the gills with new abilities, things neither we nor anyone at Adobe has even thought of yet.
Currently Being ModeratedSep 12, 2013 3:45 AM (in response to jeff Leyshon 66)
I think that all three have comparable base image quality, and up until Lightroom 4 I would have said that Capture One had the best adjustment tools in terms of ability to manipulate exposure. I actually think that Lightroom 4 has the better image adjustment tools at the moment, but I continue to rely on Aperture for hundreds of other, far more important reasons. The ability to stretch and pull exposure can be important, but it's rare that I need to do it in the sorts of extreme ways which Lightroom and Capture One allow. I'm not a fan of HDR. I like naturalistic looking images.
Currently Being ModeratedSep 12, 2013 4:14 AM (in response to Mark Alan Thomas)
Predictions aside, merging Capture One and Aperture and ditching the iPhoto features would be a sure way of acquiring pro customers and making it the defacto cross platform pro standard. Not that cross platform means so much anymore, but offer cloud services and iPhone/iPad integration on the Mac version and you just have windows photogs another reason to switch.
Now lets talk about buying pixel mayor and really driving a mail into adobe's coffin...
The only actual iPhoto feature I'm aware of in Aperture is the addition of iPhoto Effects to the Effects list, and this was put there to assist iPhoto users in their transition to Aperture. If you mean Faces and Places, well, Lightroom has the equivalent of Places — Maps — and lots of Lightroom users have been screaming at Adobe to add facial recognition (which they admit that they're working on). I don't use either of those features.
I'm not sure what Aperture could gain by buying and integrating Capture One. What specific functionality does Capture One have which you want to see in Aperture? Is it just to make it cross=platform? Apple could already do that with Aperture if they wanted to (see: Safari, iTunes, QuickTime).
Cloud services and iPhone/iPad integration, yes. Probably will be in Aperture 4/X.
Currently Being ModeratedSep 12, 2013 5:52 AM (in response to Mark Alan Thomas)
I guess it's more the iPhotoishness of faces and places, not just their presence. Anyway, I can think of a few features such as exposure masking and tethering, off the top of my head. But Capture One is definitely the pro standard these days, and acquiring and merging it could help Apple regain their lost pro image and lost pro customers. It's just a theory. For all we know, Aperture is dead and gone.
Currently Being ModeratedSep 12, 2013 6:07 AM (in response to Mark Alan Thomas)
I agree that intergrating the apps makes little sense. I think they have a different purpose.
As a professional I use Capture One because it simply processes my files better than Aperture. The processing engine is better be it with Phase One files, Canon files or now Fuji X-Trans files.
For everything else i.e. family, holiday snaps etc Aperture is great. Its management and sharing capabiities are extremely useful in an online, iPad world. Aperture already utilises iCloud via Photo Streams.
I would look forward to an Aperture update because it would give people confidence in the continuation of the product. Additionally I would hope that the processing abilities would match Capture One.
Yeah. I blame that skeuomorphic silliness on Scott Forstall. Happily, he’s been given the axe. But since I don’t use those features, I never see that stuff anyway.
I agree that Capture One is excellent. I occasionally point out to Lightroom fanatics that Lightroom is for prosumers and wedding photographers, and that the actual pros — the photographers who do really serious work — use neither Lightroom nor Aperture, but rather Capture One Pro. As you can imagine, this sends the Lightroom fans into a rage.
I don’t consider myself to be that class of photographer, but I do consider myself to be more serious than your average Lightroom-using prosumer/wedding photographer. So although I have both Lightroom and Aperture (Capture One’s a bit too pricey for me), my commitment is to Aperture.
Currently Being ModeratedSep 12, 2013 6:18 AM (in response to jeff Leyshon 66)
That sounds exactly like my case FOR integrating them. Their "different purpose" is only in the details- they actually have the same purpose, RAW processing and asset management. Now add to that non destructive editing that will make me uninstall photoshop forever and THERE is the clear winner.
Currently Being ModeratedSep 12, 2013 6:20 AM (in response to jeff Leyshon 66)
Swing and a miss. For Nikon users the best software is Capture NX2 as this utilizing Nikon's own algorithms for RAW conversion. I can not say for Canon or the other camera manufacturers... To get the same or similar RAW conversion settings, the key is to make a preset using Capture NX2 (I shoot a Nikon D4 so Capture NX2 is what I use) and import this into LR5 and you are all set. Not sure of your level of photography but this seems to be FUD central on several things here.
Currently Being ModeratedSep 12, 2013 6:27 AM (in response to Don Trammell)
I have no complaints about Aperture’s treatment of my D700 files. They look fantastic. But Nikon's software is not something I enjoy using on any level. And I don't think that Lightroom's attempts to emulate the Nikon camera styles (for instance, Camera Standard v4 is close, but still a little off) serve much purpose unless one is fixated on a specific look.
More Like This
- Retrieving data ...