Aperture exit strategies

If there where issues with the long term viability of Aperture, Apple would not have released V2.0. They would have abandoned it like Toshiba did with HDDVD today.

Sorry to see you go! It happens. Good Luck!

For the faithful...

I have a main library with over 50K images. Yeah I have experienced issues with the speed of aperture 1.5, but have adjusted my workflow to compensate for the issues, as most technology people do. I recently upgraded to Aperture 2.0 from 1.5. It is much faster than before. IMHO it is a great improvement over 1.5.

The ugly: I experienced a major issue over the weekend where the data integrity of my external drive went south while working in aperture 2.0. The result was a library that would not open. I moved all 150+ Gigs manually by copying the projects and such from within the library. Am in the process of rebuilding and archiving. I always find new versions of applications a great opportunity to create a baseline.

OK, I am annoyed, but it happens. I am an early adopter. Technology guru. Such as the nature of the world we live in. I am confident however that Apple will correct the issues. I did complete backups through the vault before upgrading, and backups of my library so my data is secure.

In the meantime, I will wait patiently.

thomas80205 wrote:

It has puzzled me from day one that Apple will write XMP sidcars to let you leave Aperture but not read existing metadata to let you come in! That's just plain daft.

It is strange isn't it. You would think they would want to make it as easy as possible for iView users to switch, especially since MS owns iView now. Why should I have to wait for some poor independent developer to do the work when Apple most certainly has the resources to do it sooner and better.

Thanks anyway,

Andrew

JSTomasi wrote:
If there where issues with the long term viability of Aperture, Apple would not have released V2.0. >They would have abandoned it like Toshiba did with HDDVD today.

I don't doubt Aperture's long term viability. I didn't use that phrase and that isn't why I'm moving my work into LR.

Simply put: Even after the v2 upgrade I get more productive work done with LR than with Aperture. I respect that many good professoional photographers are having a different experience--but that's mine.

I started to move my work to LR early in the month when Apple didn't have a PMA announcement ready. I paused for bit when Apv2 came out just to see if LR still seemed like the better choice for me. For now and the foreseeable future I think LR is my best bet.

I don't doubt that Aperture will be around for a long time; I'm even hopeful that I may be a user again the future. What I fear is that Aperture may settle into being a "iPhoto"on steriods applicaton and not push to keep at the forefront of digital-photo technology.

Message was edited by: thomas80205

I can respect that Thomas. I am a realist, and understand that one program does not fit all. Nor does it satisfy everyones workflow. I am interested to know what your workflow is and what automation you have integrated into the post production process using LR. Some may say this is not the place. I disagree.
Change is scary to a pro photographer, especially when we spend more and more time in post production no matter how much automation we use. Our only hope is that the powers to be (Apple/Adobe) are taking notes.

I don't think Aperture is going to end up an iPhoto on steroids. But the lines between pro apps and consumer apps seem to get closer and closer as time goes on. Digital photography is still in only a toddler learning to speak. As are the applications we use to interpret what they are saying. Look at the new photoshop elements. Consumer apps and consumers are getting smarter and smarter as they adapt to technology. The real test for us is going to be the future where everyone has better than D3 and Mark III technology and Pro "consumer" level appz that work automatically.

"what automation you have integrated into the post production process using LR."
To give you one specific example (and sincerely hoping to be proved wrong), compare LR's AutoSync mode with Aperture's Lift and Stamp two step. Let's say 500+ images all need the same WB adjustment - I select them all in LR, drag the slider or click a neutral tone, and the job's done, while in Aperture I make the adjustment to one, then do a Lift and Stamp. Now you obviously don't often set a completely wrong WB for the whole shoot, but you're often doing this type of activity in a more granular way, with a burst of x frames needing the same exposure correction, another group all needing a saturation change, those backlit shots in the doorway all needing shadows lifted, and so on. Auto Sync lets you apply the adjustment to all the selected pictures, while Aperture's best is the Lift and Stamp two step. It simply leaves L&S (which LR also has in Copy and Paste) gasping for breath, and LR also has the incremental Quick Develop and presets which contain a number of adjustments.

Thomas

I am using iView or better MS Expression Media now for a while (2004) but I must say since MS bought it I was not very happy with the development of the product e.g. native Intel support and user interface enhancements. I appears that the whole thing did stand still now for a long while.

However, I would be interested in your view and experience with Expression compared to Aperture (did you test Version 2)?

Personally, for me Aperture would be an alternative to Expression if I could get the keyword assigned to the pictures into Aperture.

Thanks a lot.

Aeschbi99