Aperture vs. iView as a photo manager

They really are difficult to compare, as each does things the other doesn't. And you are asking about Aperture's strongest features.

I have not yet used iView 3, so my comments are about 2.6, 3 has some new features that compare favorably to Aperture

So my take:

iView:

Pro -

Handles very large libraries (I currently have about 85000 images in my iview catalog)
Handles images regardless of where they are stored (online, offline, across many drives, dvds, tapes, whatever)
Extraordinarily fast
Very robust file-format support
Fantastic slideshow and web export, adequate contact sheets
Extremely deep (and correctly implemented) metadata support
Seamlessly integrates with all third-party "helper apps" - whatever, and however many you choose

Con -

No side-by-side compare
No raw editing
Limited file conversion options
Can be a little sluggish when importing (not when viewing) raw files
Raw support depends on third-party drivers
Slightly clunky interface

Aperture -

Pro -

Beautiful, realtime interface
Stacks
Raw editing (though low-quality)
Versions
Side-by-side viewing/comparing

Con -

Files locked up in local library
Only handles online, local files
No archiving support
Very limited file-format support
Poorly implemented metadata support (ignores metadata from other apps, does not export metadata to other apps)
Poorly implemented "external editor" support (very difficult to access raw files)
Limited slideshow/web export. Adequate contact sheets
Very poor quality exported files

---

Basically - if Aperture could handle files from multiple locations (especially offline files) it would completely clobberize iView. But it doesn't, and although the side-by-side compare and stacks and versions are wonderful, Aperture's library and "doesn't play well with others" attitude makes it a mediocre (if not outright poor) digital asset management tool at this point in time.

For those of us who find it in its current form, professionally unusable, the big question is why? Why import thousands of images and begin to work on them, knowing that the conversions do not measure up with the quality our clients have already come to expect. (I'd love to see someone try to get some processed files accepted at Getty as stock images. That would be a fascinating experiment). Why tweak, straighten, make wild (or timid), but for now, always unsubstantiatable guesses about color temperature and save all of those changes when all of that work is unaccesable to a conversion engine that works well enough to actually compete in the real world, (at least to some eyes)? What really will you have to show for all your hard work when you are done? Practice sessions to throw out and then start for real when they finally fix it?

You can always guess about how well you're doing cropping an image to some desired format, (just try cropping to a 4x5 @ 300 ppi) and then export it at 72 ppi, but why?

Anything I would do in Aperture for now would have to be redone again later. And in my little work world, that is not an efficient workflow. Do it once, save it in repeatable form and be on to the next thing. When you can do that, then they'll have something to brag about. Till then, talk's cheap.

You can view the supported raw camera files buy navigatiing to this file in the finder:

System/Library/Frameworks/ApplicationServices.framework/
Versions/A/Frameworks/ImageIO.framework/Versions/A/Resources/Raw.plist

If you camera is not listed it does not have full support.

G-5 Quad 8gb RAM, 10K Raptor Boot Drive Mac OS X (10.4.3) 30" Cinema HD Display, Nvidea 7800GT,

You've gotten good answers specific to those things that you can measure or benchmark. But here is one "fuzzy" detail that I've come across:

I've used iView Media Pro 2.x for a long time, and it's done a swell job of managing a quickly-growing collection of RAW and .PSD files.

In moving to Aperture, though, I am finding that I have "found" a large number of images that I had just forgotten about, over time, and have sort of "rediscovered" in Aperture. Obviously, that may be related to my spending more time in front of the program (than I did w/ iView); on the other hand, it may be because Aperture actually does a much better job of getting eyeballs on images more quickly, whether in stacks, side-by-sides, light tables, etc.

This is tough to measure or quantify.
But I've been starting to realize that Aperture is really good at displaying more than just a bunch of thumbnails, and again, I'm finding old(er) .nef files that should have been rated higher (long ago) but weren't. Maybe that has something to do w/ how well Aperture displays thumbnails, and how quickly they can be viewed full size, etc.

Anyway, I guess my point is that Aperture seems to be growing on me, and that I'm finding it easier, faster, and more convenient to view large image collections (and small image collections).

Once you get past the whole "performance" thing, occasional hiccups and speedbums, you find that the application actually does a whole bunch of things unusually well.
Even after just a couple of weeks w/ Aperture, I don't want to go back to iView.

On the other hand, I just spent $500 on aperture software, and another $400 on an beefier video card. Just FYI.


rick

Not talking about limited camera support (although that's a problem) talking about limited file format support in a more general sense. iView can handle any bitmap or vector file you throw at it (including some exotic ones) - Aperture chokes on even supported files if they have metadata added where it wasn't expecting it, or if they have alpha channels or if they are in unexpected color modes (CMYK, L ab - anyone tried greyscale?)

Many, though perhaps not most, professionals need to deliver and store their assets in a wide range of formats, working spaces, color modes, etc. Aperture is not suitable for that task in its current form. (Fer heaven's sake, it seems that you can't even store two files with the same name but different extentions)

I'd be fine with that all if Aperture let me keep my files where they belong, but since it duplicates (and messes with) them, it is a real hassle.

Despite my constant whinging, I really do agree with you in a broad sense rickt. Aperture is fantastic as a viewer/sorter app. It's so-so for organizing because of its nonstandard and non-readable metadata - but if you're willing to duplicate your files into its library every time you want to use it, it is really pretty amazing for quickly viewing and sorting and picking images. And stacks are wonderful.

Thing is - those are a half-dozen features that iView and PhotoMechanic are going to catch up with, and once they do their already-superior workflows will trump what little Aperture has going for it currently.

My understanding is that iView3 added a loupe and side-by-side viewing. I've heard rumors that it supports something similar to stacks, and that it can now read Adobe xmp files. Sorta makes me wish I had upgraded iview instead of buying Aperture.

I agree as well Charles, that Aperture is a terrific viewer-sorter.

Of course, it's price, it's design and it's marketing make a much more ambitious claim for it. When that promise is fulfilled I believe Aperture will be an indispensable tool.

Your list of cons skipped my own personal deal-killer: basic file handling.

1) Aperture is cavalier with layered files, flattening them under most circumstances.

2) Aperture forces you to over-write the versions you are working on. True, the Master isn't touched, just as RAW files are never altered by any application. But any work you do on that file in Photoshop is treated as expendable by Aperture.

With a little more exposure to the expectations of professional photographers I believe the Aperture team will yet produce a real winner.

I'm taking this on faith of course because none of us has had any indication that Apple has taken any of these suggestions to heart.

Regards,

fp

I have a question and I'm not sure where to post. I am working in a doctors office and I have to move about 2,500 pics to iView. the pics are saved as the date and patient name as follows:

YY.MM.DD.Lastname.Firstname

like 06.02.22.Lasater.Joshua once in iView I have to fill in the name field for every single picture, which will take a LONG LONG time. Is there anyway to have part of the file name automatically fill in a specific field? Maybe using automator? I don't have Tiger but the Macs at the office do.

Any help would save me time and money.

Joshua

Everyone has different experiences and uses and comments. Al lI will add, is for me Aperture is much much faster than iView 3 at basic tasks. This is based on having lots of memory (6 gb). However, as others have noted, 10,000 pics at a time is the limit for Aperture with no such limit for iView.

A Better Finder Rename is your friend.
http://www.publicspace.net/ABetterFinderRename/

Not sure I understand this app will allow me to import only part of the file name into the name field in iView?

J

Took a quick look at the app... quite impressive. But perhaps your question was misunderstood by the poster. It appears that this app could do the reverse, i.e., make a file name using the EXIF data, but I am not sure it can go the other way - make EXIF data from filename. I am looking at some apps I have to see if any will work for you. Will post again if they can do it.

Thanks Stan. I also posted this at iView, thinking someone might have an apple script.

http://www.iview-multimedia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3478

J

“About Master File Limits in Projects -- While Aperture can work with hundreds of thousands of master files, projects can have a maximum of 10,000 master files each. However, the limit for master files does not apply to versions. You can create as many versions as you need.”

From Late-Breaking News About Aperture

It appears that Portfolio 8 may effectively accomplish what you need to do. It has an option to embed into the metadata (for example, the keywords field or whatever field is used for "name" in iView) almost any information. For example you could assign "filename" to "keywords" and embed the filename back into the metadata. This would be the whole filename, not just the piece, but might accomplish what you need. I have not fully tested this.

Portfolio 8 is at http://www.extensis.com

<span