A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Apple: Aperture not a Photoshop competitor



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 20th 05, 04:40 AM
Jerry Kindall
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Apple: Aperture not a Photoshop competitor

I agree. It's more like Bibble or Capture One -- workflow tool, media
organizer, and RAW converter. I'm sure it integrates well with
Photoshop.

--
Jerry Kindall, Seattle, WA http://www.jerrykindall.com/

Send only plain text messages under 32K to the Reply-To address.
This mailbox is filtered aggressively to thwart spam and viruses.
  #2  
Old October 20th 05, 02:20 PM
Conrad
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Apple: Aperture not a Photoshop competitor

Hi,

For those of you who haven't seen a preview of the Aperture program -
you might want to take a few minutes and check it out at:

http://www.apple.com/aperture/

Probably, six months or a year from now would be a better time to
evaluate its' use among photographers and any impact with Adobe's
Photoshop program.

Best,

Conrad
Camp Sherman, Oregon

  #3  
Old October 20th 05, 03:37 PM
Randy Howard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Apple: Aperture not a Photoshop competitor

Jerry Kindall wrote
(in article ):

I agree. It's more like Bibble or Capture One -- workflow tool, media
organizer, and RAW converter. I'm sure it integrates well with
Photoshop.


What is the point of having a RAW converter, especially for pro
photographers that use Photoshop? CS2 already has the best RAW
handling available, and it is outstanding. That, plus Bridge,
make for excellent photo editing and management, without some
brain-damaged "database" pretend crap ala iPhoto. I have not
tried out Aperture yet, but I sincerely hope that it doesn't
bury photos in its own directory structure like iPhoto does, or
suffer from the 'crash of the hour' syndrome. iPhoto is the
absolute worst piece of software on the OS X platform, apart
from the obvious exception of Finder.


--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)

  #4  
Old October 20th 05, 04:57 PM
Jerry Kindall
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Apple: Aperture not a Photoshop competitor

In article , Randy
Howard wrote:

Jerry Kindall wrote
(in article ):

I agree. It's more like Bibble or Capture One -- workflow tool, media
organizer, and RAW converter. I'm sure it integrates well with
Photoshop.


What is the point of having a RAW converter, especially for pro
photographers that use Photoshop? CS2 already has the best RAW
handling available, and it is outstanding.


I guess that's why there are no fewer than three other Mac RAW
converters, all with their vocal adeherents. Because CS2 is better.

That, plus Bridge,
make for excellent photo editing and management, without some
brain-damaged "database" pretend crap ala iPhoto.


Funny, all I hear is complaints about how slow Bridge is. Also, Bridge
is more a directory browser than a photo organizer. I mean, how 1990s.

I have not
tried out Aperture yet, but I sincerely hope that it doesn't
bury photos in its own directory structure like iPhoto does, or
suffer from the 'crash of the hour' syndrome. iPhoto is the
absolute worst piece of software on the OS X platform, apart
from the obvious exception of Finder.


iPhoto the worst? Heh. You don't try a lot of software, do you?

iPhoto gets slow when it's got a lot of photos in it, and I switched to
something else because of that, but I can't say I ever found it
crash-prone.

As to "burying photos in its own directory structure," well, they've
got to be copied SOMEWHERE from your camera, might as well let iPhoto
manage them -- it does a better job than you can.

Aperture is pricey, but I'll give it a spin at the local Apple store as
soon as it's available.

--
Jerry Kindall, Seattle, WA http://www.jerrykindall.com/

Send only plain text messages under 32K to the Reply-To address.
This mailbox is filtered aggressively to thwart spam and viruses.
  #5  
Old October 20th 05, 05:26 PM
C Wright
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Apple: Aperture not a Photoshop competitor

On 10/20/05 9:37 AM, in article
, "Randy Howard"
wrote:

Jerry Kindall wrote
(in article ):

I agree. It's more like Bibble or Capture One -- workflow tool, media
organizer, and RAW converter. I'm sure it integrates well with
Photoshop.


What is the point of having a RAW converter, especially for pro
photographers that use Photoshop? CS2 already has the best RAW
handling available, and it is outstanding. That, plus Bridge,
make for excellent photo editing and management, without some
brain-damaged "database" pretend crap ala iPhoto. I have not
tried out Aperture yet, but I sincerely hope that it doesn't
bury photos in its own directory structure like iPhoto does, or
suffer from the 'crash of the hour' syndrome. iPhoto is the
absolute worst piece of software on the OS X platform, apart
from the obvious exception of Finder.


I too use CS2 and Bridge for my editing and image organizing. I also use
Adobe's camera raw to convert my raw images - although calling it the best
raw handling available is a bit extreme. Like you, I also dislike iPhoto
forcing me to use its system of organization rather than mine!
Having said all of that I think that you are missing the point of Aperture.
For a busy pro photographer who comes back from a shoot with hundreds of
images it would appear to make comparing, raw editing, and organizing those
images a breeze. Its automatic backup to an external drive would also take
a lot of the pain out of archiving images. Some of the third party raw
converters like Capture One and image organizers like iView are going to
have to take serious notice.

  #6  
Old October 20th 05, 05:36 PM
Johan W. Elzenga
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Apple: Aperture not a Photoshop competitor

Randy Howard wrote:

What is the point of having a RAW converter, especially for pro
photographers that use Photoshop? CS2 already has the best RAW
handling available, and it is outstanding. That, plus Bridge,
make for excellent photo editing and management, without some
brain-damaged "database" pretend crap ala iPhoto. I have not
tried out Aperture yet, but I sincerely hope that it doesn't
bury photos in its own directory structure like iPhoto does, or
suffer from the 'crash of the hour' syndrome. iPhoto is the
absolute worst piece of software on the OS X platform, apart
from the obvious exception of Finder.


I use CaptureOne Pro, even though I also have and use Photoshop CS2. I
disagree that ACR has the best RAW converter. And Bridge is a nice (but
slow) browser, but totally inadequate for serious photo management.


--
Johan W. Elzenga johanatjohanfoto.nl
Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/
  #7  
Old October 20th 05, 05:49 PM
Randy Howard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Apple: Aperture not a Photoshop competitor

Jerry Kindall wrote
(in article ):

In article , Randy
Howard wrote:

Jerry Kindall wrote
(in article ):

I agree. It's more like Bibble or Capture One -- workflow tool, media
organizer, and RAW converter. I'm sure it integrates well with
Photoshop.


What is the point of having a RAW converter, especially for pro
photographers that use Photoshop? CS2 already has the best RAW
handling available, and it is outstanding.


I guess that's why there are no fewer than three other Mac RAW
converters, all with their vocal adeherents.


I guess you dropped that logic course early in the semester.
:-)

Think price might have something to do with the number of
products out there?

Because CS2 is better.


Correct.

That, plus Bridge,
make for excellent photo editing and management, without some
brain-damaged "database" pretend crap ala iPhoto.


Funny, all I hear is complaints about how slow Bridge is.


Probably depends upon the hardware, video card and memory. Just
like everything else doing image management does. I use a dual
powermac with 2.5GB of RAM, and it flies. YMMV.

Also, Bridge
is more a directory browser than a photo organizer. I mean, how 1990s.


Nothing worked that easily in 1990, or 2000. The only thing
close was firehand ember for Windows, which was close to Bridge,
but without the support for RAW and PS integration.

It may turn out that Aperture makes for a better front end to
Photoshop (until Adobe ups the bar again). I'm not sure I'm
willing to spend $500 to find out, only to see Adobe leapfrog
them next rev cycle.

I have not
tried out Aperture yet, but I sincerely hope that it doesn't
bury photos in its own directory structure like iPhoto does, or
suffer from the 'crash of the hour' syndrome. iPhoto is the
absolute worst piece of software on the OS X platform, apart
from the obvious exception of Finder.


iPhoto the worst? Heh. You don't try a lot of software, do you?


Actually I do. I shouldn't have left out the "Apple" in front
of software above. Of the delivered add-on applications from
Apple themeselves, iPhoto is the absolute bottom of the barrel.
It behaves as if it was written by some other company and out of
place with the rest of iLife. Of course finder is the all-time
champion POS code, but it comes bundled with the OS.

iPhoto gets slow when it's got a lot of photos in it, and I switched to
something else because of that, but I can't say I ever found it
crash-prone.


You were lucky. Lots of patches were put out shortly after
Tiger shipped as a result of crashes other people were having.
A weekly columnist for Network World spent a month bitching
about iPhoto. This is not news to most people that actually use
it regularly.

As to "burying photos in its own directory structure," well, they've
got to be copied SOMEWHERE from your camera, might as well let iPhoto
manage them -- it does a better job than you can.


I disagree. More importantly, it makes multiple copies (without
asking you), making it very difficult to keep track of which
version has your edits in it, and very difficult to get photos
back out of it once you give up on it.

Aperture is pricey, but I'll give it a spin at the local Apple store as
soon as it's available.


If I had a store conveniently close I would also. I'd prefer to
see them have an eval version out, like they did with Shake to
let you try it out.

--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)

  #8  
Old October 20th 05, 05:58 PM
Randy Howard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Apple: Aperture not a Photoshop competitor

C Wright wrote
(in article ):

I too use CS2 and Bridge for my editing and image organizing. I also use
Adobe's camera raw to convert my raw images - although calling it the best
raw handling available is a bit extreme.


Sorry if I was too extreme. :-)

Like you, I also dislike iPhoto
forcing me to use its system of organization rather than mine!


Join the club, it's large, so don't expect a low membership id
number.

Having said all of that I think that you are missing the point of Aperture.


That's entirely possible, since I have seen only the Apple
website content about it so far. I did like the comment about
bulk application of photo edits to a series of images shot
together in their demo. That is nice, and will probably show up
elsewhere RSN.

For a busy pro photographer who comes back from a shoot with hundreds of
images it would appear to make comparing, raw editing, and organizing those
images a breeze.


Probably. I had heard rumors in the past that Apple was
developing their own "photoshop clone", just in case Adobe ever
dropped support for the Mac. I wonder if this was really that
product, or if that is still hiding somewhere. Either way, I
would have rather seen Photoshop gain the additional
functionality in CS3 or something, rather than have to buy and
use multiple products, but I suppose the marketing folks at
Apple are looking for reasons to bring people onto the platform,
so it makes sense. If they really wanted to do that though, the
initial pricing for version 1.0 would be $99 instead of $499.

Its automatic backup to an external drive would also take
a lot of the pain out of archiving images.


Sorry, but backing up images to external media is a cake-walk.
I don't need an $$$ app to do that for me.

Some of the third party raw
converters like Capture One and image organizers like iView are going to
have to take serious notice.


You're the second person to mention Capture One, the price tag
before kept me from digging very deeply. Looking again I see
they have an eval version of it available, so I'll check it out.
--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)

  #9  
Old October 20th 05, 07:37 PM
srm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Apple: Aperture not a Photoshop competitor

Randy Howard wrote:
What is the point of having a RAW converter, especially for pro
photographers that use Photoshop? CS2 already has the best RAW
handling available, and it is outstanding.


I think the point is that it's not a RAW converter. With CS2/Bridge, you
can't do all that much with the file until you convert it from RAW to
another format. With Aperture, Apple has designed the entire workflow
around the RAW file - so it never actually gets converted until you have
to output it or send it somewhere. As all the changes are
non-destructive, you can go back and tweak any changes you've made based
on the original raw data. It looks an interesting idea, however...

Like many photographers (I presume) I've made considerable effort to
create an effective workflow built around Photoshop. In my case it also
employs PhotoMechanic, Bridge and iView. I have PS actions, saved curves
etc, all of which *work*. The thought of starting again and
learning/configuring a new workflow are daunting. Although my workflow
involves four packages, that's not nearly as clumsy as it might sound,
especially as PS is at the centre of the whole thing and can be launched
from any of those apps. The integrated workflow that Aperture offers is
very nice on paper, but not really enough to encourage me to switch.

What's more, it sounds that, for any but the most basic work on images,
you're going to need to switch into Photoshop anyway. The one thing that
might entice me is if the keywording is good, because that has to be the
single most tedious job...
  #10  
Old October 20th 05, 09:38 PM
Eric Lindsay
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Apple: Aperture not a Photoshop competitor

In article ,
Jerry Kindall wrote:

iPhoto gets slow when it's got a lot of photos in it, and I switched to
something else because of that, but I can't say I ever found it
crash-prone.


iPhoto 5 changed file handling structures from those used in iPhoto 4.
Instead of having four files per photo (the photo, the thumbnail, and
two numbered files, one with an .attr extension), iPhoto 5 incorporated
all of the last two files in a single Library.iPhoto file (probably for
faster handling). Unfortunately the .attr files formerly contained all
the exif data from your photo. So iPhoto 5 works fine with a few tens
of thousands of photos if the exif data is small.

Unfortunately a number of cameras from some manufacturers (Casio, Konica
Milolta, Kyocera, Nikon, Pentax) include in their exif a large (30-60kb)
MakerNote. If you have 10,000 such photos, Library.iPhoto bloats to
200MB to 500MB, and iPhoto can't cope when opening and closing.

Although removing the MakerNote data from the photos is possible without
otherwise changing the exif data, I don't as yet know if a general
method will work while retaining the additional iPhoto metadata you may
have added.

As to "burying photos in its own directory structure," well, they've
got to be copied SOMEWHERE from your camera, might as well let iPhoto
manage them -- it does a better job than you can.


As someone who only got back into taking photographs at all when digital
cameras got popular and cheap, I love the organisation of iPhoto.
Storing by date is just as easy for me as anything else I can think of,
and it keys nicely to my trip notes of the time and date I was in which
location (I just wish I could add GPS readings easily). Plus with
Spotlight, my iPhoto keywords can be used to make Smart Folders of
photos. For that matter, Spotlight lets me pull out only photos taken
with a particular camera, photos taken with various camera settings and
all sorts of stuff like that I'd never imagined being able to get at
previously.

For an amateur, iPhoto has been a boon, despite it sometimes acting as
if it is written by someone from another planet.

--
http://www.ericlindsay.com
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Lenses with fixed aperture Skip M Digital Photography 2 January 12th 05 07:08 AM
Photoshop CS leaves Photoshop 7 on my hard drive??? Anonymous Digital Photography 3 December 17th 04 07:31 PM
Cinematte for Photoshop on Macintosh Kermit Woodall General Equipment For Sale 0 October 27th 04 01:21 PM
ANN: Fantastic Photoshop Plugin Available on Mac/PC Kermit Woodall General Equipment For Sale 0 May 26th 04 02:17 AM
FS: Cinematte for Windows and Macintosh Photoshop now Shipping Kermit Woodall Digital Photo Equipment For Sale 0 May 7th 04 01:01 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.