@ButchM BAM! You nailed it. I might even go so far as to say that the Library module isn't that good. I do a lot of HDR work and if I process it from a LR collection, the finished image isn't imported back into the Collection. I get the fun of finding it in the folder.
Yeah...an update to Aperture is well past due. But....since Apple has advertised recently for software engineers for iLife/iWork AND Aperture, that tells me Apple hasn't abandoned it.
One Big Wookie wrote:
But....since Apple has advertised recently for software engineers for iLife/iWork AND Aperture, that tells me Apple hasn't abandoned it.
That is what I find most troubling ... that they waited this long to make a move in that direction ... they should have done that long ago. Don't get me wrong, I have been pleased and welcomed the free updates to Aperture 3, especially new camera compatibility at no extra cost ... which for Lightroom are not free if your timing is off and a new version is introduced before your new camera is supported ...
Since Aperture 3 was introduced in Feb. 2010 ... the first iPad had yet to be sold ... We've seen the iPhone 4, 4s and 5 since then ... we've seen OS X 10.7 and 10.8 with sightings of OS X 10.9 in the background ... there have been several major updates to the iMac, Macbook Pro, Macbook Air and Mac mini, and yet we are still on Aperture 3.x. If Apple wants to maintain that Aperture is a truly "Professional" app ... it's development should not have taken a backseat for this long.
Great post ButchM,
I have been saying pretty much this for a while but the Aperture apologists are willing to settle for less while claiming it is more... Simply put Aperture is miles behind Lightroom and it does not seem as though Apple is worried about catching up... The continual dumbing down of Aperture to placate a non-professional consumer base leads me to believe that even if Apple releases Aperture 4, it will chucked full of crapstastic, useless consumer features that the remaining pros will simply migrate away and Aperture will become iPhoto on vitamins (steroids would not help at this point)... To date, I've recommend and convinced 4 or 5 Apple users to abandon Aperture and to switch over to LR... All find a few differences but the features and advantages outweigh Aperture by a mile.
Do not get me wrong ... in fact I have moved a great deal of my workflow from Lightroom to Aperture ... specifically for slideshows and books ... when you discuss improving those modules or users ask for new features like Face Recognition to be added to Lr on the Adobe forum ... you get the same song and dance that adding such features are unimportant to "professionals" and adding or improving them would only dumb down the product for consumers ... which I believe is far from the point. As I stated in an earlier post, I really don't care what others think about UI tweaks or features they don't use ... I only care about results. Period. I'm far too busy to spend my time in trying to determine who is a pro ... who is a consumer and which features are for whom ...
Aperture and Lightroom were both first developed and offered as workflow solutions. Solutions where you could take great numbers of RAW images from capture to completed export/print with ease and without the need to generate a mountain of derivative files in order to get there. Lightroom certainly does not corner the market in this sense for a great many users.
There is absolutely no way to create a custom page size or template in the Lr Book module. So unless you want to only use Blurb as a source for books, the whole effort by Adobe is completely useless because the templates offered are only in Blurb sizes ... no way to create the sizes your pro print labs may require. Everyone like to consider Apple as a "closed" garden ... but Aprture 3 has had custom page sizes for Books from Day One.
If you want to create a slideshow in Lr, you can only use one intro and one ending title slide, you can only use one transition, one music sound track and you can not include any video clips ... if you need extended length audio, you have to edit and join them in software outside of Lr. You can't access your playlists, nor can you control the volume along a timeline or add voice narration or ducking via a timeline like you can in Aperture.
I'm sorry, but that is not a solution for me. I've been a full time photographer for 38 years and have seen a lot of technology come and go over that time. I have no blind loyalty to any single developer. I merely want to do my job as best as I can without drowning under a mountain of image files I don't have to create in order to bounce around between a half dozen apps to get the job done. For me, workarounds are not solutions, it's just more work ... Currently, while Lightroom may seem like it is far ahead of other options ... in some areas, it still hasn't left the starting gates. Which is why I am split bnetween two worlds.
I'm just growing impatient waiting for Apple to up the anty and show me more of a reason to move my complete workflow to Aperture. In return, I'll gladly turn over any reasonable amount of currency in exchange if it answers my needs.
Great take on things ButchM and I have learned a thing or two from your post... Like you, I just want to shoot, precess and be done with it... I don't quite have 38 years (amazing) but I plan to get there eventually... Both apps have their strengths and weaknesses for sure... No need to recount them here. My main gripe with Apple is that Aperture is 2 plus years old without a seriously major release (subject to what I consider a major release/upgrade) while LR is chugging right along and for the most part meeting the needs that Aperture is failing to address. I also with that Aperture was a bit more modular instead of forcing me to have "features" on my machine that I will never use...Maybe the consumer verses pro debate is a bit over-hyped, and I am guilty of it myself, but I feel a pro app should be mean and lean... Full of power and feautres that support and enhance a workflow... Just my thoughts and again, thanks for a great response...
I too like ButchM's perspective here. I have bouncing between Aperture and Lightroom since their inception. Just when I thought one or the other had the definite upper hand and I could settle in to one finally, something else would come along. I have come to the conclusion that it's just the world of image editing. With that said though I would love to settle down with Aperture but for an important few items that I (and probably thousands of others) would like to have:
1) Better Noise Reduction
2) Lens/perspective correction tool
Being an Apple person from a hardware perspective I feel just so much more comfortable in that environment. From my perspective, after either using or trying almost every image editing program there is, Aperture is almost completely there. What with brush application, book making, color control, and the list goes on and on, I have almost everything I currently want in a imaging program. While I am not a pro (just an advanced amateur) Aperture is the image editing program of choice.
I am so tired of imploring Apple to move off the dime relative to Aperture 4 I try not to think of it anymore. The solution here seems so evident relative to this whole issue.
Who knows, maybe our surprise will be here soon!!
1. LENS CORRECTIONS!
2. better noise reduction
3. TWO adjustment sliders each for neutral and skin tone auto white balance, temperature and tint separately
4. gradient adjustments in addition to brushes
I have been using LR4 more and more just because of lens corrections and noise reduction. I'd like to do it all in Aperture.
Amen. I use both Aperture 3.x and Lightroom 4.x. I disliked LR3, but LR4 is a big improvement. Both have their strengths and weaknesses, but I still find that Aperture lets me take my raw files to about 90+% of the way to an ideal adjustment simply by applying my presets on import. My presets (one for each DSLR) include the Auto Enhance tool, along with some specific Enhancement and Sharpening adjustments. I find that the Auto White Balance Tool can sometimes be a big help. Bottom line is that using Aperture saves me time compared to LR.
However, when I have a lot of files that need noise reduction, application of adjustments using gradients, lens corrections, etc. I have to use LR4. It is simply not possible to do some of the things I need to do in Aperture. So I use both, and I would hope that Apple and Adobe both continue to improve their products to meet the needs of photographers. It is now past time for Apple to step it up and meet or exceed the competition.
Agreed: Just give me better noise reduction and perspective correction, and I am all sat. Yes, you can do this with plugins - but this is breaking my RAW workflow.
Besides from this, I have to admit that I REALLY wanted to like Lightroom. I used it for 6 months exclusively. But the UI is such a nightmare, and the lack of MacOS integration is a pain (e.g. I use shared photostreams all the time to share photos with friends and family - SO easy in Aperture). I switched to Aperture and did not regret it once.
LC and NR + add the option to export to multiple external editors. I use Photoshop and Photomatix, would be great to go directly into Photomatix and have the TIFF/PSD show up in the library (also have the brackets exported on-the-fly would be great), or have one RAW, then have Aperture create under- and overexposed for delivery to the HDR application.
Yep you're right!
I forgot about:
1) A Graduated Filter
2) Multiple External Editor ability
3) Direct return of Tiff adjusted images to the library from External Editors
4) Better Noise Reduction
5) Lens/perspective adjustment
Not too much to ask for given the amount of time AP3 has been out their. It's not like Apple is trying to protect some features from multiple programs like Adobe does with the spot/healing brush tool relative to Photoshop and Lightroom. Apple only has one high end editing program, so let's get that one right!
Come on Apple we've been waiting a long, long time for all of this. I'd even settle for a "beta" product if you don't have it completely ready at this point like so many other image editing companies do. We are dying to help you if that's necessary!!
I've been an Aperture user since v1.0. I still prefer Aperture's workflow, but Aperture 3 is getting old. Not that I need constant updates if something is working well for me, but because there are several missing features that would make my life so much easier.
The whole point of Aperture, and what made it revolutionary when it first came out, is the non-destructive RAW editing. The editing aspect of Aperture 3 is now far behind Lightroom. I've been asking for more non-destructive plugin support for years. The builtin noise reduction for example is uslesless. I can use the various plugins that I have but then I create a huge JPG that I then have to keep around along with my RAW. I don't want to keep around huge JPGs. That's not what Aperture is supposed to be about. There are many more such editing features missing.
I'm counting on Aperture 4 to come out along side of the rumoured Mac Pro, but if it doesn't then I just may have to jump ship after all these years