This discussion is archived
20553 Views 261 Replies Latest reply: Apr 19, 2008 9:48 AM by gbeberman
Very good points! I agree.
If Apple wants to be seen as a leader, it has to lead ... not follow.
If it wants pro's to use it, it has to support them.
Adobe's open beta for LR was a refreshing change in the degree of collaboration between the sw house and serious photographers. There are significant differences between the two products, but the crucial difference is in the far more open stance of Adobe towards its users and their needs.15" MBP 2.4GHz 4Gb / Quad 2.5G5 X1900 4.5Gb 2x500Gb, Mac OS X (10.5.1), When my Windows pc grows up, it wants to be a doorstop
Currently Being ModeratedFeb 2, 2008 10:51 AM (in response to Hannu Kokko)
Hannu Kokko wrote:
It is quite cool to live on the edge with the newest stuff but if it endangers money coming in to such an extent that it impacts business I would choose the older stuff any day (or older/current known working combination of hardware and software).
You are generally correct. I try to live by that. Most camera upgrades are incremental, but digital camera technology is still rapidly improving, and that means sometimes you get real breakthroughs. The thing about this discussion is that the equipment in question is a legitimate upgrade. While I am a Canon user, it's pretty obvious from what people are saying that the Nikon D300, and even more dramatically, the D3, are capable of giving a competitive advantage to your business, compared to businesses using older models in the line. (I'm thinking of high-ISO performance in particular.) So it's easy to understand why there is a stronger-than-normal demand to get and use these cameras. They actually have a good reason this time.
While I normally agree that you shouldn't upgrade any piece of your workflow until all the other pieces are ready (hey, I'm still running Tiger because of printer driver and Photoshop issues), this is a case where businesses are noticing that this waiting, which they're lectured to accept, is completely unnecessary if you switch away from the Apple solution. And that's not good for Apple.PowerBook G4 15" Aluminum and Mac Pro, Mac OS X (10.4.11)
Thanks for the message Joe. I too have had a D300 for a while now and have begrudgingly downloaded the 30 day trial of Lightroom just to keep things going. Hope that update is here within 30 days : ), I feel myself starting to sway. I have been generally a happy user of Aperture since I ran down to the Apple store to pick up the first copy they sold of 1.0.0! This is the third time now though I have had a new camera and have had to sit on my hands while watching Lightroom users getting to use RAW files far before myself as an Aperture user.3ghz 8 Core Mac Pro, Mac OS X (10.5.1)
Currently Being ModeratedFeb 2, 2008 5:59 PM (in response to Gregory Rivers)I've had the same highlight problem with my 1DMkIII. Yellow highlights on some images. Have not figured the cause yet, maybe 14bit with highlight recovery on?MacBookPro 2.4, Mac OS X (10.5.1)
Thanks for the update Joe. I must admit though, I find it only mildly interesting. I've had Aperture from the beginning. Loved it then, love it now. It was absolutely liberating for someone like me who was overwhelmed with the transition from a film/scan based workflow to a fully digital workflow. And I think Aperture caught Adobe with its pants down. People seem to think the public beta of Lightroom was some sort of act of goodwill on Adobe's part when it was closer to an act of desperation. (Don't get me wrong, I'm a big Adobe fan too.)
But the news of upcoming new features really doesn't interest me. I'm rarely enticed by such things and probably won't upgrade if it comes at a cost. I'm not cheap, I'm just happy with what I have.
And I'm not a pro, like virtually every other respondent in this thread so my perspective is a little different and might not 'count' here. But I am a very serious photographer and see myself as an artist and I'm deeply involved in photography as an amateur in the true meaning of the word. And for only $300 I think there are lots and lots of serious amateurs who use Aperture. I realize it is a 'Pro' application but Apple's market for Aperture clearly extends widely beyond the bounds of those who make a living in photography.
Has Apple abandoned the pro market? I really don't know. I generally view threads such as this as representing the squeaky wheel minority. (Why are people who have dropped Aperture for LR complaining here now?) And while the complaints here generally seem sincere and valid, as a non-pro I have a hard time understanding some of them. Of all the complaints it would seem that the delay in RAW support for new models is the most frequent and most understandable concern. Reports that everyone other than Apple gets support out in a day seem a bit hyperbolic, but I can see that waiting for RAW support would be frustrating.
But then again, for someone who depends on Aperture (or any other workflow for that matter) to make a living, it seems that getting and relying on new model of camera before its RAW files are widely supported is a bit like putting the cart before the horse. I follow digital technology reasonably closely and have rarely seen any single new model make such a difference in the final product of most skilled photographers that it would be considered a +sine qua non+ to the extent that it supercedes that availability of a workflow for it. (Though I'll admit I know nothing of the world of $30k backs).
If Apple is the market follower in timely RAW support then they clearly need to get on the stick. But I think if I made my living with the RAW files of the latest model DSLR I'd make sure it was supported before I relied on it solely for my daily bread.20" Core Duo iMac, 17" Core Duo iMac, 14" iBook G4, PowerMac G4 350, Mac OS X (10.5.1)
Joe, Aperture doesn't have users, it has a family of Photographers that depend on it. 2.0 had better walk on water or Apple will have wasted allot of RND dollars.Intel MAC Pro, Mac OS X (10.4.8)
Aperture is classified a professional software for professional user with a excellent workflow.......but..
Digital photography and raw-files needs a constant and fast upgrade to offer professional services at professional users.......see small softwarehouse...Lightcrafts, Bibble, but also bigger ...Adobe for exemple.
Apple more seems oriented to develop its gadget that not the professional products...
At the recent Macworld many users they attended, Aperture, a new generation of laptop/subnotebook, new monitors...but only gadget....
perhaps nobody in apple thinks different by now...
Currently Being ModeratedFeb 3, 2008 5:02 AM (in response to Gregory Rivers)Don't think it has anything to do with the safety shift but definitely something to do with the Highlights tone priority. It also changed back in 10.4.11 as my 1DMkIII files all work fine in 10.4.10 but not in 10.4.11.
The other difference is if I correct a file in 10.4.10 and then open it in 10.4.11 or later you can see the image perfectly for a second, but once it loads the yellow come back and the total exposure changes a full stop.MacBookPro 2.4, Mac OS X (10.5.1)
<<<Moz, about the Hassey and backs, that's not true, My H2 /96c *.fff files were support and they were great, awesome.
However, in rel 1.5 Apple chose to simply..... TAKE IT OUT.>>>
Maybe, but the recent Hassy H3D is not supported!! Strange that the so called "Pro" software does not support pro cameras. (How successful would Final Cut Pro be if it would not support HD cameras?)
I think Aperture is not meant as a pro application; most of the support is for consumer cameras even if it does not support all (D 300 is high end, but still consumer)
We tried Aperture, I really liked it, but without the pro support and I mean for medium format it is useless....MacBook Pro 2.16, 2GB, 7200HD; G5 Quad; MB 2.0 1GB; MacPro 3.0 4GB Ati x1900XT, Mac OS X (10.4.8), 2x Cinema 30
Thanks for your info update, but why do we need to wait for an update on the whole program just to get the raw file support. While I am sure you have some wiz bang, cool useful features to produce better photographs, my interest, at this point,is to be able to handle the images with the nikon d300. Perhaps an explanation as to the technical reasons, etc for not having the raw support would pacify the masses. Using nikon capture is awkward and undermines the reason for shooting raw, if we have to convert to jpeg then import to aperture.
As a stockholder of apple, i am not happy reading the majority of responses in the posts. You seem like a reasonable person, and apple should provide more direction to us users.
bradibook g4, Mac OS X (10.5.1)
This statement from Apple does nothing to lessen my disappointment with their support of Aperture users.
Having spent $250 and many hours on Aperture and, for the reasons mentioned by users above, abandoning it, I feel that Apple is mistaken if they believe that applying a late fix to their product now will repair the damaged relationship they have created with their customers.
I invested my time and money after using Aperture's trial, during which the serious shortcomings with the program did not become apparent. Once using the program in earnest, I found:
1. When the library is of a reasonable size, the program is extraordinarily SLOW. Filling in Metadata and searching is a chore.
2. The database is unstable. The program crashed and closed itself repeatedly, each time resulting in data loss, and necessitating a restore from backup. Another time sink.
3. There is a KNOWN conflict with Leopard's Time Machine that wreaked havoc on my database. Note that this is a KNOWN problem, yet I certainly didn't find out about it until AFTER I had lost data and went searching for a reason. I would have liked to see Apple inform users of this issue before we experienced data loss.
4. There is no way to edit capture dates in Metadata. Shame, as Aperture and Time Machine reset this very data for me. Fixing it would mean exporting each and every image to a more user-friendly editor, looking up the dates elsewhere, editing each and every photo, and re-importing.
5. RAW support for new cameras is WAY TOO slow in coming. I recently started using a Ricoh GRD. Notably, all of the other major RAW editors can manage it - not Aperture.
I am not a professional, and I find this kind of 'support' unacceptable. I can't imagine relying on this sort of thing for work.
What the new version of Aperture brings is irrelevant. Apple has already demonstrated its level of commitment in supporting Aperture users, and, because of that, I am no longer one of them.
Message was edited by: snow421
Hello Steve Jobs,
I am really running out of patience now. For years I trusted apple and the applications but what's going on now with apperture is way out of line.
How can you work with a so called application for professional photographers if apple is not able to make an update for de NIKON d3 and the NIKON D300.
I am really really disappointed!!!. My workflow is a complete mess. Why is lightroom able to use the new features and is aperture still silence.
Shame on you
PhotographerG5 intel, Mac OS X (10.4.8)
I assume most professional photographers chose this profession because they originally fell in love with photography. ... Apple made a strong statement when they first introduced Aperture as a tool dedicated to improving the workflow process. ... In February of 2007, Adobe released Lightroom to directly compete with Aperture. ... This new Adobe product didn't require computer upgrades to work well. Almost a year later Apple has not responded to this challenge and they have continued to take many months to add new cameras. Perhaps 2.0 will breathe new life into Aperture, but I'm afraid that Apple has already lost and Lightroom will dominate this space.
Maybe it's time for Apple to just buy Adobe ... or work out a strategic alliance that would keep Apple on the cutting edge in the graphics world. Clearly Photoshop isn't going away ;-pMac Pro 2.8, Mac OS X (10.5.1)