Apple releases Aperture 2.1 with new plug-in architecture

[AppleInsider]

Apple on Friday released Aperture 2.1, an update to its post-production photography workflow software that introduces an open plug-in architecture allowing photographers to more easily use specialized third party imaging software directly from within the application.

Available today as a free update, Aperture 2.1 includes the Apple-developed plug-in, Dodge & Burn, which adds brush-based tools for dodge (lighten), burn (darken), contrast, saturation, sharpen and blur.

Over the coming months, third party software developers will deliver image editing plug-ins for localized editing, filters and effects, noise analysis and reduction, fisheye lens correction and more, according to Apple.

“The image quality in Aperture 2 has won over the most demanding photographers,” said Rob Schoeben, Apple’s vice president of Applications Product Marketing. “Now, thanks to our open plug-in architecture, users can access an entire industry’s worth of imaging expertise without ever leaving Aperture.”

By clicking on one or more images within Aperture 2.1, users can choose from a menu of installed plug-ins and apply specialized imaging operations to either TIFF or RAW images. Apple is also working closely with key developers to bring the most requested plug-ins to Aperture such as:
Nik Software’s Viveza plug-in, powered by U Point technology, which provides a powerful, precise and easy way for photographers to selectively control and adjust color and light in their digital images
PictureCode’s Noise Ninja plug-in that delivers advanced high ISO noise analysis and reduction
Digital Film Tools’ Power Stroke plug-in that features a simple, stroke-based interface to quickly mask and intuitively perform targeted adjustments
The Tiffen Company's Dfx plug-in that provides an expansive suite of creative filters and effects
dvGarage’s dpMatte plug-in, which is a high performance chroma key tool for creating seamless composites, and the HDRtoner plug-in that enables the selection of multiple photos to create a single high dynamic range (HDR) image and
Image Trends’ plug-ins that include Fisheye-Hemi to quickly and effortlessly correct fisheye lens distortion, ShineOff which automatically removes shine from faces and PearlyWhites that automatically whitens and brightens teeth.
Aperture 2.1 is available immediately as a free software update to current Aperture 2.0 users. Full system requirements and more information on Aperture can be found at here. Information and availability for third party imaging plug-ins can be found here, here and at the Aperture community site AperturePluggedIn.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[stack]

iPhone wallpapers still look like crap when they are synced from Aperture.

[SpamSandwich]

I found the trial version of Aperture 2 horribly slow compared to version 1. Sticking with Adobe.

[BjK]

Will these plugins be free, or paid downloads? I didn't know that companies were building these.

[lidofido]

Originally Posted by SpamSandwich

I found the trial version of Aperture 2 horribly slow compared to version 1. Sticking with Adobe.

Strange... Pretty much every reviewer has stated the exact opposite, and from personal experience and the people I know who use it regularly (about 8 of us), we've found the exact same thing. General consensus around the internet has people actually using Aperture 2 now that it's been significantly sped up, as Aperture 1 was unusable for a lot of people... *shrug*

[Wiggin]

Originally Posted by SpamSandwich

I found the trial version of Aperture 2 horribly slow compared to version 1. Sticking with Adobe.

Odd considering that v2 is supposed to be much quicker than v1. Are you sure it wasn't rebuilding the thumbnail and preview databases while you were testing it out? One of the new (?) things about v2 is that it can now do those things in the background instead of making you wait for it to complete. After importing a large number of photos the interface was definitely sluggish (an a MBP) for a few minutes while building the previews. I've never used v1; but once the previews and thumbs were built, in v2 I couldn't really imagine how the application could be faster than it already is.

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by SpamSandwich

I found the trial version of Aperture 2 horribly slow compared to version 1. Sticking with Adobe.

I thought this was discussed before, weren't you the one with the first rev of the dual G5? I think having one of the older G5s, the limitation being with the oldest video card.

[mdriftmeyer]

Originally Posted by stack

iPhone wallpapers still look like crap when they are synced from Aperture.

Oh wow! I was just so not thinking about this when I saw Aperture 2.1 upgrade in the headline. Thank you for filling me in on this massively important dilemma.

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer

Oh wow! I was just so not thinking about this when I saw Aperture 2.1 upgrade in the headline. Thank you for filling me in on this massively important dilemma.

I don't think it's irrelevant. I think the Touch and the Phone are about the most convenient and best way to show off one's photos in a pocket device. That will be one of the reasons I get one when or if I do get one. If Apple's software in conjunction with Apple's hardware can't do a good job of that, then what's the point? It's Apple's home turf here.

[hmurchison]

Ok now for the obligatory

"Buy Bye Photoshop"

[backtomac]

Originally Posted by hmurchison

Ok now for the obligatory

"Buy Bye Photoshop"

Them's fighten' words for Mel!

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by backtomac

Them's fighten' words for Mel!

It really depends on what is meant, and whether it was sarcastic.

A lot of photographers don't need photoshop, but photoshop isn't only for photograpers.

[mdriftmeyer]

Originally Posted by JeffDM

I don't think it's irrelevant. I think the Touch and the Phone are about the most convenient and best way to show off one's photos in a pocket device. That will be one of the reasons I get one when or if I do get one. If Apple's software in conjunction with Apple's hardware can't do a good job of that, then what's the point? It's Apple's home turf here.

Hate to pee in your wheaties, Jeff, but Aperture isn't iPhoto and being used in the numbers that iPhone iPod Touch are being bought.

I'm sure Apple will be glad to make sure this is improved, but this Open Plugin Architecture is, by far, more important.

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer

Hate to pee in your wheaties, Jeff

By your first post, I'd say that maybe you actually take much joy in doing so.

I don't think it has to be a high priority, I just don't see it as something that should be hard for them to get right. Or rather, if it's really a problem, I don't understand why it would really be so, if their photo software is any good.

[backtomac]

Originally Posted by JeffDM

It really depends on what is meant, and whether it was sarcastic.

A lot of photographers don't need photoshop, but photoshop isn't only for photograpers.

I made my comment in jest. But we all know Mel's admiration for Adobe and PS.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by backtomac

Them's fighten' words for Mel!

Heh, heh, heh!

[melgross]

Originally Posted by JeffDM

It really depends on what is meant, and whether it was sarcastic.

A lot of photographers don't need photoshop, but photoshop isn't only for photograpers.

That's a very good reply.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by backtomac

I made my comment in jest. But we all know Mel's admiration for Adobe and PS.

I figured it was.

PS is best for those who need to do commercial work. The tools are required.

For everyone else, it's a crapshoot.

Lightroom is great because it duplicates the PS toolset of CR, which is important.

But, Aperture has gotten better. The biggest problem is Apple's own crappy tools. Sharpen isn't close to Adobe's in quality, and the same is true for several others.

But, this 2.1 release is a very important one. With an open plug-in architecture, which we've been asking for since the beginning, others will be able to supply those high quality pro level tools Apple isn't.


And, to answer BjK, there will be free, as well as commercial plug-ins, just as for PS and other programs with a compatible plug-in architecture.

[SpamSandwich]

Originally Posted by JeffDM

I thought this was discussed before, weren't you the one with the first rev of the dual G5? I think having one of the older G5s, the limitation being with the oldest video card.

Yes, this is true. But it's also true that Photoshop CS3 runs great on my system. So, go figure.

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by SpamSandwich

Yes, this is true. But it's also true that Photoshop CS3 runs great on my system. So, go figure.

I don't think CS3 uses the video card to do its work, such as the filtering and so on. Aperture does, and a 5200 is probably not up to the job to do it acceptably quickly.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by JeffDM

I don't think CS3 uses the video card to do its work, such as the filtering and so on. Aperture does, and a 5200 is probably not up to the job to do it acceptably quickly.

It doesn't. CS3 is still CPU bound. A faster graphics card will get the rendered pixels on the screen faster, sometimes noticeably so, but isn't involved in the processing much.

[sierradragon]

As an Adobe user for more than a decade I started out with a bias in favor of Adobe. I have professionally used both Aperture and Adobe's Lightroom extensively. Agreed, moreso than Photoshop, Aperture requires strong MacIntel (or a loaded multiprocessor G5, especially advanced graphics card) hardware for good operation. Folks with PCs or lame Mac hardware are stuck with Lightroom.

Suggesting that LR's use of ACR is a benefit makes no sense, since ACR is an inferior RAW converter to Aperture's anyway. Although a round trip to an external image editor like Photoshop Elements involves only a single keystroke, pro photogs typically find that 98+% of images are fully dealt with inside Aperture.

For DSLR photogs overall Aperture workflow is very substantially faster (and IMO nicer, like a Mac is nicer to use than a PC) than LR, however LR is faster at some specific workflow components.

I do not know where the Photoshop references come in to this thread, because Aperture and the IMO less-good LR are in their own class of app, not competing with Photoshop. IMO the first app DSLR photogs do need is v6 of Photoshop Elements (US$80) for advanced image editing; the US$650-$1000 full versions of PS are only necessary for those of us with full pro graphics needs. $1000 Photoshop does not do what Aperture/Lightroom do (or vice-versa)!

Aperture defined a new killer-app category (LR came a bit later) that IMO all DSLR photogs should invest in learning. The workflow benefits of both Aperture and LR are spectacular.

Aperture upgrades have been coming at a rapid pace. As to Aperture's image transfer to iPhones, <yawn>. If there is an issue at v2.1 I would expect it to be resolved with the next upgrade.

I strongly recommend that every DSLR photog with adequate computer hardware first spend $33 and work through the tutorial CD Apple Pro Training Series: Aperture 1.5 (Apple Pro Training) by Orlando Luna and Ben Long (Paperback - Oct 18, 2006). Have the CD and proper hardware configured prior to ordering the Aperture trial so you don't waste time of the 30 day trial. Note that the value is in the tutorial, not in using the book as a manual, and note that the DSLR workflow concepts learned working the tutorial apply to LR as well as to Aperture.

IMO a cursory examination of Aperture usually turns out to be mostly a waste of time, or leads to bad workflow habits or folks simply do not get it. Carefully working the tutorial is by far the best way to learn this new killer app category.

Aperture version 2.1 is now out, and a new version of the Luna/Long tutorial is available for preorder: Apple Pro Training Series: Aperture 2 (Apple Pro Training Series) by Ben Long, Richard Harrington, and Orlando Luna (Paperback - May 8, 2008). I have not reviewed the v2 tutorial but I have preordered it from Amazon.com.

-Allen Wicks

[jlandd]

"pro photogs typically find that 98+% of images are fully dealt with inside Aperture. "

I see this occasionally and it's simply far from my experience. With all due respect, what pro photographers are you speaking with to reach this figure? Spot tweaking is a major part of professional image production. I can guarantee that very few major magazine covers or layouts since it's inception have been done fully inside Aperture. Blurring a background item or adding a touch of saturation to a scarf (we're not even getting into clearing up skin) is a constant task. No category that requires the images to jump out will be anywhere near 99%. I would estimate that it's actually fairly low for any magazine images and near zero for fashion, auto, pop music, etc. Now that Aperture can do some of this spot work we'll have to see, but converting to TIFF isn't going to have anyone deleting their copies of PS. It's for people that don't own PS.


There still doesn't seem to be a way to save custom settings groups to apply to bunches of images that require the same tweak. As far as using the lift-stamp tool for this, I get carpal tunnel just reading the procedure : ) Up until now I've just assumed it was Apple trying to stay as far away from a previously used concept, but this (and a few other things still in 2.1) have me convinced Apple has yet to have an actual working photographer in on the development. Typical Apple. 90% great, 10% wtf?!?


I want to be able to tweak 10 settings and then have these easily apply to all 50 pictures that were taken continuously of the same subject. Then, if I discover a changed setting I prefer, I don't have to option/shift/command/tilde lift-stamp 50 times. : ) Not what I consider great workflow, if that's what they're hyping.


Or is there something I'm missing?


Respectfully,

j

[sierradragon]

Originally Posted by jlandd

"pro photogs typically find that 98+% of images are fully dealt with inside Aperture. "

I see this occasionally and it's simply far from my experience. With all due respect, what pro photographers are you speaking with to reach this figure?

Me. And many others on the Aperture forums.

Spot tweaking is a major part of professional image production. I can guarantee that very few major magazine covers or layouts since it's inception have been done fully inside Aperture...

Of course. I do graphic design as well as photography, and almost every pic used in an ad is tweaked in PS (but at the graphic design stage, not at the photos delivery stage). Like I said earlier, the first app DSLR photogs do need is PS or PSE for advanced image editing. This is not an either-Photoshop-or-Aperture scenario.

But how many pix are taken/managed/culled for every one image used in an ad? Hundreds! That is where Aperture/LR and the 98% number come in. They are the tools that help quickly handle a 500-1000 image shoot in half the time required trying to use just PSCS3/Bridge.

It's for people that don't own PS.

Sorry but you don't get it. I have been using PS since the 90s and Aperture since v1, and PS and Aperture/LR are different apps with different usages. Both PS (or PSE) and Aperture (or LR) are necessary. Unlike film, where a physical light table was used prior to slow expensive scanning of a few pick images, DSLR capture provides hundreds of quality digital images for us to stack/rank/sort/cull/keyword digitally. PS was not designed for that but Aperture/LR are.

There still doesn't seem to be a way to save custom settings groups to apply to bunches of images that require the same tweak... ...I want to be able to tweak 10 settings and then have these easily apply to all 50 pictures that were taken continuously of the same subject...

Umm, that has been easily done by selecting a batch of 5 or 500 images and a single click to "Stamp Selected Images" since at least v1.5. However the computing process is not instant, depending on how extensive the edits are, on how many images are involved, and on how strong the Mac is.

Typical Apple. 90% great, 10% wtf?!?

Agreed. But IMO - and I use Aperture every day - the 90% is truly a spectacular app. And the 10% is not disabling, it just gives us something to look forward to...

-Allen Wicks

[jlandd]

Originally Posted by sierradragon

Sorry but you don't get it. I have been using PS since the 90s and Aperture since v1, and PS and Aperture/LR are different apps with different usages. Both PS (or PSE) and Aperture (or LR) are necessary. Unlike film, where a physical light table was used prior to slow expensive scanning of a few pick images, DSLR capture provides hundreds of quality digital images for us to stack/rank/sort/cull/keyword digitally. PS was not designed for that but Aperture/LR are.

Hi Allen. I wasn't clear enough on that. I was referring to the spot work ability as being for someone without access to PS, because it really isn't much easier than having PS set as the editor. You don't have to convince me of the two apps being for two very different functions : )
The twain does meet, but one doesn't replace the other.

Originally Posted by sierradragon

Umm, that has been easily done by selecting a batch of 5 or 500 images and a single click to "Stamp Selected Images" since at least v1.5. However the computing process is not instant, depending on how extensive the edits are, on how many images are involved, and on how strong the Mac is.

I've done the lift stamping a thousand times in the past six months : ) and my complaint is that it's just a drag. If I have a load of images all made from the same continuous shot, and I later decide to change what I had done in Aperture previously, say just a hair less saturation, I have to copy and stamp them again. Apple missed the boat not at least allowing multiple images to access the same settings as a single image can. The lift stamping is one of those inelegant workarounds that knocks a star off it for me They made some very fancy metadata and exif functions and didn't let the guy who programed them into the image tweak dept! : )

Originally Posted by sierradragon

Agreed. But IMO - and I use Aperture every day - the 90% is truly a spectacular app. And the 10% is not disabling, it just gives us something to look forward to...

-Allen Wicks

Yeah, I love it too. But I use a lot of Apple "Pro" apps (I'm an audio guy by trade, so I'm in FCP a lot) and I really have a love/hate thing with almost all of them, and I get that 90/10 thing too much!! Yeah, just bitching about that 10%...

Best,

J

[sierradragon]

Originally Posted by jlandd

...I've done the lift stamping a thousand times in the past six months : ) and my complaint is that it's just a drag. If I have a load of images all made from the same continuous shot, and I later decide to change what I had done in Aperture previously, say just a hair less saturation, I have to copy and stamp them again. Apple missed the boat not at least allowing multiple images to access the same settings as a single image can. The lift stamping is one of those inelegant workarounds that knocks a star off it for me...

I agree that batch Lift/Stamp functionality has room for lots of improvement.

Also I was surprised that v2 Aperture did not fully go after more of PSCS3's editing functions. Folks like me have owned PS for years and invested thousands of hours learning the app, so we will never leave PS. But it seems to me that new, non-PS DSLR users are a huge market that Apple would go after by adding enough editing features to make PS not necessary for DSLR photogs.

-Allen Wicks

[jlandd]

Originally Posted by sierradragon

I agree that batch Lift/Stamp functionality has room for lots of improvement.

Also I was surprised that v2 Aperture did not fully go after more of PSCS3's editing functions. Folks like me have owned PS for years and invested thousands of hours learning the app, so we will never leave PS. But it seems to me that new, non-PS DSLR users are a huge market that Apple would go after by adding enough editing features to make PS not necessary for DSLR photogs.

-Allen Wicks

That's what I meant in my first (poorly worded) post. I think Apple is looking at adding enough new functionality (dodging, burning, plug-ins, etc) so that even though, as we agree, Ap and PS are for very different goals, someone with no other image software might look at Aperture now and decide they could do without the other $$$ outlay, and pick up that Airport Express instead (Although, jeez, in this case the new Elements for $80 is a no brainer IMHO) My thought here though, is that they added quite a bit of new standard image editing features. I would have been surprised if they had added more.

Especially with Apple's very interesting aggressive price drop on Aperture. which was probably the most unpredicted new feature of all


Cheers,

J

[melgross]

Originally Posted by sierradragon

As an Adobe user for more than a decade I started out with a bias in favor of Adobe. I have professionally used both Aperture and Adobe's Lightroom extensively. Agreed, moreso than Photoshop, Aperture requires strong MacIntel (or a loaded multiprocessor G5, especially advanced graphics card) hardware for good operation. Folks with PCs or lame Mac hardware are stuck with Lightroom.

Suggesting that LR's use of ACR is a benefit makes no sense, since ACR is an inferior RAW converter to Aperture's anyway. Although a round trip to an external image editor like Photoshop Elements involves only a single keystroke, pro photogs typically find that 98+% of images are fully dealt with inside Aperture.

For DSLR photogs overall Aperture workflow is very substantially faster (and IMO nicer, like a Mac is nicer to use than a PC) than LR, however LR is faster at some specific workflow components.

I do not know where the Photoshop references come in to this thread, because Aperture and the IMO less-good LR are in their own class of app, not competing with Photoshop. IMO the first app DSLR photogs do need is v6 of Photoshop Elements (US$80) for advanced image editing; the US$650-$1000 full versions of PS are only necessary for those of us with full pro graphics needs. $1000 Photoshop does not do what Aperture/Lightroom do (or vice-versa)!

Aperture defined a new killer-app category (LR came a bit later) that IMO all DSLR photogs should invest in learning. The workflow benefits of both Aperture and LR are spectacular.

Aperture upgrades have been coming at a rapid pace. As to Aperture's image transfer to iPhones, <yawn>. If there is an issue at v2.1 I would expect it to be resolved with the next upgrade.

I strongly recommend that every DSLR photog with adequate computer hardware first spend $33 and work through the tutorial CD Apple Pro Training Series: Aperture 1.5 (Apple Pro Training) by Orlando Luna and Ben Long (Paperback - Oct 18, 2006). Have the CD and proper hardware configured prior to ordering the Aperture trial so you don't waste time of the 30 day trial. Note that the value is in the tutorial, not in using the book as a manual, and note that the DSLR workflow concepts learned working the tutorial apply to LR as well as to Aperture.

IMO a cursory examination of Aperture usually turns out to be mostly a waste of time, or leads to bad workflow habits or folks simply do not get it. Carefully working the tutorial is by far the best way to learn this new killer app category.

Aperture version 2.1 is now out, and a new version of the Luna/Long tutorial is available for preorder: Apple Pro Training Series: Aperture 2 (Apple Pro Training Series) by Ben Long, Richard Harrington, and Orlando Luna (Paperback - May 8, 2008). I have not reviewed the v2 tutorial but I have preordered it from Amazon.com.

-Allen Wicks

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but it isn't shared by most pros.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by jlandd

"pro photogs typically find that 98+% of images are fully dealt with inside Aperture. "

I see this occasionally and it's simply far from my experience. With all due respect, what pro photographers are you speaking with to reach this figure? Spot tweaking is a major part of professional image production. I can guarantee that very few major magazine covers or layouts since it's inception have been done fully inside Aperture. Blurring a background item or adding a touch of saturation to a scarf (we're not even getting into clearing up skin) is a constant task. No category that requires the images to jump out will be anywhere near 99%. I would estimate that it's actually fairly low for any magazine images and near zero for fashion, auto, pop music, etc. Now that Aperture can do some of this spot work we'll have to see, but converting to TIFF isn't going to have anyone deleting their copies of PS. It's for people that don't own PS.


There still doesn't seem to be a way to save custom settings groups to apply to bunches of images that require the same tweak. As far as using the lift-stamp tool for this, I get carpal tunnel just reading the procedure : ) Up until now I've just assumed it was Apple trying to stay as far away from a previously used concept, but this (and a few other things still in 2.1) have me convinced Apple has yet to have an actual working photographer in on the development. Typical Apple. 90% great, 10% wtf?!?


I want to be able to tweak 10 settings and then have these easily apply to all 50 pictures that were taken continuously of the same subject. Then, if I discover a changed setting I prefer, I don't have to option/shift/command/tilde lift-stamp 50 times. : ) Not what I consider great workflow, if that's what they're hyping.


Or is there something I'm missing?


Respectfully,

j

Pro's who need only basic corrections, such as wedding photog's and event photog's would find the program to be fine. But commercial and art photographers would not.

[jlandd]

Originally Posted by sierradragon

I agree that batch Lift/Stamp functionality has room for lots of improvement.

The biggest problem with it is that it's not designed for this function that we're using it for, as a substitute for saved sets. You can't, as far as I can figure, copy most but not all of the adjustments (without unchecking them from the image first and hope that you remember to put them back) , and then to stamp most but not all of them you have to delete something from the lift window, an extra step, and next time you left from the same target image you have to delete that adjustment again! For example, cropping parameters get lifted whether I want them or not (unless I take it off the image and then put back on after the stamp), and I never want to stamp them (does anyone?), so they must be deleted from the window each time. If we can't get sets at least please give us a preference to uncheck cropping (or anything) from lifting or stamping for anything, not per image!

It's not "PRO"!!!

This is definitely one of those 10% wtf Apple moments!

[sierradragon]

Originally Posted by melgross

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but it isn't shared by most pros.

Folks with PCs or with lame Macs (i.e. most of the world) can not properly even trial Aperture. Even less folks have extensive experience with PS, Aperture and Lightroom on strong Mac hardware. The opinions of those lacking that experience are IMO irrelevant.

Like I said above, I strongly recommend that all DSLR photogs with adequate computer hardware work through the tutorial CD Apple Pro Training Series: Aperture 1.5 and form their own informed opinions.

-Allen Wicks

[trenbrac]

Originally Posted by sierradragon

Although a round trip to an external image editor like Photoshop Elements involves only a single keystroke, pro photogs typically find that 98+% of images are fully dealt with inside Aperture.

That's a figure that only pertains to certain categories of professional photographers, and certainly not most of those I know. If you amend that to "Some" pro photographers you'd have something. Even if I throw out a certain % of my shots and then deem many of the rest not worthy of more than a rough filtering, I'd still take the remainder to the image editor because I need to. I need to bring objects more to the foreground, or make just the hairband less saturated. TAnd knowing how my peers work I simply don't see anything close to 98+%. If you count the pictures that get dumped as being "fully dealt with in Aperture" then it skews it a bit. Let's just say realistically 80% of my keepers leave Aperture and go to PS.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by sierradragon

Folks with PCs or with lame Macs (i.e. most of the world) can not properly even trial Aperture. Even less folks have extensive experience with PS, Aperture and Lightroom on strong Mac hardware. The opinions of those lacking that experience are IMO irrelevant.

Like I said above, I strongly recommend that all DSLR photogs with adequate computer hardware work through the tutorial CD Apple Pro Training Series: Aperture 1.5 and form their own informed opinions.

-Allen Wicks

I'll amen that to say what I actually meant, what most here understood it to mean.. "Those of us with considerable commercial experience..."

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by sierradragon

Folks with PCs or with lame Macs (i.e. most of the world) can not properly even trial Aperture. Even less folks have extensive experience with PS, Aperture and Lightroom on strong Mac hardware. The opinions of those lacking that experience are IMO irrelevant.

Like I said above, I strongly recommend that all DSLR photogs with adequate computer hardware work through the tutorial CD Apple Pro Training Series: Aperture 1.5 and form their own informed opinions.

Why recommend a book for an outdated product? By most reports, the new Aperture is quite a bit different, learning the old program isn't going to help much. The 1.5 version included a training video anyway.

[sierradragon]

Originally Posted by JeffDM

Why recommend a book for an outdated product?

Sorry, I was just trying to save verbiage by not repeating the full text of what I already said about v2.1 a few posts earlier:
---------------------------
I strongly recommend that every DSLR photog with adequate computer hardware first spend $33 and work through the tutorial CD Apple Pro Training Series: Aperture 1.5 (Apple Pro Training) by Orlando Luna and Ben Long (Paperback - Oct 18, 2006). Have the CD and proper hardware configured prior to ordering the Aperture trial so you don't waste time of the 30 day trial. Note that the value is in the tutorial, not in using the book as a manual, and note that the DSLR workflow concepts learned working the tutorial apply to LR as well as to Aperture.

IMO a cursory examination of Aperture usually turns out to be mostly a waste of time, or leads to bad workflow habits or folks simply do not get it. Carefully working the tutorial is by far the best way to learn this new killer app category.

Aperture version 2.1 is now out, and a new version of the Luna/Long tutorial is available for preorder: Apple Pro Training Series: Aperture 2 (Apple Pro Training Series) by Ben Long, Richard Harrington, and Orlando Luna (Paperback - May 8, 2008). I have not reviewed the v2 tutorial but I have preordered it from Amazon.com.
--------------------------------------

...By most reports, the new Aperture is quite a bit different, learning the old program isn't going to help much...

I am using v1.5.6 on one box and v2.1 (trial) on another box. IMO learning v1.5 is by no means a waste of time, but I did advise re: v2.1 in the earlier post so folks can make their own choices.

The 1.5 version included a training video anyway.

Like I said earlier, the value is in the tutorial, not in using the book as a manual. IMO actually working the tutorial is 10x as valuable as viewing the video.

-Allen Wicks

[sierradragon]

Originally Posted by melgross

I'll amen that to say what I actually meant, what most here understood it to mean.. "Those of us with considerable commercial experience..."

Sorry, I do not understand. By any measure I have "considerable commercial experience" but I consider my opinion about the usefulness and application of QuarkXP to be irrelevant, because I lack thorough experience with QXP. Similarly I consider the opinions of folks who lack thorough experience with Aperture about the usefulness and application of Aperture to be irrelevant.

No disrespect intended, just the realities of specialized expertise.

-Allen Wicks

[sierradragon]

Originally Posted by trenbrac

That's a figure that only pertains to certain categories of professional photographers, and certainly not most of those I know. If you amend that to "Some" pro photographers you'd have something. Even if I throw out a certain % of my shots and then deem many of the rest not worthy of more than a rough filtering, I'd still take the remainder to the image editor because I need to. I need to bring objects more to the foreground, or make just the hairband less saturated. TAnd knowing how my peers work I simply don't see anything close to 98+%. If you count the pictures that get dumped as being "fully dealt with in Aperture" then it skews it a bit. Let's just say realistically 80% of my keepers leave Aperture and go to PS.

OK I will compromise and lose that gross 98% representation for "most" photogs. If I shoot a 1000-pic shoot like a wedding or a 200-pic product shoot 98% of those pix are seen only by Aperture before my work product gets delivered to the next phase (the next phase might be me with my graphic arts hat on, or it might be to a client for further image selection).

[melgross]

Originally Posted by sierradragon

Sorry, I do not understand. By any measure I have "considerable commercial experience" but I consider my opinion about the usefulness and application of QuarkXP to be irrelevant, because I lack thorough experience with QXP. Similarly I consider the opinions of folks who lack thorough experience with Aperture about the usefulness and application of Aperture to be irrelevant.

No disrespect intended, just the realities of specialized expertise.

-Allen Wicks

You don't know my experience, as you've just arrived here. I've been using aperture since the first day it was released, as others here are aware.

[sierradragon]

Originally Posted by melgross

You don't know my experience, as you've just arrived here. I've been using aperture since the first day it was released, as others here are aware.

Relax, like I said no disrespect is intended and I was casting no aspersions at you specifically or at any other individual.

You quoted my entire first post and responded

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but it isn't shared by most pros.

My observation has been that you are correct that the opinion I expressed is not shared by "most pros" when grossly defined as "Those of us with considerable commercial experience." However based on commentary on the Aperture forums IMO most of those pros fully experienced with Aperture on strong Mac hardware (admittedly a small subset of DSLR photogs) do generally share that opinion.

I personally have found that as my own hardware has evolved (Aperture is a terrible hardware hog), and as my Aperture skills continue to evolve, I use Aperture for more and more of my workflow. I find the primary limitations being (a) my own skillset (after thousands of hours with Photoshop I tend to fall back to old PS solutions even when other apps are far superior) and (b) hardware limitations. My own usage evolved from G4 Powerbook to Macbook Pro to (recently) a loaded Mac Pro.

One thing I am quite sure about is the value of Aperture/LR workflows for DSLR photogs. The specifics of how each individual evolves his/her own workflow will vary, but using Aperture/LR for all the steps prior to heavy editing is far superior to trying to use Photoshop/Bridge for an entire workflow.

-Allen Wicks

[trenbrac]

Originally Posted by sierradragon

However based on commentary on the Aperture forums IMO most of those pros fully experienced with Aperture on strong Mac hardware (admittedly a small subset of DSLR photogs) do generally share that opinion.

No photography forum, especially the Aperture one, shows a true representation of pro photographers. They present a true representation of photographers who post to forums, and in fact only represent those who like to hang on that forum. Even if you took ALL of the most posted to photography forums, and counted the opinions of all of them, you'd be leaving out waaaay more pro photographers than you'd be counting (not the issue), but far more importantly, they would not be representative of the segment at large. They have different habits and perspectives, for better or worse.


Using the habits of a handful of posters who make up the majority on a single forum is no way to state a conclusion about the rest of the world. I know LOTS of pro photographers who don't post to any internet forums at all.