×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Apple's Aperture Reviewed

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 8 years ago | from the coming-into-focus-now dept.

Software 383

phaedo00 writes "Ars Technica has done an in-depth review of Apple's Aperture. Reviewer Dave Girard gives it a once over and walks away with a sour taste in his mouth. From the review: 'It is also disappointing to see form beat out function here, but hopefully this will be Apple's software equivalent of the G4 Cube. They have only themselves to blame: they set themselves up for a big fall by attempting to dig themselves a chunk of the pro market by purporting to have the lossless holy grail of imaging. The trouble with that is they obviously didn't have the engineering or expertise in RAW processing to pull it off or, if they did, they chose not to include it because of speed constraints due to Core Image.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

383 comments

Boobies! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14186433)

Boobies!

/Oh, wrong site...

Version 1 (2)

Seth Finklestein (582901) | more than 8 years ago | (#14186434)

Don't worry. Apple will smooth out these problems in the next version which will be a free upgrade to all Aperture users. Rome wasn't built in a day, right?

Re:Version 1 (1)

ZachPruckowski (918562) | more than 8 years ago | (#14186494)

They just may well do that, since they did it with OS X. 10.0 (Cheetah) users got a free upgrade to 10.1 (Puma) when it came out. Presumably because of problems people had with 10.0. wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS_X#Mac_OS_X_v10.0_. 28Cheetah.29 [wikipedia.org]

Re:Version 1 (2, Informative)

modecx (130548) | more than 8 years ago | (#14186613)

10.0 Was never meant to be a consumer release, as such. It was mostly out there so that developers (without the Apple developers deal) could develop their stuff and early adopters could give it a run for its money. That's why it wasn't installed by default on computers that came with it. In many ways, it was a beta, and many people understood this. IIRC, it was even compiled with debugging turned on, and that's why it was so slow compared to 10.1, 10.2! To most people, it was essentially a technology preview, and I think that was Apple's plan from the very beginning. They needed to get something out there, to get the ball rolling. I think it worked!

Hopefully Arperture will get better, and maybe they'll do the same.

Re:Version 1 (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14186844)

January 31st, 2005, was the last day that Michael Sims, Nazi editor [trollaxor.com] of Slashdot, ever posted a story or indeed was ever heard from again. But what happened that day to Michael Sims? Did his embroilment in the Censorware.org conspiracy finally catch up with him? Or was he involved in a violent, and ultimately fatal, lovers' spat with his partner Jamie McCarthy? The truth, as we'll see, is much more perverse than fiction.

On New Year's Eve of 2004, the entire Slashdot staff was throwing a party to celebrate another year of Linux propaganda, homosexual recruitment, and the profits that their Microsoft ad banners had raked in for them. Eric Raymond, Emad, Roblimo, Hemos, Taco, Jamie, and Alan Cox all planned to rape Richard Stallman later in the night. Michael had shown up late, however, and was let in on the plans after they were made.

As it turned out, Jamie was to be leading the charge against the Free Software Foundation's founder and would be the first to penetrate Stallman's hairy unwashed ass. Michael, however, was jealous of this and made secret plans to thwart their nefarious venture of homosexual rape. The event was planned for zero hours, right as the ball dropped. But Michael had other ideas.

Michael suggested they all toast their plan with Jägermeister, Eric Raymond's drink of choice that was in heavy supply that night, and the rest of the partygoers followed. While everyone downed their first shot, Michael slipped into the VA Software office's break-room, grabbing the syringe Raymond used to inject Rob Malda's semen with on the way. Michael leered at the case of Jägermeister, needle in hand.

Minutes later, Michael reappeared in the conference room with more Jäger, ready for more shots. Over the next couple of hours they indulged in several drinking and party games, spurred on by Michael, as they drank bottle after bottle of the dark brown herbal liquor. If one were to pay special attention to Michael, however, they would note that Michael drank much less than anyone else and only from his own bottle.

Emad and Roblimo were involved in a powerful sixty-nine cheered on by Hemos and Alan whose bent geek penises throbbed near Emad's head and Roblimo's bloated ass, waiting for an opportunity. Moaning, Emad diverted his wet mouth from Roblimo's butthole and took down Hemos and Alan's cocks in quick succession. Hearing the wet, sloppy commotion behind him, Roblimo lost control and glunked all over Emad's chest.

Across the room near the podium, Eric Raymond was man-handling Rob, jamming a handgun down the back of his pants and asking him if he remembered their special night in Holland [trollaxor.com]. Rob was giggling like a school girl and squirmed with all his might against the cold steel. Eric rained a shower of Jäger over Rob's head which Rob greedily tongued up even as Eric's skinny red penis entered his ass cheeks, probing for the brown prize.

The conference room was awash in gay cum and chaos, Michael noted happily as he surveyed the carnage around him. Emad had now teamed up with Alan and Hemos to rape Roblimo's ass as Rob was being pistol-whipped to orgasm by Eric, all oblivious to the massive amounts of Rohypnol they were ingesting as they drank the Jägermeister Michael had given them. It wouldn't be much longer before the drug took effect.

Another half-hour into the night, Eric paused from raping Taco's mouth and sodomizing his anus with his Glock, short of breath. His head swam and he looked at his bottle of Jägermeister. I can usually down six of these babies, thought Eric, wondering why he was now farting uncontrollably. Rob's nose wrinkled as Eric's rectum expelled another gallon of aerosolized feces into the air. Stooping, Eric held on to the podium for support.

Across the way, Emad pulled his tiny Iranian dick out from between Alan and Hemos's in Roblimo's ass and doubled over. Alan and Hemos continued pounding Roblimo's purple, swollen anus even as Emad began vomiting all over their cocks, thinking it a move on Emad's part to spice things up. Roblimo passed out again for the fourth time that night, but as Hemos slapped him, he failed to wake up.

With Emad vomiting even more violently now, Hemos wondered what was going on. He held a hand to his head as he began forgetting why he was balls-deep in some old man's ass. Alan began hiccuping, which led to uneven strokes and finally a quick orgasm which was quickly washed away by more of Emad's vomit. Nausea rose in Alan's throat as the scents of semen, man-ass, sweat, and vomit overcame him.

Michael was smiling from the corner chair at the table when the telecom beeped. He quickly left the conference room and headed toward the VA Software compound's front doors to let RMS in. As he rounded the last corner, however, Michael almost dropped his bottle of untainted Jäger when he saw that Stallman was not alone. Standing next to him was the CEO of VA Software, Larry Augustin.

His mind racing a thousand miles a minute, Michael feigned a security malfunction when he tried to open the door, leaving Stallman and Augustin stranded outside in the cold. Waving Michael off, Larry Augustin was about to get a slim-jim when he stopped, staring, right behind Michael. There, crawling on the ground, was Rob Malda in his familiar green-and-white plaid shirt, covered in chunks of semen, blood, and feces.

Rob Malda looked up at Augustin and feebly reached out to him before vomiting on the cold tile floor and passing out with a squish in his own sick. Larry and Richard's faces were masks of horror and disgust, and they wasted no time in forcing open the doors. Larry disabled the alarms while Richard checked Rob's pulse. As Richard loosened Rob's collar, Larry turned to Michael.

What the Hell happened here tonight?

The conference room was a mess. Feces covered the wall and in some places even the ceiling. The carpet was soaked with blood, semen, diarrhea, and vomit in a stew so unimaginable that the room was later bulldozed instead of being professionally cleaned. On the dry erase board, someone had gotten creative and drawn erect, ejaculating penises in their own poo. And behind the podium lay Eric Raymond, sleeping fitfully.

At the other end of the room, Emad was curled into fetal position surrounded by a lake of vomit and curdling shit, both trailing from his soiled form nothing new to him [trollaxor.com]. Hemos and Alan laid moaning next to one another, limp dicks in one another's slimy hands. Behind them Roblimo's morose form breathed shallowly, ass in the air where he had passed out earlier. He farted in his sleep as Larry Augustin looked on, mouth agape.

Next week, Larry Augustin held a special meeting with the Slashdot staff. Emad, Jamie, Roblimo, Rob, and Hemos all seated themselves and the meeting began. Eric Raymond also showed, though everyone there seemed a little perplexed. Their party had gotten messy but no one remembered how. Eric wanted especially hard to remember, he thought as he patted his stomach, which still gurgled painfully.

Early in the wee hours of January 1st, 2005, Larry watched as sickened paramedics loaded VA employee after VA employee into the backs of ambulances and raced them to the hospital. They were treated for dehydration and were all given stomach pumps, enemas, and several rounds of antibiotics. They were also tested for drugs and the results were more than a little surprising. Michael, however, had been the only one to test negative.

Hour after hour went by in the VA board-room as each one of the partygoer related their experience. Roblimo, now wheelchair-bound, took the mic and shared his experience that mirrored everyone else's: After his first few toasts of Jägermeister, he remembered nothing save waking up a day later in the hospital, tubes and wires trailing from his bruised body. Roblimo was suffering from a rectal prolapse.

It was decided by a unanimous vote that Michael Sims was to be fired with due haste, as he had drugged the entire Slashdot staff in an attempt to rape them. Unfortunately, due haste took about three-and-a-half weeks so the shareholders could approve the move. Their reaction to the story removed any doubt about Michael's fate and the motion was carried unanimously. Michael was terminated January 31st, 2005.

So now you know why Michael Sims hasn't posted any new stories to Slashdot since January. Let it be a warning to you, gentle reader, of what evil lurks in the hearts of psychotic Linux zealots and Nazi propagandists. Since then the boys at Slashdot have been able to laugh it off, but consider their depraved anus-games. You might not be so lucky were Michael Sims to happen to you. You have been warned.

Thank you.

frist spot (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14186445)

frost spit

Re:frist spot (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14186468)

Its spelled "first post", you moron...

Learn how to type.

I thought the review was about the iPod Photo ... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14186447)

but oh well, now I'm going to read the full article

Finding flaws with a magnifying glass (0)

oscast (653817) | more than 8 years ago | (#14186478)

While I'm sure the software has its flaws... shoot its a 1.0 release. What 1.0 software doesn't have some flaws.... but am I the only one that read his review and thought that he entered the review process trying to find points ANY POINTS he could harp on?

Re:Finding flaws with a magnifying glass (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14186485)

Read the guy's other "articles." He's obviously a Microsoft shill.

Re:Finding flaws with a magnifying glass (3, Insightful)

leaping_laughter (865757) | more than 8 years ago | (#14186551)

While all 1.0 software falls short of users' and developers' hopes, not every 1.0 release comes with a kajillion-dollar marketing effort. While I agree there seems to be a conceit (as in preconception, not as in snobbery) to the review, I think s/he's responding to the hubris and arrogance of Apple's ad blitz roll-out of a program that, while potentially interesting, isn't ready. More curious: what did they gain by depriving their developers of the time between announce and Macworld? Certainly, they did enough in 2005 to warrant delaying launch until they'd solved at least a few of the issues brought up in the review. Hopefully this will help more users, even the Jobs-ian faithful, see behind the curtain. Though I'm a mac guy myself, I understand and accept that Apple is willing to say anything to sell more boxen.

Re:Finding flaws with a magnifying glass (4, Insightful)

pastpolls (585509) | more than 8 years ago | (#14186686)

I can say for a fact that DVD Studio Pro and Final Cut were both crap at their release, and a ton of money was spent to market each. Both applications were even bastardize from other venders, and Apple managed to boob them up. Now, they are top notch and the best values on the market. Apple has a history of mediocre 1.0 releases, and I am sure Aperature is the same. I will bet that over the next few years, this will become a good app., you just have to live through the growing pains.

Re:Finding flaws with a magnifying glass (2, Insightful)

Dhalka226 (559740) | more than 8 years ago | (#14186876)

Apple has a history of mediocre 1.0 releases, and I am sure Aperature is the same. I will bet that over the next few years, this will become a good app.

So they're trying to do what by releasing mediocre 1.0 releases? Take your money in advance of giving you a good product?

Do you at least get free upgrades to whatever point the apps start being good (2.x maybe)?

Re:Finding flaws with a magnifying glass (1)

pastpolls (585509) | more than 8 years ago | (#14186925)

So they're trying to do what by releasing mediocre 1.0 releases? Take your money in advance of giving you a good product? Do you at least get free upgrades to whatever point the apps start being good (2.x maybe)? Nope, and that is what sucks. Even most fanboys will tell you to stay away from 1.0 releases from Apple. I will say that DVD Studio Pro, from initial release to today... with all the upgrades included is still less expensive than any other product that can do the same thing. The same can be said for Final Cut Pro. For some reason, I don't think this trend will continue with Aperature. I get the feeling this product will be for "pro photo" wannabees more than true professionals (like in many ways Final Cut and DVD studio is).

Re:Finding flaws with a magnifying glass (5, Insightful)

krakelohm (830589) | more than 8 years ago | (#14186625)

Ya know its kinda off topic, but we should expect more from a 1.0 release. Everyone says well its version 1.0 of XXXXXX, expect problems. I disagree with that. To me 1.0 means it should be free of flaws... maybe light on the features but free on flaws.

Re:Finding flaws with a magnifying glass (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14186676)

Thats just the thing... the "flaws" he's referring to were very small. You should expect more from a 1.0 release... That's what Apple delivered. The "flaws" he found were more idealistic flaws that bugs. The software is actually very nice and certinly doesn't warrent the review it received.

Re:Finding flaws with a magnifying glass (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14186636)

The only points I saw were points about font points. Chrissake, I made it through two pages without encountering a single bit of useful information, just lots of anal-retentive bitching about fonts and other interface minutia. Then I quit reading.

Apple deserves the same treatment (1, Interesting)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 8 years ago | (#14186723)

as anyone else. Their products should be viewed just as anyone else's software.

The common joke with Apple products is always to wait for version 2.

Hold them accountable, maybe they will change.

Its like Frontrow, for me its useless as its not a PVR. Yet try and present this argument and you get flamed.

Re:Apple deserves the same treatment (1)

geoffspear (692508) | more than 8 years ago | (#14186869)

Your message is useless to me, as it doesn't reveal a cure for cancer and the One True Name of God.

Yet, try to argue that your message should contain both of those things, and I'll probably get modded Flamebait.

I enjoy the app (5, Interesting)

PrimeWaveZ (513534) | more than 8 years ago | (#14186479)

And although I don't have a DSLR, or even a camera that shoots raw images, I find it to be a valuable app in terms of form and basic function with my Canon A95.

His technical concerns are legitimate, and Apple will need to work on those issues. However, in terms of organization and workflow, this program is incredible. I cannot forsee this application going anywhere but up in the coming months and years. I enjoy it, and look forward to updates for bugs and other issues mentioned in the article.

Re:I enjoy the app (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14186518)

I tried to test my system compatibility and windows tells me that ".dmg is not a recognized file format"

Does this mean my system is not compatable? I wish apple would have had a more clever error message that made it clear whether or not it would work.

Re:I enjoy the app (1, Offtopic)

timster (32400) | more than 8 years ago | (#14186614)

I tried to drive my car over a lake and it just said "sploosh". You'd think they could put a dashboard indicator or something for when you were attempting to use an unsupported feature.

Re:I enjoy the app (1)

ta ma de (851887) | more than 8 years ago | (#14186838)

I nearly spit diet-coke all over my screen, in the future please provide a warning label.

Re:I enjoy the app (1)

s1ashd0twh0r3 (936321) | more than 8 years ago | (#14186957)

If that is a Windows error message, you have a PC and are trying to mount a Mac virtual disk on it. Won't work. You'll need the hacked Intel version of Mac OS X 10.4.3. Aperture ships as a fat binary, meaning it contains code to run on Intel and PowerPC versions of Mac OS X. If you install Intel Mac OS X, you shouldn't have any problems running Aperture.

However, I recommend you consider checking out the first Apple-supplied Intel box capable of running Mac OS X, which should ship in January. Once you go Mac, you never go bac.

Re:I enjoy the app (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14186532)

MMmmmmmnnnhhh... Steve Jobs... Your dick is so big and tasty... Hold me in your reality distortion field...

Something's wrong here (4, Insightful)

DamienMcKenna (181101) | more than 8 years ago | (#14186573)

find it to be a valuable app in terms of form and basic function with my Canon A95.

You're using a $500 software product with a $300 camera? There's something wrong here.

Damien

Re:Something's wrong here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14186731)

who says he actually paid for the software, a cracked version is already floating the net.... not that I would know anything about that...

Re:Something's wrong here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14186878)

You know, I have always wondered why image manipulation programs are pirated so much. I personally have Photoshop CS2 pirated with many plugins but in reality, I hardly ever use it. It just seems to one of those things.

Re:Something's wrong here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14186776)

You have such a point here!

Re:Something's wrong here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14186970)

Don't forget the 1.5 upgrade available next year that will cost you another $250.

Re:Something's wrong here (1)

Kaa (21510) | more than 8 years ago | (#14186984)

You're using a $500 software product with a $300 camera? There's something wrong here.

Free your mind from meatspace.

Some people are using a $600 software product (Photoshop) to make images without any cameras -- zero dollars for image-making hardware!

Not to mention that you confuse the price of the tools with the quality of output.

My Thoughts (-1, Troll)

PlayfullyClever (934896) | more than 8 years ago | (#14186496)

If this is just an organization and editing program, then how is this any different than iPhoto?

RAW workflow. Apple is calling this "the first of its kind" in that it can work directly on RAW images, but that's not true. I'm not sure if the parent poster really knew what he was talking about or not, but from looking through the features this has on Apple's web site, it does seem that Picasa 2.1 does pretty much the exact same things, and Picasa is free.

(There are probably things that Apple doesn't mention that people like me would consider pretty important, but I can only go by what's on their web site right now. I'm interested to learn more, as a real Photoshop-level app that can work straight on RAW files might be enough to get me to finally switch to Mac.)

It is highly desirable to work directly on RAW files, which as Apple says is "non-destructive", i.e. all of your original sensor data is still there. This is not the case when working with RAW files in Photoshop, which have to be rasterized even before they're actually opened. You can make basic adjustments in Adobe Camera RAW before the file is opened but to do real retouching, you have to rasterize and open in Photoshop itself.

Picasa will let you do editing and retouching on the RAW file, then export it after you've edited. But Picasa's tools are pretty basic. Apple might offer more, but under their "all the tools you need" sidebar on the web site, they just list the same stuff Picasa does and that even Adobe Camera RAW will mostly do. The real questions for me are:

a) does Aperture support layers?
b) does Aperture have a clone tool/healing brush/patch tool? These are the tools I use most often for actual retouching.
c) does Aperture support 16 bit images? (My guess is it would pretty much have to in order to truly support RAW, but I don't think they specifically say it does anywhere.)

If the answers to all of these questions are "yes", I'm tempted. If the answers to any one out of the three are "no", then it's really a worthless app if you've got Picasa, and especially if you've already got a combination of Picasa and Photoshop. (So you can use Picasa for images that need only light retouching, and Photoshop for the heavy stuff that Aperture wouldn't be suited for either.)

Of course, both Apple and Adobe will probably improve their products to compete with each other as time goes on. I would love to see true RAW support in Photoshop itself and I would love to see more features in Aperture. Adobe has had no real serious competition in pro image editing for a good while up to now.

Re:My Thoughts (4, Insightful)

geoffspear (692508) | more than 8 years ago | (#14186546)

Until there's Picase for Mac or Aperture for Windows, I'm not sure your complaint that the two tools seem to do the same thing makes any sense. Is someone going to provide me with a free Windows machine and pay me for the inconvenience of running Windows instead of OS X if I use Picasa?

Re:My Thoughts (0, Flamebait)

poot_rootbeer (188613) | more than 8 years ago | (#14186669)

Is someone going to provide me with a free Windows machine and pay me for the inconvenience of running Windows instead of OS X if I use Picasa?

For the price of Aperture, you could buy a Windows machine and run all the free apps you want on it...

Re:My Thoughts (1)

vandenberg5 (537861) | more than 8 years ago | (#14186662)

Your a&b points have to deal with finding an app to replace Photoshop which Aperture is not ment for. You use Apeture to import, sort, minor tweaks and print/publish. If you want to do editing of the image then you export it to Photoshop. The answer to your question c is yes. What their touting as a "first of its kind" is the how they work with the RAW file. With apeture you get all the corrections you've done with your image without creating a new file or destroying the original RAW/jpg. If the RAW converter was actually working properly then it would be a great tool but as for now its only useful for the non-professional crowd. Hopefully by 1.5 or 2.0 they'll have fixed some of the major problems that the ars technia article talks about.

Re:My Thoughts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14186675)

Raw IS a raster format.

Re:My Thoughts (4, Informative)

Jeffrey Baker (6191) | more than 8 years ago | (#14186733)

Obviously you failed to read the article. Aperture imports raw data very poorly. The results look much worse than Camera Raw in Photoshop. Aperture is sold as high-fidelity imaging but actually it's much worse than existing products.

<apple> Math is hard.

Re:My Thoughts (1, Informative)

sammy baby (14909) | more than 8 years ago | (#14186775)

How Aperture differs from iPhoto:

1. Capacity. I currently have an iPhoto library which is getting close to 5000 images. On my 1.3 ghz Powerbook, starting the program is painful, and was getting more so quickly due to the fact that I recently started shooting in RAW format. Aperture (supposedly) can support much larger image libraries, and is geared towards a RAW based workflow.

2. Metadata. Ever tried keywording images in iPhoto? It is a massive pain in the ass. The only interface for assigning keywords is a multiple-checkbox window that requires a free 3rd-party plugin to make it remotely useful [mac.com]. (Kudos to that developer, by the way). Aperture fixes this by making keyword entry much easier, although according to the review, it badly breaks the EXIF keywords.

To answer another one of your questions: This thing don't got layers. But it's not really intended as an image editing application. Aperture is supposed to be used in conjunction with other editing software, like photoshop. It's supposed to help you keep your images and your million or so versions of them better organized: if you're familiar with Adobe Bridge, it's a bit like that. It's a good thing that it's not a full fledged image editing application, though: reviewer notes that a lot of the most frequently used editing tools that are in the program are lacking (noise reduction and sharpening, for example).

Anyway: feh, seems to be the overall impression of the reviewer, and feh would have to be my verdict too until some of the oversights he notes are addressed. In the meantime, I highly recommend that you check out iView Media Pro [iview-multimedia.com], which seems to be less buggy, but just as featureful, and costs less than half as much.

Re:My Thoughts (2, Insightful)

geoffspear (692508) | more than 8 years ago | (#14186917)

The only interface for assigning keywords is a multiple-checkbox window

Not true. Click the little key icon on the bottom left, and now you can drag images to buttons with the keywords on them.

Note that this is even more of a pain in the ass than the multiple-checkbox window, particularly if you use more keywords than there is room for in the panel that displays the buttons.

But at least it's another interface. And if you're only assigning one keyword to a whole bunch of photos, it works fairly well.

Re:My Thoughts (3, Insightful)

the idoru (125059) | more than 8 years ago | (#14186963)

With regards to "capacity", you should note that Aperture won't even install on your 1.3 GHz Powerbook. Aperture CAN support huge RAW libraries, but the hardware requirements of Aperture are so high that I wonder if the increased capacity is simply due to the kickass hardware you have to have simply to use the program.

I haven't heard of anyone comparing Aperture's performance with huge libraries vs. iPhoto's performance with those same libraries on Aperture-able hardware. Frankly, I'm curious; I avoid iPhoto in part because of its performance limitations.

Re:My Thoughts (2, Informative)

vmardian (321592) | more than 8 years ago | (#14186789)

>> If this is just an organization and editing program, then how is this any different than iPhoto? >

a) No layers. No non-global adjustments at all except for b)
b) yes
c) yes

>> then it's really a worthless app if you've got Picasa

Well I don't have Picasa (I'm on Mac) however, even if I did, I prefer Aperture because of the features I listed above.

I have encountered a few bugs. None of them major although I was surprised to see them.

Re:My Thoughts (1)

Dotnaught (223657) | more than 8 years ago | (#14186792)

>If this is just an organization and editing program, then how is this any different than iPhoto?

For one thing, I'd expect that Apple's online print service will actually process orders of studio-quality photos if the order is sent through Aperture. Apple makes it very difficult to order prints from iPhoto if they look like they came from a professional photographer -- Apple's print service assumes you're violating the photographer's copyright. (Granted that most pros would not work through Apple's online service.)

For photos that don't look amateur, Apple's print service wants you to sign a copyright form to indeminfying them and affirm that you in fact have the right to reproduce the photo being ordered. The process is not very efficient -- they lost the form I faxed them twice after I ordered some headshots of my wife taken by a friend (who's a pro and gave me the files). It took me more than a month to get them to send me the pictures I ordered.

Re:My Thoughts (1)

vmardian (321592) | more than 8 years ago | (#14186826)

Sorry about this partial double post. It didn't take some of my comments because of my use of triangle brackets.

"If this is just an organization and editing program, then how is this any different than iPhoto?"

extremely fast and effective application of keywords
effective use of dual display
stacking (ie: grouping) of like images manually or automatically based on timestamp
smart web galleries
new book layouts and higher quality book prints
innovate "loupe" magnifying tool
very slick interface
adjustments HUD many times more powerful
virtual lighttable for composing layouts
non-destructive editing from beginning to end or to photoshop
compare and select tools

"a) does Aperture support layers?
b) does Aperture have a clone tool/healing brush/patch tool? These are the tools I use most often for actual retouching.
c) does Aperture support 16 bit images? (My guess is it would pretty much have to in order to truly support RAW, but I don't think they specifically say it does anywhere.)"

a) No layers. No non-global adjustments at all except for b)
b) yes
c) yes

"then it's really a worthless app if you've got Picasa"

Well I don't have Picasa (I'm on Mac) however, even if I did, I prefer Aperture because of the features I listed above.

I have encountered a few bugs. None of them major although I was surprised to see them.

Re:My Thoughts (4, Informative)

demonhood (102681) | more than 8 years ago | (#14186880)

a) does Aperture support layers?

not in the sense that photoshop does. what exactly are you looking for here? this isn't a photoshop replacement, by any stretch of the imagination.

b) does Aperture have a clone tool/healing brush/patch tool? These are the tools I use most often for actual retouching.

it does. there is a simple spot/patch tool in the toolbar (check here [mac.com]). there is also a simple red-eye reduction tool that appears to work a bit better than the iPhoto equivalent.

c) does Aperture support 16 bit images? (My guess is it would pretty much have to in order to truly support RAW, but I don't think they specifically say it does anywhere.)

your guess would be right.

--

i've posted a mini-review over at macnn [macnn.com], but i haven't tested the raw conversion to look for the same issues that the ars reviewer found. overall application speed is something that apple addresses quickly, in my experience. i wouldn't be surprised to see a point upgrade for this app in a month or two.

Re:My Thoughts (2, Interesting)

Kaa (21510) | more than 8 years ago | (#14186964)

It is highly desirable to work directly on RAW files, which as Apple says is "non-destructive", i.e. all of your original sensor data is still there. This is not the case when working with RAW files in Photoshop, which have to be rasterized even before they're actually opened. You can make basic adjustments in Adobe Camera RAW before the file is opened but to do real retouching, you have to rasterize and open in Photoshop itself.

I don't understand what does "working directly on RAW files" mean.

RAW files are raw sensor data. To make any sense out of it you need to at least demosaic first (as well as assign gamma, color temp, etc.). Until you demosaic there is no image you can reasonably work with in an editing program.

Photoshop does this explicitly: first you convert your RAW file to something (either an internal Photoshop format, or a TIFF, or something else) and then you work on the converted image. You can tweak quite a few parameters in the conversion process. This is non-destructive in the sense that your original RAW file is still there and you can re-convert (with the same or other conversion parameters) at any time you want.

Aperture, it seems, does the same thing only non-explicitly -- it converts the RAW file into its own internal format and lets you edit the image. This does *not* mean working directly with RAW images -- you just hid away from the user the conversion step. And I doubt very much that if I, say, make some Curves contrast adjustments Aperture will re-mosaic the image and re-create the Bayer pattern RAW file with my contrast adjustments.

So I am inclined to treat "working directly with RAW images" as nothing but Apple marketspeak with a dose of Steve Jobs' reality distortion field thrown in.

Re:My Thoughts (5, Insightful)

vought (160908) | more than 8 years ago | (#14186991)

I was hoping that people here on Slashdot with anything to say about Aperture might have read some of the articles and conjecture released about it before holding forth here...or maybe even TFA.

a) does Aperture support layers?
b) does Aperture have a clone tool/healing brush/patch tool? These are the tools I use most often for actual retouching.
c) does Aperture support 16 bit images? (My guess is it would pretty much have to in order to truly support RAW, but I don't think they specifically say it does anywhere.)


Aperture is not an image-editing program. It is a workflow and organization tool with a few editing features, but it is not and is not marketed as a replacement for Photoshop. Aperture is not remotely meant to supplant Photoshop (or Picasa, for that matter) for professional photographers, but as anyone who shoots hundreds or even thousands of photographs a day professionally will tell you, Aperture does fill a pretty big hole in the market.

There isn't currently software that does what Aperture does - the light table layout, stacking, the rich data tagging and database structure.

Whether it does this well or not is the point of the Ars review, and clearly Apple has a lot of work to do on their version 1.0 product.

If your primary questions about Aperture are whether or not it supports layers, "does it do this Photoshop feature" etc, then you may not understand the point of the product. That's partially Apple's fault and partially the fact that most people don't understand how professional photographers using digital tools actually work.

From my experience as a professional photographer and from working in the digital imaging and printing industry, the outsider's view is that professional photographers do a bunch of shooting, some healing brush magic, playing with sliders, and then hit print. This ignores the massive amounts of data, the client's need for proofing, the organization and requirements to differentiate two vitually identical needles in a haystack of exposures.

Aperture was created in part to address the shortcomings of products which only address the 1990s world of digital photography. Now that digital cameras and imaging tools have grown beyond curiosities and exploded into the mainstream of professionals and amateurs alike, those professionals need better tools to organize and present the data. They'll still use Photoshop to edit their images, because that's not what Aperture is for.

On your marks... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14186501)

Cue raft of posts from Mac users who 'would never need it anyway' and 'iPhoto does everything they want'.

Yes it might, but there are those among us called professionals and we need real tools.

price:500. 400 dollars? what do they want 300 for? (1, Interesting)

passingNotes.com (936024) | more than 8 years ago | (#14186520)

honestly, for most folks who do amateur or high-brow amateur, they're gettin' along just fine with the free stuff that came with their computer...or photoshop lite type software...what confuses me is this: apple wants to get to the serious amateurs as well as the pro's - but since the nearmidformat cameras have fallen in price dramatically (many below the cost of this software), then why on earth charge so much for the software itself? that's like begging to alienate the potential buyers below the pro level...really, this should be priced on par with 'high end' do-it-yourself home printer kits (great ones from 200-300, most below 200, but supplies are expensive)...apple would be more well served by creating a new secondary market for digital images and video stored or manipulated with their software (think: open source flash, but apple - and creative commons and share style networks for video clips, images (from aperture) and so on...) just a thought.

Re:price:500. 400 dollars? what do they want 300 f (1)

Stonehand (71085) | more than 8 years ago | (#14186610)

Expensive ink cartridges -is- the major reason why printers can be cheap. There's no real equivalent to software, unless you're expecting to be able to gouge them for support, or pushing them into also buying related premium services from you. And even if Apple wanted to do the latter, there's no shortage of image hosting / printing sites right now.

One might also wonder -- is there a bit of psychology involved? Will people automatically dismiss it as a rival to Photoshop if it were vastly cheaper?

Re:price:500. 400 dollars? what do they want 300 f (1)

ev0l (87708) | more than 8 years ago | (#14186806)

nearmidformat !? I can only assume you think pictures taken with sub $500 digital cameras look almost as good as a typical medium format camera. That is complete hogwash.

Very few pro-level cameras approach the quality of even a mid range medium format traditional camera. Modern films and paper capture an amazing amount of detail and color and the dynamic range of digital does not even approach that of professional low contrast film/paper.

DYI Home digital printing sucks!!! Most ink jet inks fade within a few months. The best option for home printing is Dye Sublimation and than you are stuck with post card size prints unless you want to spend a few thousand dollars. You are better off taking your digital images to a lab and having them print your image on traditional color paper.

On the flip side you you buy a used medium format setup for $1,000 and set up your own color darkroom in your bathroom for $250. Traditional color printing and development is not as hard as some might want you to believe and the enlargements will blow your mind! Much better than anything you can get from digital today especially at the price point.

Digital photography is fun and all but the quality just does not yet match medium format.

Biased? and Negative (0, Flamebait)

millahtime (710421) | more than 8 years ago | (#14186526)

Is this reviewer biased? The entire tone of the article is to nail Apple. An honest review does pull out the plus side of things (even if the pluses are small, few, and far between) along with the minuses.

Re:Biased? and Negative (3, Insightful)

prockcore (543967) | more than 8 years ago | (#14186608)

Is this reviewer biased? The entire tone of the article is to nail Apple. An honest review does pull out the plus side of things (even if the pluses are small, few, and far between) along with the minuses.

He does several times. For instance, "Once you've set some ratings and keywords, sorting through the items is very elegant and well thought out. If there's one thing Apple knows how to do, it's help you find things easily."

Did people even read the review? Or did they just immediately cry bias because he had some negative things to say about Apple's UI.

Re:Biased? and Negative (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14186674)

Did people even read the review? Or did they just immediately cry bias because he had some negative things to say about Apple's UI.

Here's a set of words used to describe someone who finds fault with Apple software: ignorant, biased, shill, or troll.

Here's a set of words used to describe someone who finds merit with Microsoft software: ignorant, biased, shill, or troll.

Welcome to /. and enjoy your stay ;-)

Re:Biased? and Negative (5, Insightful)

blackmonday (607916) | more than 8 years ago | (#14186634)

Did you read the review? He likes a lot of things about this program, but his major gripe is that the RAW display is not up to par with the FREE RAW plugin for photoshop. His point is well made - if this doesn't produce the best image quality - what's the point of the app in its current state?

Re:Biased? and Negative (5, Informative)

amliebsch (724858) | more than 8 years ago | (#14186649)

I thought the reviewer did a fine job of brining out positive points:
"The auto-stacking seen in the import dialog and elsewhere in the interface uses capture date info to group items into stacks. It's a handy feature, especially if you have a ton of images in a single flat list that aren't related."
"On top of the standard EXIF and IPTC metadata tags, Aperture has a rating system for isolating pics. Once you've set some ratings and keywords, sorting through the items is very elegant and well thought out. If there's one thing Apple knows how to do, it's help you find things easily."
Despite the continuing legacy of the OS X Finder to disappoint new and old users, Apple knows how to make you drool with the look of a program. Like the newer version of iTunes, the bezels are cleaner and there is no brushed metal. This is almost definitely where the OS X Leopard interface is going and for the most part it's a welcome change.

Also, there's a fairly complete list of both pros and cons at the end.

::Sniffs the air:: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14186556)

I smell... bias.

Oh well (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14186559)

Guess I can stop searching for torrents of it.

Why do i need that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14186587)

I have teh GIMP

Article flamebait (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14186593)

-1, Flamebait on this article. Apple clearly has built a superior product here, as they do with all of their new apps and hardware. To think that an Apple product has even a minor flaw is just bogus, any right-thinking slashdotter knows this.

And the author of this article insults Apple by saying this app is not a competitor with photoshop. Of course it is, and the winner is clearly Apple! Who cares if it only handles images in RGB? If that's the way Apple wrote the software then RGB must be the absolute way to go.

Slashdot Apple fans, we must unite as we always do and mod any and all comments in support of this guy's extremist point of view as -1, Flamebait or troll.

Re:Article flamebait (1)

riversky (732353) | more than 8 years ago | (#14186757)

Bullshit. This is a fair article. Apple's software is superior but it's hardware isn't. The G4 is dead and the graphics cards in the PowerBooks are TWO YEARS OLD!!!

This is a fair review. He gives them a lot of credit for some things but not on its core functions. What he is saying is this piece of software is not up to Apple's own HIGH standards.

By the way tell us Pages is a good piece of software and you should be banned from Slashdot

Re:Article flamebait (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14186901)

What's wrong with Pages?

Everyone loves Gimp! :) (0, Flamebait)

brys (151801) | more than 8 years ago | (#14186604)

I am doing raw photo processing / editing with GIMP and simple command-line conversion program. I don`t need dual G4, 4GB of RAM, radeon 9xxx and a $500 program... Better spend this money on your camera :)

Re:Everyone loves Gimp! :) (1)

Coelacanth (323321) | more than 8 years ago | (#14186708)

Having learned Photoshop first, I find the Gimp interface very confusing. But if you want a budget alternative, Photoshop Elements 3 does an excellent job of RAW processing (~$70). Then you can buy that nice lens you wanted, too.

Re:Everyone loves Gimp! :) (1)

hullabalucination (886901) | more than 8 years ago | (#14186788)

I was just checking out the RawPhoto GIMP plugin site http://ptj.rozeta.com.pl/Soft/RawPhoto/ [rozeta.com.pl] and wondering if anyone was using it.

Sounds promising.

* * * * *

The difference between 11th-century Chinese philosophers and 12th-century Chinese philosophers is, mainly, about 100 years.
--Joe Griffith

Re:Everyone loves Gimp! :) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14186848)

If you're converting the picture, then you're doing exactly what this program was created to avoid.

Re:Everyone loves Gimp! :) (2, Interesting)

brys (151801) | more than 8 years ago | (#14186890)

This is not "blind" conversion of course, I am converting all pictures with 4 or more presets and then I choose the best. It is fast and easy method. But this GIMP plugin is very promising, I am just checking this now :)

Re:Everyone loves Gimp! :) (1)

HeelToe (615905) | more than 8 years ago | (#14186934)

Are these presets a set of command line arguments to dcraw, or are you using the GIMP Plugin? If you have a set of command line arguments to dcraw, it would be nice to see what you're using.

Thanks.

I own it and have used it (4, Informative)

bblazer (757395) | more than 8 years ago | (#14186697)

I am what you might call a serious amateur photographer. For the past few years I have used a full version of Photoshop CS (on Mac) for my processing. On a lark, I pre-ordered Aperture. I think that it is not a refined as photoshop, but I am not sure it is meant to be. Photoshop is a scalpel in a swiss army knife, and Aperture is more of a chef's knife by itself. I definitely think that Aperture has a MUCH shorter learning curve and is more intuitive. It does not get in your way. While I (again) am no expert, I believe that the images I have processed with Aperture have the same final quality as Photoshop. Plus, it loads about 2x faster than photoshop.

Re:I own it and have used it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14186811)

You must have a lot of cash if you can preorder a $500 product "On a lark."

Re:I own it and have used it (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 8 years ago | (#14186954)

You can see from the article sample images that the quality of aperture's output is not very high. And, loading time is utterly irrelevant. It will take you longer to apply a decent filter to an image - even with macosx and the graphics core - than it will to start photoshop.

Aperture Light Anyone? (2, Interesting)

toupsie (88295) | more than 8 years ago | (#14186706)

I am a heavy user of iPhoto but my "shoebox" of photos is getting a little too big for it. At ~29,000 iPhoto is usable but is starting to choke a little. Aperture seems to be perfectly able to handle libraries over 100,000 with no problems but I am not a Pro photog and $500 for Aperture is a little much since all I want is a cataloging app. Anyone have a suggestion on the an iPhoto alternative that will import my iPhoto library?

Re:Aperture Light Anyone? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14186868)

If you've got too many photos for iPhoto, try iPhoto Buddy (www.nofences.net/iphotoBuddy/). It lets you group your photos into separate libraries, and then launches iPhoto with only the library you want to work on. It's convenient, and free.

K

Font size issues. (0, Offtopic)

hackwrench (573697) | more than 8 years ago | (#14186713)

I'm glad he mentions font size issues. I'm using Windows XP, and am constantly running into font size issues. Programs ignore my settings or pay attention to part of them, and also dont allocate enough room for the chosen font size. This is rediculous. Visual Studio 2005 is a big offender as well.

I am not a Photo Pro, but I play one on TV.. (2, Insightful)

mpapet (761907) | more than 8 years ago | (#14186726)

Note that while I'm not a professional photographer, I work with high-end digital and scanned images as a commercial retoucher and formerly as art director for a fashion magazine...
A pro photographer is paid for his "eye"/ability to capture an image that is so desirable, someone wants to pay for it.

so I understand the needs of a professional digital photographer.
I spent some time working at an OEM, so I got a little tiny window into their workflow. Much of the value of an Aperature is in importing and managing on a large scale for review and basic selection.

Maybe the better article choice would have been to collect feedback from pros instead of assuming he "knows" all about it?

Decent review, one quibble (1)

aftk2 (556992) | more than 8 years ago | (#14186748)

And it's a pretty off-topic quibble, at that:
While on first impression they look slick, it's a generally known thing in publishing that reverse type (white on black) is not easy to read, and so if someone is going to be spending a long time in front of a long article, reverse type is usually avoided. Is this true? While it might be true for reading printed output, I thought that it was actually the case that white text on a dark background was _better_ on a monitor, since a monitor's natural state is black. Or maybe it's somewhere in between.

To quote somebody more intelligent than me... (4, Insightful)

mosch (204) | more than 8 years ago | (#14186754)

Photoshop is the darkroom.

Aperature is the light table.

If you don't understand this, you're not the target market.

Re:To quote somebody more intelligent than me... (1)

Bozdune (68800) | more than 8 years ago | (#14186884)

That would be me. I have no clue what you're talking about. So, thanks for saving me time regarding RTFA.

Re:To quote somebody more intelligent than me... (0)

Syre (234917) | more than 8 years ago | (#14186995)

What?

You don't edit on a light table. You just look.

A $500 program isn't needed for just looking.

Let the scuffle begin (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14186761)

This thread will be yet another tired old episode of the Macin-bashers vs. the Win-dozers -- same fight we used to have on BBS's 15 years ago. Nothing's changed, objectivity is out the window. Yawn.

test (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14186762)

test

Demo Version Availible (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14186780)

There are demo versions of this availible at a [searching.com] few [searching.com] different places [macserialjunkie.com]. The last link includes a bug-fix that allows the software to be run on older Apple machines.

Apple (1, Insightful)

XMilkProject (935232) | more than 8 years ago | (#14186810)

The article is critical of apple for sacrificing function for form. This has long been apples way of doing things.

I'm not sure its a valid reason to be critical though, apple users expect this tradeoff, and prefer it. They pay for Apple products becuase they are idiot-proof, and either don't know or don't care that they perhaps do not have all the functions of other products.

This obviously doesn't apply to all apple products, the new OSX is a wonderful piece of work, finding ways to make it very accessible yet maintain the power of a *nix based operating system was not an easy task.

Re:Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14186988)

What the hell are you talking about?

I can't speak of Aperture but Final Cut is neither idiot-proof nor a sacrifice of form for function. Ditto DVD Studio Pro, Logic, Motion... While many professionals would argue the fine points of Apple's pro-level video products versus competition (like Avid), you won't find many who don't agree Apple's pro line is above par.

If you're speaking of iMovie, Garage Band etc., then realize these are freebies that come with the computer. It's MS Works vs. Office; basic, easy to use and good enough for the dabbler to get the job done.

Seeing is Believing (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 8 years ago | (#14186930)

Can anyone else verify Girard's gripes with the GUI type?

"They try and make it less illegible by bolding up the fonts but it's really fuzzy and on my 22" monitor at 1600x1200, I'm constantly squinting to read things (and I have near-perfect vision). Maybe things look better on the twin 30" LCD setups that you see in all of Apple's user profiles [Kevin Bacon dork-cred references omitted]

I think Apple is assuming that everyone is running on larger monitors now but they forgot about that resolution thing that also increases, nulling any increase in physical scale."

If that's accurate criticism, I can probably trust the rest of his review, including believing that failure to properly manipulate RAW formats is Aperture's defect, not Girard's. Otherwise, his whole review is discredited. Apple certainly didn't "forget" their displays have fixed resolutions at given physical sizes. Who's got Aperture running on a 22" 1600x1200 monitor?

Aperture is really pretty amazing (5, Informative)

analogueblue (853280) | more than 8 years ago | (#14186944)

I need to preface this by saying that no application is perfect for everyone. Different people have different workflows, different post-processing needs, and different priorities. I'm not saying Aperture is perfect for everyone. Nor should anyone else say Aperture is useless. It may be useless to them, but not to everyone. I shoot mostly fashion and advertising type work. I'm a pretty serious amateur, in that I have good gear, and I'm very serious about photography, but I have a day job doing something else (security architecture, which I also love). I shoot only RAW as it gives me way more latitude if I want to adjust the exposure after the fact to change or increase a look (i.e. I want to make things darker and moodier, or I want to blow things out a little). My post-processing requirements are usually the following (in order of frequency): Exposure, white point, saturation, sharpening, levels, blemish fixing. On very rare occasion I'll need to do something beyond that. My pre-Aperture workflow looked a lot like this: Copy files from CF card. Due to my camera putting them in different folders based on the sequence, I had to write an automator script to pull out just the image files from all the folders and put them in a new folder on my desktop. This works, but takes a little while, and is something I had to write myself. Create a folder for my project "Sarah-DarkWear hoodie". Create the following folders inside that: "raws", "all-jpeg", "best-psd", "best-jpeg". Move all the RAWs from my automator action's results folder into the raws folder. Open up Adobe CS2 Bridge. View the files. Try to pick the best ones. I can't emphasize enough how laborious and time consuming this task is. Out of 200 shots, about 20 are really good, and about 5 are worth using (in a portfolio or ad or whatever). Bridge has no way to compare two pictures other than switching back and forth between them. You also can't see the pictures at 100% so figuring out sharpness or focus is pretty impossible unless you open them up in Photoshop. Which requires a multi-dialog process and a conversion time. Once I get my 20 good ones, batch convert them all to PSDs using an action I wrote. This takes a while. The PSDs go into the "best-psds" folder. They each take up about 40-70 MB of space vs. 3-6 MB for each RAW file. Make the levels, saturation, sharpness adjustments as needed with each file. Using another action I wrote, batch convert the best PSDs to full rez jpegs with my copyright notice on them. As this action involves opening a 70 MB file, creating a new layer for my copyright, setting it up, converting to srgb, converting to 8bit, saving as jpeg, this takes a while. Several seconds each file on my dual 2.5 with 2.5 GB ram. Using another action I wrote, batch covert all the RAWs to small rez jpegs with my copyright notice on them. These are for the model if it's a tfcd shoot, or for my records, or whatever. This takes a good long while. Now my 1 GB of raws are about 2.3 GB of raws, jpegs, psds. Open up iView Media pro and update it's index so that all my new files are in it. Done. With Aperture, I put my card in the reader. Aperture pops up and asks if I'd like to import these images. I pick a destination, specify the metadata and keywords for this shoot, and it loads them all in. I turn on auto-stack. I make a few manual stacking adjustments. I start picking the best shoots. Aperture has excellent compare modes, including 2-up, 3-up, more-up, full rez zoom, a loupe tool for instantly checking focus at full resolution, a 0-5 star rating system, a quick-select key for picking an image as five star, a quick-reject key for an image I know is junk. Within in a stack I can promote, demote, and pick the stack "pick" very quickly and easily. I can do this with just the keyboard. I can easily compare any pictures next to each other. I can go full screen with drops off all the unneeded junk and keeps the various window and toolbar colors for interfering with my vision on my color calibrated display. Picking the best shots is amazingly faster and less frustrating due to the features mentioned above. I can now make my adjustments (exposure, levels, brightness, saturation, shadows, highlights, spot and patch blemish fixing, red eye, etc...., and then can apply them to all the other similar condition pictures. (In Photoshop/Bridge you can batch apply things like white point and exposure changes, but you can't do saturation, sharpness, etc...). My adjustments go into a 24kb xml file, instead of a 70 MB psd. Each adjustment can be turned on or off, removed, modified, etc... I can instantly create different version of an image. I might want a crop to zoom in on the model's face, or I might want a black and white version, etc... The versions are just a tiny amount of data in the xml file. In photoshop I'd need a new 70 MB psd for each version I wanted. Once I'm all done getting the images rated and adjusted the way I want them, I can at any time use the export function to generate the jpegs. Since the copyright is a watermark layer and is rendered by Core Image in my video card, the export is about 10X faster than the Photoshop batch action processing. I haven't timed the two side by side, but I will. It's about 10X or so faster though. For me. Done. I just converted my 70 GB working library into Aperture over the weekend. I was able to duplicate my photoshop adjustments in Aperture and drop my psds. This took my 70 GB lib to 35.5 GB. That's about half the size. So for me, and my workflow, and my post-processing requirements, Aperture is faster, uses less hard drive space, is easier to use, and does a great job. It will pay for itself during the first shoot's sorting and post-processing. There have been reports of the RAW conversion not doing as good a job as Adobe's. It turns out many of those people bringing that up left the default sharpening turned on in Adobe. Since raw files, at least Canon raws, pretty much always need sharpening and a small saturation boots, comparing a converted raw to a converted raw with sharpening will clearly show the one with sharpening looks better. So most of them aren't valid tests. There may be some real issues with Apple's image handling vs. Adobe's. Hopefully if there are, Apple will fix them. My personal experience is that the raw conversion looks pretty much the same to me as Adobe's non-sharpened conversion. I've found that Apple's noise-reduction looks better than Adobe's or Fred Miranda's action. I've found that it takes me less time to get a look I like in Aperture than in Adobe. I've found that my workflow is vastly quicker. To me it is an amazing program that will only get better with each revision. Devon

Expect a trade off? (0)

TheSkepticalOptimist (898384) | more than 8 years ago | (#14186958)

Most Apple consumers are those in the photography, video, and graphic artists fields. They REQUIRE function over form because they are paid to use these products. Its their livelyhood. What good is an application that looks good if it doesn't do as advertised or lacks features necessary to copmlete the job?

Apple messed up by trying to create a professional package that utilizes oversimplification to make it easy to use. Pro users are not the type of people that are impressed by a dumbing down of their profession. Aperture is iPhoto with RAW image support trying to mask itself as a pro-level tool.

Look, Adobe prefers function over form, if you have never used Photoshop good luck even trying to draw a square in the application and do simple things. Photoshop isn't designed for computer dummies, its designed as a professional tool for people that earn a living manipulating images and graphics. If Adobe turned Photoshop into MS Paint, there would be a professional boycott and outrage of their product.

True, graphic and design professionals want an easy to use computer, but NOT dumbed down applications. Apple appeals to them because they don't have to worry about how to setup and use their computer, they just install the tools they need and worry about getting the job done. If Apple insists on dumbing down their pro apps, they will lose their bread and butter market, those professionals that buy the expensive G5's who are largely the only reason why Apple exists today.

Mostly, Apple never really succeeds with first releases of their applications, hopefully they will realize that if professionals want to use Aperature as a pro-tool, in the next version they will focus on rock solid RAW support along with more robust and feature rich tools rather then superfluous fancy eye candy.

For now, Aperature is an expensive solution for those prosumers that dabble in photography as a passtime and don't want to learn how to use complicated solutions like Photoshop. But then, these people really don't need to delve into a photo and fix even the most minute details, so I fail to see what market Apple was targetting here.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...