This discussion is archived
20706 Views 261 Replies Latest reply: Apr 19, 2008 9:48 AM by gbeberman
Currently Being ModeratedJan 30, 2008 6:23 PM (in response to Rich Hayhurst)Rich, that is the largest "no brainer" on the planet. Apple wraps, sooner or later, all of it's vertical software(s) this way.
But what good is it if it does not support your camera, crashes, plays beach ball etc., it doesn't matter if it's intergraded via bluetooth to my noggin'
But, if you are right, you made a VERY VERY NEGATIVE statement. With all the going on's here, if Apple was holding off, causing a great many people their business process, due to they wanted to make it a bit more intergraded instead of a) getting it right the first time and b) easing pro's pains, man 'o man, you just put a large nail into the Aperture coffin.
(Shame on you man)Mac OS X (10.4.9), AE 802.11n -Few ATV's
is the glass half empty or half full? I choose to agree with Rich - i think Aperture is now harder for them to release because of all the integration with other apps that LR doesn't even come close to matching.
I'm in favor of tight integration and am willing to wait... you on the other hand see it as a huge negative... so be it.
Currently Being ModeratedJan 30, 2008 6:42 PM (in response to Mitch Aunger)I believe that the integration process is a short term steep hill. After that it will be (at least we hope), downhill.
I am a businessman, we shoot a lot. Frankly, most of my photography partners do not purchase the latest cameras because they are trying to make money in this business. I don't know if that is good or bad for Aperture/Lightroom sales, but from my perspective, we want people who can create a great image on a Nikkormat (just an example here!) or a D3. Of course all of our work is digital and Aperture is working for us, it improves our workflow.
If I were a prosumer with $$ to spend on the latest gear, or IF I truly believed that my clients -in the aggregate-, would pay more for the image that I got at 6400 vs the one I can capture at 800, the I would be using Lightroom every day, right now, without hesitation. No question at all there would be no choice!
Frankly, I don't think that the demands of most photography require 6400 ISO shooting and therefore, we do not require the latest hardware.
A very successful photographer once said to me... when I was much younger.. "The difference between you and me Rich, is that you care about f'stops and shutter speeds, and I care about the customer."
He had a huge business. I was a very poorly paid apprentice.
Now... the efficiency of all of Apple's integration will play itself out in due time.
Apple has been running on all 8 cylinders since S.J. came back, last year they ran on more than 8! No reason to think they would stop now.
RichMacPro 2.66 4 GB, Mac OS X (10.4.8)
Yes RAW support is provided by the OS (Core Image frameworks), but I believe that is merely one half of the equation.
The other half are the camera specific parameters for how to evaluate the luminosity signals and at what bit depth and pass these to the RAW image processing engine alongside the image data.
So assuming I am correct, Aperture DO control the camera RAW releases, unless there is a profound change required at the engine level (uncommon but could could be something like the number of tones in the image data: say 12-bit, 14-bit or 16-bit).
To the other point of integration, I don't buy that. The integration is EXTERNALIZED and therefore since the links have been defined, adding any new RAW formats is transparent .... unless the developers have been asleep at the wheel (and there is NO CHANCE that that is a true statement).
Biggest reasons that come to mind are resource constraints and release packaging (you want to expend dev/test resources against a meaningful parcel of work). If so, we should demand that (a) they ramp up more developers and (b) create a separate dev/test/regression test/QA stream just for RAW updates.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 ModeratedJan 30, 2008 6:48 PM (in response to David G Chapman)I would assume that if it were just a matter of buying a camera writing a conversion algorithm, which is to my limited understanding just how Thomas Knoll does it, the Aperture could be updated quite quickly. Do you really think that this is the rocket science of the equation?
I think it's more than that, probably OS related stuff which only the Computer Science grads at Apple have a grasp on.
... at least I HOPE that's the reason for the delays.MacPro 2.66 4 GB, Mac OS X (10.4.8)
Thanks much for the word from/on behalf of Apple...
I've been an Apple-product user continuously since 1979, a user of Aperture since it debuted. Like many on this forum, however, the wait for support for new professional and prosumer cameras is more than a bit frustrating, even for those of us who remember, painfully, when, many years ago, Apple announced new products then suffered greatly when they were released on or near the promised dates and were far from ready for release. So, readying a product before announcing its release is understandable.
Still, I trust that enough folks have made clear that the support of new cameras needs to be speeded up. Here's hoping Apple can forge the relationships with camera manufacturers that will ensure you get the specs on their new cameras sufficiently ahead of time to ready Aperture to support the newbies close to their release and thus be able to provide better service to your customers.
All that said, let me add that I purchased a Nikon D300 knowing there was no support for its RAW files in Aperture. That was my decision for which Apple is not to be blamed for no RAW support - yet. My work-around is to use Adobe CS3 until Aperture is ready. So, I can shoot with the D300 and process the RAW files while waiting (and waiting, and waiting...) for the updated version of Aperture.
Thanks again for your intervention.
Lou OutlawPowerBook G4, iMac G5, Mac OS X (10.4.3)
Like others, I'll add that a real date would be very valuable. I almost feel like this is a petition or plea given the outcry.
Like many here I have already started the transition to LR, based on lack of communication. As a pro, I absolutely need predictability. It's not a matter of Apple keeping the competition on their toes. It's about winning the trust of the pro community, and that is done through predictability and execution.
Take a look at the Epson Pro Imaging Page. This is perfect execution of a company taking care of its pro users. If Epson, sees the value in giving updates supporting your product as a third party developer, it should speak volumes about what your first party customers expect. Since before Leopard launched, Epson was communicating dates for specific model support, and then made public betas available. Here is the link, notice the Leopard status on the front page. If you go to individual models' driver support they will give you an estimated RTW date.
Here is the referenced published development schedule:
We can't help but feel that so much attention has been given to consumer devices, which also makes us question commitment to the pro community. It's no secret that the loyal customer base is here and that consumers treat gadgets, not as a platform, but a commodity.
Thanks for listening.MacBook Pro 2.16 and Dual G5, Mac OS X (10.5.1), Dual 23" Cinema Display HDs
too late, joe. made the switch to lightroom. i hated to do it but i had no choice as i have a d3 and could not take a 3 month vacation. and i have to tell you i really like lightroom a lot! much faster on my mac pro. the only feature i really miss is aperture's rating system. and if you are making a "stay tuned" announcement during pma, then i bet you are stalling for time and that apple will not be making any announcements this week. go ahead and delete this like the other posts i have made but from the looks of the aperture discussions, there are a lot of people that made the switch. good luck to all of you who are still waiting.mac pro, Mac OS X (10.5.1)
... so, by this post of information, I can only assume Apple has realized that they may not have handled Aperture as well as they wished they had... I guess that is something.
I also see that some of the people commenting have slowly been changing their tune. The fan boys are finally getting a little frustrated too.... it's about time.
I have heard many "The wait will be worth it." comments.... are you kidding me. Even a free upgrade to Aperture 2.0 won't erase the way Apple has handled this pro app.
It appears Adobe has allowed me to download the free trial version again. The first time I tried it was to see how much better Aperture was than Lightroom. This time is to see if I can use this software instead of Aperture.
Aperture still looks better to me... but I am only 1 week into the new trial.
I do appreciate the loose assurance from Joe, but I am still frustrated with this whole circus.
Just give us the support we need for a pro app. Nothing more, nothing less.20" Intel iMac, Mac OS X (10.4.8), 2 gigs RAM
Currently Being ModeratedJan 31, 2008 10:00 AM (in response to Joe Schorr)
Joe Schorr wrote:
We're constantly working to make Aperture an even better tool for users, and will soon release an upgrade that includes RAW format support for new cameras and other exciting new features. Please stay tuned.
Sr. Product Manager, Photo Applications
Funny, I feel like I'm Apple's 'tool' for using Aperture.
Can you help me with my Ricoh Capillo GX-100 RAW Files? How about my D3 RAW files?
Why is the rendering so slow on my $10k Octo Core with Quadra FX 4500 graphics? Do I have it connected to my 10k RPM system drive wrong, or is it the quad channel fiber card connection to my $15k xRAID where my Aperture Library resides all by itself? Maybe 8 GB isn't enough RAM?
Why don't they 'just work'? What am I doing wrong?
Oh wait, I figured it out: I was using Aperture, not Lightroom. Lightroom solves those issues when you install it.
Joe, I don't envy your job. I'd rather be using all Apple products, but lately I seem to be a better tool to Apple than Apple is for me, and Apple doesn't seem to be letting you do your job either. I look forward to the day you can trump the product (camera) and machine responsiveness Abode is offering.
<edited by moderator>Mac Pro Octo Core, Mac OS X (10.5.1), MBpro 15/2.4, 3 C2D Mac Minis. 1 Mac Pro C2D, xRAID, iPhone, iPods
Looking at the big picture, my guess is that most pro users are happy with Aperture. Most shoot Canon and don't have the need to rush out and immediately buy a new Canon camera when one is introduced. The previous Canon cameras are pretty darn good. I realize the Nikon D3 is a huge improvement over previous Nikons, but if an older Nikon was good enough for your work in October, shouldn't it be good enough a little while longer? If you are switching from Canon to Nikon for the D3, can't you wait just a little bit?
Aperture is the basis for my workflow and image management, so there is no way I would buy a new camera until it is supported. It comes down to which is more important: the new camera or a consistent workflow. If it is the new camera, waiting for support comes with the territory. You then need to figure out a temporary workflow. What about shooting raw + jpgs and using the jpgs in Aperture? Aperture can work with the D3 jpgs just fine. And then use ACR with a raw file only when a problem image arises. Some have tried Lightroom for their workaround. I used Lightroom extensively when it was introduced. It may be fine for some, but it is does not come close to Aperture for a professional workflow.
Also, we have no idea what is going on behind the scenes. I am sure the Aperture team is not sitting around twiddling their thumbs. Maybe Apple's switch the Leopard OS, subsequent Leopard updates and a new Aperture 2.0 have slowed down the process? Since Aperture is closely tied to the OS and works with other Apple programs, a lot of pieces to the puzzle must fit together.
Granted, more communication would be nice and maybe the posts by Joe are a new beginning. But, the bottom line is to take deep breath and look at the big picture: new cameras will be supported soon, new features will be here soon and we will continue to have the best solution for a photography workflow.Mac Pro / 2.66mhz, 4gb ram, Mac OS X (10.4.11)
You have no idea the volume of complaints from Canon G9 users.
And Canon 1Ds Mk III or whatever it is now - those guys want their spendy pro camera online just as soon and just as bad as any Nikon user. It's not a 'brand' issue.
Abode hasn't been tripped up too bad with Leopard, although PS CS3 still crashes easier than a toddler on a slip-n-slide. I don't use PS much anymore though. Surprisingly, I look to it less with Lightroom than I did with Aperture.
I've been committed to Aperture from Day one of the initial release, and I'm sure there are tricks I haven't mastered yet, but for whatever reason, I find it easier to get what I'm after from Lightroom.
I particularly like the 'vibrancy' and 'clarity' sliders. If there's anything I could pick and take to Aperture, it would be those two things. I like the curve manipulation tool too...
While I applaud Apple for the magnitude of their undertaking, and the quality of the images Aperture produces, I absolutely loathe the sloth-like speed at which the program sometimes operates when rendering on my top of the line machine, and the even slower rate at which they release new RAW support.
<Edited by Moderator>
Given that the whole premise and 'pitch' of Aperture was 'RAW-centric', it's pretty absurd they aren't doing separate RAW updates (once to date), and that they don't support every camera that produces RAW files within 30 days of its release.
Maybe Joe IS Aperture's only employee, and I'm expecting too much from one person? <Edited by Moderator>
Aperture 2.0 is 'put out or get out' time...Mac Pro Octo Core, Mac OS X (10.4.11), MBpro 15/2.4, 3 C2D Mac Minis. 1 Mac Pro C2D, xRAID, iPhone, iPods
Currently Being ModeratedJan 31, 2008 12:57 AM (in response to scott nichol)Right, a warning kb doc - even just telling you there's a problem - or a workaround procedure that gets you back to having them installed, even if that workaround was a 'you need to install from scratch, don't use archive and install', should have been put together. (I'd hope that this isn't the "we don't have bugs" mentality creeping back in.)PowerBook G4 15"/1.67GHz/DVD-DL/2GB + 23" ACD, Mac OS X (10.4.10), Mini-CD/1.83/1GB/10.4.10 Mini-G4/1.42/512MB/10.5.1 PB-G4/500/768MB/10.3.9