I agree This is problematic. I would like to have just one mac setup with aperture sitting there sharing!
Aperture and Lightroom are great for an indvidual PC but when it comes to networking and sharing ... we look down the drain!
However I am amazed at what fotostream can do! I am not using it profesionally but for my iphone stuff. I amazed at the speed of this. I would pay for a pro foto stream service by apple!
The software developers of Aperture need to take a long hard look at Lightroom to see what can be improved. Like most of the posts here it is evident that Lightroom is simply better. Much like the competition does with the iPhone, if you cant beat them attempt to make the next best version! I believe in Apple products, and tried to remain loyal to Aperture, but the prodding of so many others in my profession lured me to LR. I can't say I am overcome with remorse. I currently use Aperture and Lightroom. There are quite a few things I love about Aperture, and don't like about LR.
List of things Aperture 4 should incorporate:
Make curves simple (adjust tones) allowing target control,
Ease and simplicity in placing watermarks on photos (show placement preview, allow sensible control of size)
Add functional, active histogram with whites, blacks, highlights etc adjustable in histogram menu
Add graduated filter
Show clipped areas in shadows and highlights
Ease of use opening files in Photoshop, or other photo editing applications.
Hope this helps, looknf foward to what comes about
Your list is certainly applicable, but if you are going to start comparing Aperture to LR, there's a whole lot more that Aperture's developers need to consider. Here's just a partial list:
- You can't define & manage your own custom crop ratios for use in the HUD.
- More crop overlays are needed, not just the rule of thirds.
- There is no way, other than using the mouse, to flip the aspect ratio while in crop mode.
- Straighten and crop are currently two distinct operations. They should be combined. The straighten grid doesn't show up until you actually click, hold and move the mouse. It should show up as soon as you move the cursor, like it does in crop.
2. The vignette adjustment isn't very useful. Weak results, limited control, etc.
3. Can't use metadata tokens in file renaming, esp. frame number. Also include at a minimum: caption, job id, title, & headline to make it really useful.
4. You can't include a crop ratio in an adjustment preset.
5. There is no output sharpening for export (but there is for printing...strange).
6. There is no way to control default version naming...it's always "current_version_name - version n".
7a. Batch Change is really bad:
It's a crude implementation for changing metadata, and there are 3 disparate functions within the same dialog. It's also easy to screw up your metadata if you don't carefully check the dialog each time you use it.
7b. The whole Lift & Stamp thing is prehistoric, not efficient, and potentially dangerous regarding what can happen to your metadata if you are not really careful.
Aperture needs a better/safer implementation of LR's Auto-Sync. And it's really not hard to do.
8. Increase the number of remembered entries in the autofill lists to more than a measly 20. Like unlimited. After all, this is a database, isn't it?
9. Much better noise reduction.
And there's so much more. Unfortunately, what we are likely to see is more consumer-oriented and IOS-like features that really don't add much to a professional's efficient workflow, nor make Aperture a true competitor to LR..
I have been pretty frustrated with Apple's handling of the Aperture product just like most people, but one recent observation has given me pause. After I saw a comparison between the Hassy HD40 and Nikon D800 in an online video in which the D800's skin tones were criticized, I installed LR4 myself. The skin tones on the D800 were actually quite bad in the video comparison and this was done in Lightroom. My observation has been that raw conversion in Aperture is far better for Nikon D800 NEF files in Aperture 3.2 than in LR4. Even for D300 files there is a notable difference in favor of Aperture. So when you say LR is simply better, I have to ask, at what?
Looking at your list I have to wonder about your familiarity with Aperture:
- Curves adjustments are very simple in Aperture and can be targeted at an area of the image by brushing in or out the adjustment. The adjustments can be made on a per channel basis and points on the curve can selected in the image - just like in PS. How much simpler do you need them to be?
- Adjustments of whites and blacks are available while seeing the effects on the histogram - why is there a need to duplicate controls?
- Opening files in third party editors (I do it all the time in PS) is a right-click and click away.
- Opt-Shift-H shows clipped shadows(blue) and highlights(red).
In addition I was underwhelmed by the performance of LR4 - certainly not better that Aperture. That said I still believe Apple has done an abysmal job of product management for this tool but I am compelled to wait a little longer to see what Apple does
I, like a lot of others, would simply lilke to hear from Apple whether or not they're going to continue to support Aperture - whether there'll be an Aperture 4 or not. The only outstanding feature of LR4 is the Develop module. Everything else about it blows chunks (IMHO).
Come on, Apple - throw us a bone...please.
Apple even will provide an upgrade to its audio production software "Logic", which didn't get a major update since three years. So why should they stop upgrading Aperture? In the pro world frequent upgrades are not what people really want. Most of them don't want to spent hours of hours upgrading and fixing their working tools on a monthly basis, instead of working with those tools. And if you ask me, I prefere to get a working upgrade instead of a public beta! So, Apple, please take all the time you need to fix nearly any bug in Aperture 4 before you release it! Thanks in advance.
Swing and a miss. Lightroom has had many more upgrades than Aperture and is simply currently not as good. LR has many features that Apertures have been screaming and begging for so your "opinion" that the pro world does not want frequent upgrades is spurious. We want upgrades that matter, save time, and provide a more efficent workflow. Right now, no matter how you want to spin this, Aperture is about a year behing Lightroom. If someone made a tool to migrate to Lightroom from Aperture and said tool cost as much as 500 dollars, i would gladly pay it an never look back at Apple and appling way they treat pro photographers.