This discussion is archived
20722 Views 261 Replies Latest reply: Apr 19, 2008 9:48 AM by gbeberman
Currently Being ModeratedFeb 8, 2008 8:14 AM (in response to Bruce Caucutt)well said. Unfortunately for this professional photographer Aperture is just too little too late. I'm off to Lightroom as well. I've been using Aperture since day one but I'm done. I don't buy new cameras often so waiting for updates is not a big deal to me. What is a big deal is I bought a November 2005 Quad G5 with a stock video card and Aperture runs like a turtle. It took so long for an upgrade card to be available that Apple should be ashamed of itself. Add to that the terrible initial quality (and still inferior IMO to many other RAW convertors )of the Canon 1Ds MKII conversions and the product was never more than web gallery generator for me. All the heavy lifting was done by other applications. Sad really. It had so much promise.
Message was edited by: Lawrence Smith1G5 Quad, Mac OS X (10.5.1), Leaf Aptus 22, Canon 1Ds MKII
Currently Being ModeratedFeb 8, 2008 8:28 AM (in response to Bruce Caucutt)Bruce make a very good point here. This reminds me of the days not too long ago (2001-2002) when QuarkXPress ruled the page layout software kingdom, but failed/refused to release an OSX-compatible version for nearly a year. In the meantime, they lost their huge installed user base to Adobe who trumped them with InDesign, which was OSX friendly from version 2. Many of these same designers never looked back and are now satisfied Adobe customers.
Don't get me wrong, I really love Aperture but am mystified as to what Apple plans to do with this potentially great piece of pro software. It suits my needs for the time being, but the lack of responsiveness for RAW updates is a major concern.G5 dual 2.3GHz, Mac OS X (10.4.8), 1.5GB RAM, 2nd 250GB SATA internal HD
Currently Being ModeratedFeb 8, 2008 9:46 AM (in response to Joe Schorr)The biggest issue for Aperture, unlike other pro applications like FCP or Photoshop, is that you are not only manipulating digital files for current use - a large amount of your time is spent keywording and sorting for FUTURE use, maybe 2-3 years down the road. So users invest 100's of hours of current time in the hope that this will make you more productive down the road.
But once you start doubting the future of the software (due to limited upgrades, non-supported RAW formats, etc) the house of cards falls quickly. Since you can't easily move that metadata (and all those hours you've invested) to other programs, you start getting nervous about "wasting" the hours. I find myself doing MUCH less keywording than I should, as a hedge against moving to another application.
I suspect that Apple wanted to release something at PMA, but the software was still too buggy. So better to skip all the photo shows, get something stable to show, and then roll it out later (at a non-photo even). Apple can't wait until Sept (Photokina) without losing a lot of early adopters.MP 2.8 GHz, 10 GB, 2.3 TB / MBP 2.0 GHz, 2GB, Mac OS X (10.5.1)
Currently Being ModeratedFeb 8, 2008 9:49 AM (in response to Graphic Designer, Tucson, AZ)All I want to see in an aperture update is compatibility with timecapsule.
To be able to access one library from both macbook and imac would be very useful indeed.Intel iMac 20inch, macbook, mini intel, Mac OS X (10.5.1), Maxed up baby
While aperture is a great organization tool, it's not more tailored for professional portrait, wedding, and commercial photographers. Obviously, you can use a bunch of makeshift organizational tricks to try and make it into a workable solution. However, this is often more effort than it's worth.
From a wedding photographer's standpoint, the printed album module is both the best and worst feature of Aperture. If you could create flush-mount album designs, at all different sizes, directly from Aperture, professionals would go nuts. No reputably wedding photographer would ever think of giving an Apple book to a client for anything more than a party favor.
Because of the limitation on creating custom sized albums, I have to export all images needed from Aperture and import into my album software. Then if I need another photo, or need to tweak the color more, it's back to Aperture, export, then import, then place in my album. Not exactly the pinnacle of efficiency. This is especially frustrating, since Aperture's album creation tools are far superior to almost any standalone package, some upwards of $500 - $1000.
Not sure if it's economically viable, but Apple should partner with vendors to create additional functionality for paid photographers (the ones making a living from photography). I would even go as far as saying you could charge upwards of $300-$500 for this add on functionality.
Anyway, to beat a dead horse, they first need to concentrate on their pro photographers by actually supporting the latest list of cameras. Also, Aperture should be a tool to help generate revenue, both by including relevant features for the working photographer and also by lowering our Costs of Goods Sold by reducing the time it takes to service a client. Aperture helps, but only so much.
Aperture is quickly becoming that high school quarterback that simply can't quit talking about how good he was 20 years ago, as he armchair quarterbacks from his Barcalounger.
I'll admit, Aperture was a good enough start to make me switch to the Apple platform. However, that commitment to Aperture was based on the belief that a company of Apple's stature would continue to improve their professional apps in a timely manor. I'm getting tired of drinking Steve's Kool-Aid, and I'm starting to feel a little faint.macbook pro, Mac OS X (10.4.10)
Currently Being ModeratedFeb 8, 2008 1:39 PM (in response to Sasparilla256)"It would be helpful for Apple to say what new DSLR camera support is in the pending update though - no competitive advantage lost by confirming which camera's you'll be the last to the RAW definition table with - just helpful to your customers."
Agreed, Apple should quit playing mind games. Keeping customers (especially business professionals) in the dark is not the way to win or keep customers. Apple's ongoing secrecy, just so Steve can make some flashy announcement in the future, is unacceptable.Macbook Pro, Mac OS X (10.4.8)
23 days left on my Lightroom trial . . . Really don't want to switch, but I don't want let my newish D300 to gather dust or switch to JPEG's. I hope that update really is soon.Mac OS X (10.5.1)
Just did a look with LightRoom vs. Capture One. My D3 images look much better in C1. LR takes the RAW image and changes it when I click on the thumbnail. Seems to add .3 stop exposure, increase the contrast and burns out the highlights when compared to the in-camera JPEG.MacBookPro 2.4, Mac OS X (10.5.1)
Currently Being ModeratedFeb 8, 2008 5:35 PM (in response to Lawrence Smith1)
Lawrence Smith1 wrote:
well said. Unfortunately for this professional photographer Aperture is just too little too late. I'm off to Lightroom as well. I've been using Aperture since day one but I'm done. I don't buy new cameras often so waiting for updates is not a big deal to me. What is a big deal is I bought a November 2005 Quad G5 with a stock video card and Aperture runs like a turtle. It took so long for an upgrade card to be available that Apple should be ashamed of itself. Add to that the terrible initial quality (and still inferior IMO to many other RAW convertors )of the Canon 1Ds MKII conversions and the product was never more than web gallery generator for me. All the heavy lifting was done by other applications. Sad really. It had so much promise.
Message was edited by: Lawrence Smith1
I (along with many others) was in the same boat as Lawrence with the 6600 card (November G5's only had 2 video card options - 6600 and $1500 Quadra - not much of an option). Aperture was supposed to run on the 6600 card, it did, like molasses in winter.
Below is a post from Joe about finding a solution to getting upgraded video cards to speed up Aperture. I never did see an answer to this. I eventually got the 7800 card (Molasses to Niagra Falls), but only from a friend that parted ways with his for a very low price.
If something is coming SOON, I hope that it is sooner than the posting below...
+Re: More Performance with two GeForce 6600 ???+
+Posted: Mar 11, 2006 12:15 AM in response to: Jeyell+
+To clarify slightly: Having two 6600 cards doesn't slow you down at all at any point when you're using just one display (though that certainly defeats the point of having the two cards installed). But with dual displays running, the performance with two separate 6600 cards is indeed slower than with one card driving two displays, because of the way data has to be transferred across the bus in the two-card scenario.+
+Be assured I am investigating to find out what options there are (or will be) for users who would like to upgrade their existing graphics cards. Given Aperture's reliance on the GPU, a better card makes a world of difference.+
+Product Manager, Aperture+
AppleQuad 2.5, 7800, 4GB ram, Mac OS X (10.5.1)
Many thanks to all for your contributions to this thread. I have now made a decision to not purchase Aperture. This and a couple of other threads have helped greatly in seeing what this app is all about. Back to Bridge, C1 v.4 and PSCS3. Best,MacBook Pro 17, Mac OS X (10.5.1)
Just did a look with LightRoom vs. Capture One. My D3 images look much better in C1. LR takes the RAW image and changes it when I click on the thumbnail. Seems to add .3 stop exposure, increase the contrast and burns out the highlights when compared to the in-camera JPEG.
This touches on something I don't understand. Lots of people are complaining about Aperture and the lack of timely raw support updates. I fully agree. No argument there but many folks act as if the only other choice is Lightroom. Why? It's not the only other choice.
Additionally, many folks seem to think that in moving from Aperture to Lightroom they will be getting the same output only with the addition of better raw support updates. Yes, Lightroom/ACR has much better raw support, you will get that but... the quality of the files output will also be different. The feel of the file will be different, the skin tones the program creates will be different. For me that's an important factor to keep in mind, it may be the most important factor, and it is one to weigh in your decision of which raw conversion program to use.
Each raw conversion program will give a different look to the same file because they each have different color engines, use different internal profiles, etc. I really like Aperture's current conversions, I also like Canon's software DPP for the color/quality of the file. Raw Developer and C1 are worth a look as well. I'm sure there are others, too. Lightroom/ACR is not the only other choice.
For myself, I'm waiting for Canon 1DsM3 support in Aperture as well as updates to correct long persistent bugs/issues. For the time being I'll tough it out using DPP.