Has anyone tried Aperture 2 yet?

On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 23:22:31 -0600, nospam wrote
(in article <120220082122316803%nospam@nospam.invalid>):

> In article
> <10fa94b5-1986-41f4-80c9-ae6863101f94 RemoveThis @e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> The Translucent Amoebae <transamoebae RemoveThis @seanet.com> wrote:
>
>> How is it different from iPhoto...
>> It seems like the same thing...???
>
> it's basically iphoto on steriods.

Not at all. iPhoto is a toy for people that aren't serious about it to
care, or not willing to pay extra for something better.

Aperture is for managing very large collections, particularly of RAW
files. Of course, most people that have a need for such are moving
toward (or already have arrived) at Adobe Lightroom instead. When Apple
basically admitted the original was horrible by refunding a big chunk
of the sales price to people that had bought it originally, that was
the writing on the wall. It was a neat idea, but Adobe quickly shored
up the gap, and since most people with such large collections are using
Photoshop and other CS components already, it's a logical conclusion.

> the main difference is that it nondestructively works on raw images.

Yes.

> it's designed for the professional photographer, not the average user
> who takes a few snapshots every so often.

Correct.


--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those
who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
 >> Stay informed about: Has anyone tried Aperture 2 yet? 

In article <0001HW.C3D7DF7204D7987FF01846D8 DeleteThis @news.verizon.net>, Randy
Howard <randyhoward DeleteThis @FOOverizonBAR.net> wrote:

> > it's basically iphoto on steriods.
>
> Not at all. iPhoto is a toy for people that aren't serious about it to
> care, or not willing to pay extra for something better.

which is basically what i said. aperture and iphoto do similar things,
such as manage image libraries, adjust exposure, output web galleries,
books, etc., but aperture is *substantially* more capable and
targetted at the pro user not the home user. that's why it isn't part
of a $79 bundle.

> Aperture is for managing very large collections, particularly of RAW
> files. Of course, most people that have a need for such are moving
> toward (or already have arrived) at Adobe Lightroom instead. When Apple
> basically admitted the original was horrible by refunding a big chunk
> of the sales price to people that had bought it originally, that was
> the writing on the wall. It was a neat idea, but Adobe quickly shored
> up the gap, and since most people with such large collections are using
> Photoshop and other CS components already, it's a logical conclusion.

it's a flawed conclusion. reducing the price and offering a credit is
not admitting it's horrible. both aperture and lightroom each have
their own advantages and disadvantages, and it's nice to have a choice.
 >> Stay informed about: Has anyone tried Aperture 2 yet? 

Randy Howard <randyhoward.DeleteThis@FOOverizonBAR.net> wrote:

> On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 23:22:31 -0600, nospam wrote
> (in article <120220082122316803%nospam@nospam.invalid>):
>
> > In article
> > <10fa94b5-1986-41f4-80c9-ae6863101f94.DeleteThis@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> > The Translucent Amoebae <transamoebae.DeleteThis@seanet.com> wrote:
> >
> >> How is it different from iPhoto...
> >> It seems like the same thing...???
> >
> > it's basically iphoto on steriods.
>
> Not at all. iPhoto is a toy for people that aren't serious about it to
> care, or not willing to pay extra for something better.
>
> Aperture is for managing very large collections, particularly of RAW
> files. Of course, most people that have a need for such are moving
> toward (or already have arrived) at Adobe Lightroom instead. When Apple
> basically admitted the original was horrible by refunding a big chunk
> of the sales price to people that had bought it originally, that was
> the writing on the wall. It was a neat idea, but Adobe quickly shored
> up the gap, and since most people with such large collections are using
> Photoshop and other CS components already, it's a logical conclusion.

I don't agree with your evaluation of iPhoto. I use both products
myself, and Aperture 1.5 has been so full of bugs I've often
reconsidered moving to iPhoto. The latest version is pretty good now,
and in combination with a good external editor it can be quite a
formidable photo management tool.

This would fall somewhere between someone who takes snap-shots and a
Pro.

Personally I think a good Pro is likely to end up with Lightroom and
CS3. Amateur users of DSLRs, and other cameras that have RAW images,
will benefit from some features in Aperture, but the gap is reducing.

> > the main difference is that it nondestructively works on raw images.
>
> Yes.

No. iPhoto '08 now also does non-destructive editing.

> > it's designed for the professional photographer, not the average user
> > who takes a few snapshots every so often.
>
> Correct.

Indeed, although its questionable reliability means it may not be the
best choice. We'll have to wait and see how V2 develops, and what bugs
have been left in it. As an enthusiast I got Aperture but have been
quite dissapointed with its performance (in relation to the marketing
hype it's had).

--
Andy Hewitt
<http://web.mac.com/andrewhewitt1/>
 >> Stay informed about: Has anyone tried Aperture 2 yet? 

On 2/13/08 12:44 AM, in article 120220082244563491%nospam@nospam.invalid,
"nospam" <nospam.DeleteThis@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <0001HW.C3D7DF7204D7987FF01846D8.DeleteThis@news.verizon.net>, Randy
> Howard <randyhoward.DeleteThis@FOOverizonBAR.net> wrote:
>
>>> it's basically iphoto on steriods.
>>
>> Not at all. iPhoto is a toy for people that aren't serious about it to
>> care, or not willing to pay extra for something better.
>
> which is basically what i said. aperture and iphoto do similar things,
> such as manage image libraries, adjust exposure, output web galleries,
> books, etc., but aperture is *substantially* more capable and
> targetted at the pro user not the home user. that's why it isn't part
> of a $79 bundle.
>
>> Aperture is for managing very large collections, particularly of RAW
>> files. Of course, most people that have a need for such are moving
>> toward (or already have arrived) at Adobe Lightroom instead. When Apple
>> basically admitted the original was horrible by refunding a big chunk
>> of the sales price to people that had bought it originally, that was
>> the writing on the wall. It was a neat idea, but Adobe quickly shored
>> up the gap, and since most people with such large collections are using
>> Photoshop and other CS components already, it's a logical conclusion.
>
> it's a flawed conclusion. reducing the price and offering a credit is
> not admitting it's horrible. both aperture and lightroom each have
> their own advantages and disadvantages, and it's nice to have a choice.
Agreed. Apple reduced the price of it's iPhone and, if anything, they sold
more. They did offer a hundred dollar rebate at their stores to the early
buyers, of which more spent twice that when they cashed in the rebate. A
good marketing move. As a professional, I use both Aperture and Lightroom (I
was one of the early $B&B(Beta testers for Lightroom). Each has it's own
strengths.
 >> Stay informed about: Has anyone tried Aperture 2 yet? 

On Feb 12, 9:09 pm, The Translucent Amoebae <transamoe....TakeThisOut@seanet.com>
wrote:
> How is it different from iPhoto...
> It seems like the same thing...???

I just downloaded the 30 day demo. I was very impressed with the
color, and exposure control, but the demo cannot print which is a very
important item for me so I have to reject on that failure. Otherwise
it is a very good application. I use PhotoShop CS2.
 >> Stay informed about: Has anyone tried Aperture 2 yet? 

On 2008-02-12 21:09:30 -0800, The Translucent Amoebae
<transamoebae DeleteThis @seanet.com> said:

> How is it different from iPhoto...
> It seems like the same thing...???

Aperture is considerably different than iPhoto. They both allow you to
manage a collection of pictures and they both give some editing
capability, but that is where the similarities stop.

Aperture 1.0 was extremely buggy and probably should never have been
released. Ver. 1.1 was a bug fix but Aperture did not really become a
usable tool until 1.5. However, the interface retained several problems
from 1.0.

When people tell me they are using Photoshop instead of Aperture that
indicates to me that they don't know what Aperture really is. Photoshop
is a photo manipulation tool. You can cut pieces out, paste them,
create layers, etc. It goes far beyond basic editing.

Aperture is a camera RAW workflow tool. It organizes your workflow from
beginning to end, including manipulation in Photoshop if that is one of
your steps. It allows editing of the photo, EXIF and metadata editing,
gives you a light table to select photos, and so forth. Yes, it
overlaps iPhoto, but iPhoto's editing tools are weaker, the web editor
has fewer features, books printed from iPhoto have lower resolution,
etc.

Aperture allows you to keep your photos on any drive or storage device.
iPhoto does not. Aperture has far more powerful key word and search
utilities.

Aperture is not intended to be a competitor with Photoshop. Its closest
competitor is Lightroom. Lightroom and Aperture are both excellent
products, but most Mac users do not need either one. They are basically
tools for professional photographers and advanced amateurs who shoot a
high volume of photos. I often take and edit several hundred or even
thousands of images a day. I would hate to have to manage that with
iPhoto.

I prefer Aperture, but Apple's poor support of the product have nearly
made me switch to Lightroom. Aperture 2.0 was very late coming out and
even now Apple has some serious delivery problems with the program.
Further, I resent how Apple managed to put RAW support for the new
Canon cameras in a Leopard update back in December, but could not do it
for the new Nikons. That support finally was released in 10.5.2, but
Aperture 1.5x still will not read D3 or D300 NEF files, even though
iPhoto now will. You have to upgrade to Aperture 2.0 to get D3 and D300
support. Apple had to actually cripple 1.5x with the 10.5.2 Leopard
release to keep it from using the D3 and D300 files. That is obnoxious.

If I have photo clients they do not want to hear that I cannot provide
them with their photos because Apple was nearly 6 months late releasing
support for my cameras. Apple has a very cavalier attitude toward the
business of professional photography. The fact is, most pros do not
believe that Apple gives a hoot about their business. So while Apple
wants to play penny-grubbing little games with upgrades in order to
allow you to use your cameras, professionals are leaving Aperture in
droves. If Apple ever decides to support this program it is going to
have a hard time winning us all back.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor
 >> Stay informed about: Has anyone tried Aperture 2 yet? 

nospam wrote:
> In article
> <10fa94b5-1986-41f4-80c9-ae6863101f94.RemoveThis@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> The Translucent Amoebae <transamoebae.RemoveThis@seanet.com> wrote:
>
>> How is it different from iPhoto...
>> It seems like the same thing...???
>
> it's basically iphoto on steriods. think final cut pro versus imovie.
> the main difference is that it nondestructively works on raw images.
> it's designed for the professional photographer, not the average user
> who takes a few snapshots every so often.

Is it able to non-destructively edit EXIF data? I mean without
re-encoding jpgs, even photoshop seems to want to save as... or
overwrite, and comes up with the dialog to select amount of compression.

Andy
 >> Stay informed about: Has anyone tried Aperture 2 yet? 

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 03:34:56 -0600, Andy Hewitt wrote
(in article <1ic8swh.ks8mzopdas4jN%wildrover.andy@googlemail.com>):

> Randy Howard <randyhoward.RemoveThis@FOOverizonBAR.net> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 23:22:31 -0600, nospam wrote
>> (in article <120220082122316803%nospam@nospam.invalid>):
>>
>>> In article
>>> <10fa94b5-1986-41f4-80c9-ae6863101f94.RemoveThis@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>>> The Translucent Amoebae <transamoebae.RemoveThis@seanet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> How is it different from iPhoto...
>>>> It seems like the same thing...???
>>>
>>> it's basically iphoto on steriods.
>>
>> Not at all. iPhoto is a toy for people that aren't serious about it to
>> care, or not willing to pay extra for something better.
>>
>> Aperture is for managing very large collections, particularly of RAW
>> files. Of course, most people that have a need for such are moving
>> toward (or already have arrived) at Adobe Lightroom instead. When Apple
>> basically admitted the original was horrible by refunding a big chunk
>> of the sales price to people that had bought it originally, that was
>> the writing on the wall. It was a neat idea, but Adobe quickly shored
>> up the gap, and since most people with such large collections are using
>> Photoshop and other CS components already, it's a logical conclusion.
>
> I don't agree with your evaluation of iPhoto. I use both products
> myself, and Aperture 1.5 has been so full of bugs I've often
> reconsidered moving to iPhoto.

Sure. I said Aperture wasn't all that and a bag chips already. iPhoto
is a lot less capable than Lightroom, a product that Aperture purports
to compete with for the prophoto market. iPhoto used to be extremely
buggy with RAW files, especially the very large variety coming off pro
D-SLRs and in large import sessions it would crash very frequently,
plus the RAW processing was suspect at best. In short, it just doesn't
cut the mustard if you're dealing with large size and volumes of RAW
images. I haven't tried it lately, but others I know that have haven't
been encouraged on that score. It's fine for what it is, but ...

If you want a really nice low-cost photo app with some very nice filter
functions that you often have to pay extra for in larger apps (PS),
then take a look at Pixelmator. A relative had a few spins around
Photoshop on my system and decided it was too steep of a learning
curve, so he grabbed the trial of this and loved it, and it's only $59
bucks. Having looked at it, it's a very good value for the bucks if
the feature set is sufficient for you. It doesn't really attempt to do
the Aperture/Lightroom workload at all, but it's a significant upgrade
over iPhoto in terms of editing functionality. All iPhoto really has
going for it is integration with iMovie and iDVD, and for that to
really work well, you'll need David Pogue's book, because a lot of the
dirty little tricks to get DVD quality images on burned media with
screensavers and photo gallery stuff isn't documented anywhere else
that I've ever found.

> The latest version is pretty good now,
> and in combination with a good external editor it can be quite a
> formidable photo management tool.

Well, I never liked the way the "database" kept copies of images all
over and it was difficult to control that behavior. I'd much rather
use something like Lightroom or Bridge for that personally, but to each
his own. If you don't have that external editor yet, take a peek at
the one I mentioned. It looks more like a modern "Mac app" than iPhoto
does, which is bizarre, but their iLife UI is awfully stale compared to
what ISVs are doing with Cocoa these days.

> Personally I think a good Pro is likely to end up with Lightroom and
> CS3.

Of course.

> Amateur users of DSLRs, and other cameras that have RAW images,
> will benefit from some features in Aperture, but the gap is reducing.

I can't think of any convincing argument to pick Aperture over
Lightroom, other than waving the Apple flag, especially for someone
that hasn't mastered getting the image they want in the camera, rather
than editing and jacking with white balance and stuff at the keyboard.
Lightroom is demonstrably better at postprocessing imo.

Lightroom is $299 standalone, discounts are around if you look for
them, or if you buy Photoshop there is a big discount.

Aperture 2 is $199. Since Mac Users typically aren't the sort that
only buys a product because it is cheaper, that might be a reason, but
it's not too compelling.

Another trick to save money if that's your thing, join NAPP. It's like
$35 a year, and you can get massive discounts on a lot of products,
including Macs. When I bought my last Mac, the NAPP membership paid
for itself 20X over in one transaction.

> Indeed, although its questionable reliability means it may not be the
> best choice. We'll have to wait and see how V2 develops, and what bugs
> have been left in it. As an enthusiast I got Aperture but have been
> quite dissapointed with its performance (in relation to the marketing
> hype it's had).

Which is why you don't hear much about it at all anymore outside of Mac
fan forums. :)

--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those
who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
 >> Stay informed about: Has anyone tried Aperture 2 yet? 

On 2/13/08 1:29 PM, in article
0001HW.C3D8A146050506CCF01846D8 DeleteThis @news.verizon.net, "Randy Howard"
<randyhoward DeleteThis @FOOverizonBAR.net> wrote:
>
> Another trick to save money if that's your thing, join NAPP. It's like
> $35 a year, and you can get massive discounts on a lot of products,
> including Macs. When I bought my last Mac, the NAPP membership paid
> for itself 20X over in one transaction.
More like a Franklin a year. Maybe you haven't been a member for awhile?

http://www.photoshopuser.com/
 >> Stay informed about: Has anyone tried Aperture 2 yet? 

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 13:50:58 -0600, George Kerby wrote
(in article <C3D8A642.455AA%ghost_topper@hotmail.com>):

>
>
>
> On 2/13/08 1:29 PM, in article
> 0001HW.C3D8A146050506CCF01846D8 RemoveThis @news.verizon.net, "Randy Howard"
> <randyhoward RemoveThis @FOOverizonBAR.net> wrote:
>>
>> Another trick to save money if that's your thing, join NAPP. It's like
>> $35 a year, and you can get massive discounts on a lot of products,
>> including Macs. When I bought my last Mac, the NAPP membership paid
>> for itself 20X over in one transaction.
> More like a Franklin a year. Maybe you haven't been a member for awhile?
>
> http://www.photoshopuser.com/

I'm up for renewal in a few months actually. I thought I remembered it
being less. I think they may have raised the prices when they added
the podcasts and some other magazine mailouts and such. Even at $99,
it still pays for itself with any Mac system purchase.



--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those
who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
 >> Stay informed about: Has anyone tried Aperture 2 yet? 

Randy Howard <randyhoward.RemoveThis@FOOverizonBAR.net> wrote:

[..]
> > I don't agree with your evaluation of iPhoto. I use both products
> > myself, and Aperture 1.5 has been so full of bugs I've often
> > reconsidered moving to iPhoto.
>
> Sure. I said Aperture wasn't all that and a bag chips already. iPhoto
> is a lot less capable than Lightroom, a product that Aperture purports
> to compete with for the prophoto market.

Erm, not iPhoto surely, Aperture vs Lightroom are the competitors.

> iPhoto used to be extremely
> buggy with RAW files, especially the very large variety coming off pro
> D-SLRs and in large import sessions it would crash very frequently,
> plus the RAW processing was suspect at best. In short, it just doesn't
> cut the mustard if you're dealing with large size and volumes of RAW
> images. I haven't tried it lately, but others I know that have haven't
> been encouraged on that score. It's fine for what it is, but ...

Indeed, I wasn't suggesting is was ideal for large volumes. I was just
pointing out that a modest amateur shouldn't exlude it as a too at all,
I actually have all 13000 of my photos in iPhoto as well at this time
(due to some cross app testing), and the number of photos is not a
problem, and RAW is not a problem either.

> If you want a really nice low-cost photo app with some very nice filter
> functions that you often have to pay extra for in larger apps (PS),
> then take a look at Pixelmator. A relative had a few spins around
> Photoshop on my system and decided it was too steep of a learning
> curve, so he grabbed the trial of this and loved it, and it's only $59
> bucks. Having looked at it, it's a very good value for the bucks if
> the feature set is sufficient for you. It doesn't really attempt to do
> the Aperture/Lightroom workload at all, but it's a significant upgrade
> over iPhoto in terms of editing functionality. All iPhoto really has
> going for it is integration with iMovie and iDVD, and for that to
> really work well, you'll need David Pogue's book, because a lot of the
> dirty little tricks to get DVD quality images on burned media with
> screensavers and photo gallery stuff isn't documented anywhere else
> that I've ever found.

I use my photos in iWeb and Pages mainly, and have no problems at all
with that using Aperture or iPhoto as the source.

I have had a look at Pixelmator, and while it's certainly a good option,
it doesn't offer anything for me over what I already own - i.e.
Aperture, Elements 4, and Graphic Converter (and to some extent Gimp).

> > The latest version is pretty good now,
> > and in combination with a good external editor it can be quite a
> > formidable photo management tool.
>
> Well, I never liked the way the "database" kept copies of images all
> over and it was difficult to control that behavior. I'd much rather
> use something like Lightroom or Bridge for that personally, but to each
> his own. If you don't have that external editor yet, take a peek at
> the one I mentioned. It looks more like a modern "Mac app" than iPhoto
> does, which is bizarre, but their iLife UI is awfully stale compared to
> what ISVs are doing with Cocoa these days.

Personally I prefer a simple folder hierarchy in Finder, but in any case
as long as I can find images I need, then that isn't a main concern.

> > Personally I think a good Pro is likely to end up with Lightroom and
> > CS3.
>
> Of course.
>
> > Amateur users of DSLRs, and other cameras that have RAW images,
> > will benefit from some features in Aperture, but the gap is reducing.
>
> I can't think of any convincing argument to pick Aperture over
> Lightroom, other than waving the Apple flag, especially for someone
> that hasn't mastered getting the image they want in the camera, rather
> than editing and jacking with white balance and stuff at the keyboard.
> Lightroom is demonstrably better at postprocessing imo.
>
> Lightroom is $299 standalone, discounts are around if you look for
> them, or if you buy Photoshop there is a big discount.
>
> Aperture 2 is $199. Since Mac Users typically aren't the sort that
> only buys a product because it is cheaper, that might be a reason, but
> it's not too compelling.

Well, I've read a few comments that Aperture does have a much more
flexible approach to the workflow, and is possibly better layed out. I
only looked at Lightroom in earlier version, and didn't like it much
myself.

> Another trick to save money if that's your thing, join NAPP. It's like
> $35 a year, and you can get massive discounts on a lot of products,
> including Macs. When I bought my last Mac, the NAPP membership paid
> for itself 20X over in one transaction.

I'm in the UK.

> > Indeed, although its questionable reliability means it may not be the
> > best choice. We'll have to wait and see how V2 develops, and what bugs
> > have been left in it. As an enthusiast I got Aperture but have been
> > quite dissapointed with its performance (in relation to the marketing
> > hype it's had).
>
> Which is why you don't hear much about it at all anymore outside of Mac
> fan forums. :)

By all accounts, Lightroom isn't any better on the hardware I have.

--
Andy Hewitt
<http://web.mac.com/andrewhewitt1/>
 >> Stay informed about: Has anyone tried Aperture 2 yet? 

On Feb 13, 3:27 pm, C J Campbell <christophercampb....TakeThisOut@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> On 2008-02-12 21:09:30 -0800, The Translucent Amoebae
> <transamoe....TakeThisOut@seanet.com> said:
>
> > How is it different from iPhoto...
> > It seems like the same thing...???
>
> Aperture is con...e your cameras, professionals are leaving Aperture in
> droves. If Apple ever decides to support this program it is going to
> have a hard time winning us all back.
>
> --
> Waddling Eagle
> World Famous Flight Instructor

Maybe i'm just dense, but i'm still confused, perhaps more so now,
about what Aperture, Lightroom, Photoshop or whatever are/is.

i have iPhoto, Pages 08 & Graphic Converter, ( which are all
lightweights / requiring thinking out of the box solutions to problems
that Photoshop can do with a menu selection ) And it annoys me that
each does something that i want to do, and i have to switch back &
forth between them to get things done.

Does any program do everything, or am i cursed to wander from program
to program, never setting foot on land, until the end of time?
 >> Stay informed about: Has anyone tried Aperture 2 yet? 

In article
<c474305f-54bc-459c-98d0-40f4604db9ab.DeleteThis@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
The Translucent Amoebae <transamoebae.DeleteThis@seanet.com> wrote:

> Maybe i'm just dense, but i'm still confused, perhaps more so now,
> about what Aperture, Lightroom, Photoshop or whatever are/is.
>
> i have iPhoto, Pages 08 & Graphic Converter, ( which are all
> lightweights / requiring thinking out of the box solutions to problems
> that Photoshop can do with a menu selection ) And it annoys me that
> each does something that i want to do, and i have to switch back &
> forth between them to get things done.
>
> Does any program do everything, or am i cursed to wander from program
> to program, never setting foot on land, until the end of time?

photoshop is a very powerful image manipulation and retouching tool,
and most people don't use anywhere near all of its capabilities. it
sucks for managing huge numbers of images (although bridge is sort of
ok for that).

lightroom and aperture offer the common adjustments that photoshop has,
such as exposure, colour balance, rotate/crop, etc., and combines that
with an image library manager (similar to iphoto but vastly more
powerful) as well as being able to generate web galleries, slide shows,
books and ordinary prints. lightroom and aperture might not do
everything, but they come fairly close.
 >> Stay informed about: Has anyone tried Aperture 2 yet?