When will Aperture 4 be available please ?

"Burn disc" is an anachronism. With fewer and fewer Apple machines having DVD drives, I can see why it might not be a front-and-center menu item.

Create a Burn Folder in Finder. Export to that folder. Burn the folder. voila.

Nigel Incubator Jones wrote:

I just opened Aperture, selected some images and looked for 'Burn Disc'.

You have got to be kidding. There is no 'Burn Disc' menu item.

I opened it and looked for "Save to a floppy". And guess what - nowhere to be found. Mad, isn't?

"Burn disc" is an anachronism?? Really?

That's funny because every client I have wants a disc of their wedding images.

So how else are they to be delivered? Online? Already do that.

Jump drive? Do you know anywhere you can get printable presentation cases for jump drives?

How about prints? Wait, prints are an anachronism too I suppose, right?

imagine a 2600 image wedding shoot loaded onto Aperture??

Actually I can't imagine doing it otherwise! Have not had a reason to do 2600 at one go, but have done over 1600, and that many versions ago.

Until you set an Export Versions selection, there is no image to burn to disc -- only a master and adjustment details.

Ernie

Full disclosure:

I use Aperture only as a image depository and it's great.

Once (or, if) Aperture ever gains feature parity with Lightrom I'll switch.

In deference to the OP I'm waiting patiently for that to happen, so until then I use Lightroom 3 for processing my images but dabble with Aperture often to keep my hand in. (I didn't want to turn this into a flame war on that subject.)

One reason; Lightroom can burn right to disc with one click in the Export dialog.

Amazing a professional app with features professional users need.

Being an Apple fanatic I want to use Aperture, but Apple just won't put the resources behind its development.

It's a shame that Ap is struggling in a field it should outright dominate.

Why isn't Apple going all out to shame Adobe into irrelevancy?

Come on guys, I know you can do it.!.!

Looks very similar to the plugin for Aperture to SmugMug.

However, I can appreciate the need to export to an Untitled disc, which creates a burn folder from which multiple burns can then be made.

But I do nearly all my distributions via SmugMug, and seldom burn a disc.

Ernie

I know it's not a huge thing, nobody is going die, but having to buy a silly $20 plugin for an allegedly professional app to burn a disc is just daft.

I use SmugMug too, it's excellent, but brides want a disc. They want to own their wedding pictures!

I'm just a little peeved that I'm stuck using Lightroom to be honest.

Sorry to vent.

Seriously hoping Apple has something amazing in the works to kick Lightroom's buttinsky.

And please let it not be an iOS version...

My point was that I do not find it troublesome to export to a burn folder, and then burn. I have not thought of needing a plugin to take the place of that. But the latest pro plugin to export to SmugMug is working nicely on my rMBP and Mountain Lion. The basic, free one, that we used to download from the Apple site is still working fine on my Mac Pro, however.

Ernie

Honestly you could probably create an Automator workflow which would take a specific Aperture folder, create a burn folder, and then export to the folder and burn it. Save the workflow as a service and you'ld be good to go.

I just have no interest in working it up as I haven't burned a disk in 3-4 years.

Nigel,

Looking closely at the LR dialog box I see the burn to CD. Nice I guess, but exporting is low on my list of "The 10 Things a DRM Should Do Well." Most of my export work is from the shooting I do for a small town newspaper, thus it is submitted digitally. I don't do weddings, well I did it twice and never again😉.

When I'm asked for a CD of photos (generally parents of HS athletes) I only give them JPEGs with embedded copyright info and never larger than 1024x768. Of course nothing prevents infringement, but I find this approach helps to reduce it. To me doing an export with the above parameters to a desktop folder and then burning doesn't seem like such a major thing as it is only one more step and it can be automated. Also, by putting the burn at the system level, I can continue to work in AP. Is this possible while LR is burning to disc?

As for LR vs AP, my concerns about AP turn on stability and predictability as I find AP with various plug-ins allows me to handle about 90% of my cataloging and editing. I've never used LR over a long term but found that it made the assumption one would go to PS for editing, something I don't have time for when on deadline.

As for the original question on AP4's arrival, given what has happened to ML, I'm almost afraid of what will be done to the program.😐

Robert

Aperture does work with E-M5 files.

What seems to be the problem, Nigel, with Aperture working with 2600 photos? I have worked with twice than many images and no problems. Running through the Lightroom route also elimnates a lot of functionality. No masters, no version, no editing (beyond the jpeg version), etc.

As for disk burning, all you have to do is export them to a burn folder and burn away. Burn folders have a lot of power behind them as they function for making multiple copies. Generally, an application that has a burn function built in has to go through a build process every time you need a disk. That can, in some cases, take a long time.

I haven't needed to burn a disk for a client in a long time as cloud services have become so common and fast. My favorite, and my clients' favorite, is when I upload to Dropbox and they can download it. When everything is said and done, they get their files within hours. No Fedex, UPS, etc.

As some have pointed out, there are also plugins available. This is a powerful function of any application so that developers can expand on said application. The needs of some are out of the scope of the original development of the application. To expect otherwise would be shortsighted.

Ah, now we're getting into Ap vs Lr.

-takes deep breath-

Please don't mistake my rant for Ap hate, it's not. I want to reiterate that I prefer Ap, but it would take too long to detail every way Lr is superior. The 'no burn to disk' thing is just the tip of the iceburg and I mentioned it only to make a point. I have fifty more where that came from.

When Ap2 and Lr2 each came out I installed both on my machine and uploaded the exact same images on each.

Let me risk ruffling a few feathers here and say the Lr kicked Ap's tail to such a degree I bought it almost immediately.

Ap is faster at import and export and the UI is miles better, but that's where the advantage ends. The bit in the middle, you know, the really important bit, was an excrusiating experience. Apply a preset to 1000 images in Lr and you get a progress bar for 20 seconds, at which point you continue without a problem. Do that in Ap and expect to wait a long, long time while your HD space slowly ebbs away.

I'm not a tech but I think I figured out why. You know when you retouch an image? Ap actually appears to save a new jpg of that image every time. If you darken part of an image with the burn brush, Ap creates a tif image of what you painted. If you alter the brush srokes it rewrites a new tif file - every time.

I know this because I dug into the file system to find out why my HD was filling up so fast. There were dozens of tifs of the burn brush marks I had made. Crazy.

Lr appears to do the jpg encode only at export, that's why it's slower (just hit Export and make a cup of tea).

Frankly I'd much rather have that than the app save a new file every time I take a breath.

Feel free to reply if you have used both Lr and Ap.

Then I and many others are anachronisms. This is part of the problem with Apple it continually thinks it knows better than its customers.

However, I do not find the lack of a 'burn disc' a problem. It is something I do all the time for a couple of people and it is just an export to a file and then either right click or go to the file menu. It can't be that much more effort than using a plug in.

My beef is that tempus fugit and that Apple should be using some of its great technical resources on its original loyal customer base rather than its new loyal base for consumer products. i.e. upgrade Aperture and delay the next iPhone for a day.

Like many others though I have now moved on somewhat. I find that capture NX2 does a far better Raw rendering of my images than does Aperture. It seems to give me the image that I thought a took plus I would say a stop or more improvement on either end to improve the highlights and shadows. I still use Aperture as the File Manager and image management system but now my best images are processed in NX2. It does create more work though.

A couple of questions...

You know when you retouch an image? Ap actually appears to save a new jpg of that image every time. If you darken part of an image with the burn brush, Ap creates a tif image of what you painted. If you alter the brush srokes it rewrites a new tif file - every time.

I know this because I dug into the file system to find out why my HD was filling up so fast. There were dozens of tifs of the burn brush marks I had made. Crazy.

Where did you find these files? Does Aperture clean them up properly, or leave them behind?

Please don't mistake my rant for Ap hate, it's not. I want to reiterate that I prefer Ap, but it would take too long to detail every way Lr is superior. The 'no burn to disk' thing is just the tip of the iceburg and I mentioned it only to make a point. I have fifty more where that came from.

When Ap2 and Lr2 each came out I installed both on my machine and uploaded the exact same images on each.

What version of Aperture are you using, and what version of LR are you using now? Have you upgraded to LR4? If so, are you one of the lucky ones that is not experiencing major performance issues with LR4?

Just interested since I use both. Thanks.