Apple's Aperture 3 brings 200 new features, including Faces, Places - Page 3

Has anyone had success downloading the Aperture 3 trial? I have tried several times to get it yet I never receive the email. I haven't seen anything on Apple's site indicating that the trial i not yet available, so I am not sure what the delay is all about.

Thanks

Looks awesome; nice update indeed!


Regarding Adobe and Photoshop: Apple should purchase:

Pixelmator -- http://www.pixelmator.com

and take off with it, like they did with Final Cut and Logic.

Ah - Xeon is 64 bit compatible. Would be a little crazy for the iMac to be able to boot 64bit and the Mac Pro no? Then again with Apple I can understand your desire for clarification

The good news is you are covered.

Here:

http://macperformanceguide.com/SnowLeopard-64bit.html

Nope, Aperture doesn't have layers, for example. But if all you do is image adjustments and not heavy photo editing, than Aperture - esp. the new version - may indeed be all you need. Confirmation is a trial download away (Well, if you ever get the trial download email but that's another thread).

They are probably a little backed up from people requesting the trial multiple times

I can definitely be described as amateur when it comes to photo management & editing, but one of the top reasons that I purchased my new mac to better manage our photos. When I started playing around with iPhoto, I quickly became frustrated that it would not manage my photos with how I am accustomed to viewing them. I am hoping that with Aperature 3, there will be some more flexibility in how they are stored. Does anyone know if the photos could be organized the following way:

2009
APRIL
- Disney
- John's 1st Birthday

iPhoto does not seem to allow this type of organization, but I could be wrong. Please help!

Easy.

Go to the Aperature Help Menu. It describes how to create an event. Exactly as you tabled above. In fact it is better than your tagging.

Better yet, take DocNo42 link.

You should perhaps look at iPhoto's page too at http://www.apple.com/ilife/iphoto/#organize. Obvious Apple was well prepared for the feature.

Touche'

Short answer - yes! Watch the Importing video:

http://www.apple.com/aperture/what-is.html#organize

If you look off to the library pane on the left as he is working, you can see some of the possible structures yourself. The biggest boon of Aperture is the plethora of ways to organize your folders.

I'm looking forward to the seamless multiple library support and the new vault backup options!

Ok, they seem to have definitely been having problems with the trial request earlier - I just requested another serial number and the email came instantly. Try now!

You should read before you write something so ignorant. Aperture allows you to keep your photos wherever you want. Even in iPhoto if you want. They give you choice moron.

That's good to know, I have a Nikon D300 and Canon G10 currently supported. It was just the GF1 that wasn't.

Then you have the 2 requirements: a CPU capable of 64-bit and and OS that allows for 64-bit apps.

There are reasons for this. All the drivers have to be 64-bit capable and any decent company won't flip the switch just to do it if it makes the system perform worse.



My first one didn't come through, but my 2nd attempt came through immediately. I'd suggest for people to try again.

They had big names hawk the 1.0 version too. I wonder if any of those people regretted it. I recall Apple offered a 50% refund.


That's outdated info, you can use your own directory system if you want.


It's not just going wrong, you usually have an extra stop of highlight and shadow detail, as well as more color information and resolution. Even with the best settings, lot of cameras mush out detail too, even in the highest JPEG setting.


Did they change that from 1.5? I use 1.5 to import directly from a camera or its card in a reader.

No, he (and others) was confused because Apple didn't also specify the Xeon's in the Mac Pro as well. It may make sense to some that the Xeon's exceed the Core 2's, but it's not always obvious to everyone.


We already covered that - your a little behind

anyone know where i can find the awesome shot of the lake that is used on the apple website?

Unless I missed it somewhere, A3 still doesn't seem to do CMYK conversion, which is an absolute must for those involved in magazine photos. (Does Lightroom?) If A3 had CMYK I could dispense with Photoshop to a very great extent. The way it is now, all my photo work eventually has to take a detour through PS no matter what I use to catalog or edit.

Do you have to do the CMYK conversion on every photo in the photo shoot, or just the ones they actually publish?

I only used 2.x, not sure about 1.5. I haven't found a clean way to do my own filesystem straight from the camera. Might be an oversight, but it definitely isn't intuitive like Lightroom's import.

Here is a way to setup Automator to ease the transfer from Aperture to Photoshop and conversion to CMYK. Not a fix, but perhaps a workaround some of you haven't considered yet.

•

http://www.completedigitalphotography.com/?p=414

If you download the trial and run Software Update this shows up (65.2 MB) for A3

I send a selection of CMYK photos withe embedded profiles and the magazine editor picks the ones to use. It's very useful for me to do RGB->CMYK conversion and proofing because then I can see pretty much exactly what the final colors will be.

Aperture is a professional desktop app, whereas iWork apps for iPad are still iPhone OS apps, however productive they are.

The Adobe haltered on this forum is really getting to ridiculous levels. As someone who makes a living using the CS4 Master Collection, all I can say is that without Adobe we would not be in business.

Several companies have released Photoshop like photo editing applications going back to the early 90's and none have gained any real following. Adobe also has strategically purchased several complementary software companies such as Aldus and Macromedia as well as smaller ones to round out their suite.

Apple wrote Aperture from scratch as far as I know, but they purchased many of their other Pro apps. If Apple is going to go head to head with Adobe they will have to win over the huge installed base of Acrobat users for starters, and like Adobe, they will also need to acquire other software companies on which to build a comparable design/publishing suite.

Apple's business model was traditionally built on the backs of design and publishing professionals who saw them through the lean times. Those same professionals later moved into multimedia, and web programming. Adobe and Macromedia were the building blocks for many small firms. Apple in turn seems to be abandoning professional designers for the mass market of consumers, however Adobe and Macromedia continued to innovate and have enabled creatives push the envelope.

I for one am a big Adobe supporter for the reasons stated above and for those of you who are Adobe bashers, you know damn well there is nothing better out there for the design professional. Finally, speaking strictly from my experience with the CS applications, which includes daily usage of several titles - going back to Illustrator 1a and Photoshop 1, I think the applications work rather well even on less powerful iMacs as well as Mac Pros.

My only regret is that we are pretty much forced to buy the whole suite when only a few applications offer new needed features. This policy is especially undesirable when they just make up unneeded features so that all of the applications in the suite can be called 'New and Improved'.

i think you're missing a point. If you - like many others here - have been using Adobe's products for that long, you should be among the firsts to have experienced the gradual transformation of their software from great tools to expensive bloatware.

The 'without Adobe we would not be in business' goes both ways. Without us - the people who started with 1.0 versions - Adobe would not be in business either. That's something that seems to be lost on the company. As a mac user since the days of the Mac II, i feel that adobe doesn't care about us anymore, and that's where my resentment comes from.

My guess would be that Photoshop uses portions of former Trolltech's Qt Software stack and Opera [before 10.5] was native in Qt for it's interface and having a small footprint decided just to leverage it instead of moving their app help system to WebKit.

Really? It seems Sports Illustrated and National Geographic disagree with your assessment.

Raw supported cameras:

http://www.apple.com/aperture/specs/raw.html

Adjustments:

http://www.apple.com/aperture/features/#adjustments

Printing:

http://www.apple.com/aperture/features/#printing

Perhaps, but I think the un-even attention paid to Mac Users, who were the bread-and-butter of Adobe for so many years, is what is rankling people.

Just look at the furor over flash. The only reason Adobe is even concerned at this point is with the iPhone and soon to be iPad flash is going to be forced to irrelevance. And for those who don't think it can happen, you have extremely short and selective memories about the early days of Firefox and the dominance of IE. The tragedy is Adobe's and Adobe's alone.

As for replacing Adobe, just ask Avid how dissing Apple can work out. I don't think we are anywhere near that with Adobe - some of the delays with Photoshop and other apps support 64-bit are Apple's fault with their about face on 64 bit carbon - but Adobe has their own share of blame in not updating their software and they shouldn't take the Mac for granted. When there is enough pressure and pent up demand, industries can shift. And it doesn't have to be Apple-initiated like it was with Avid and Final Cut....

I'm not quite sure why you complain that Apeture is an "image editing program second" when that is also exactly what Lightroom is. Or else why do you need the combo of both Lightroom AND Photoshop? Bit of a double-standard, eh?

But the real reason I'm replying is regarding the "stupid proprietary DB." As I'm sure many others will have pointed out by now, Aperture works just fine referencing your images however you wish to organize them outside of the app. But I'd also point out that even if you import them into Aperture, they are in no way placed into a database, proprietary or otherwise.

Yes, they are placed inside of a package, but that is nothing more than a type of folder. All your precious photos are a simple right-click away in the file system, not in a database. And the only reason Aperture places them in a package is because it will reoganize the folders as you reorganize your projects in the application. That way you know exactly where in the file system each and every photo can be found just by looking at the project browser.

is it still single user app ? what happens if i have 3 Macs at home ( 2 laptops and mac pro ) and i'd like to have all of them synced up to one master database ?!?

This is single reason why i hate iTunes. If one instance of iTunes is open on Mac pro neither laptop can open library Mac pro is using. I can understand it in iTunes since its consumer product but no way i'm buying $200 app thats as limiting as 2.0 version. That was crappy upgrade to say the least ( from 1.5 to 2.0 )

Is anyone else having a problem with the email from Apple for Aperture 3. I did get the email right away and can see that there is a file attached, but I can not do anything with it? There is nothing in the email. Can someone PM me a link for where to initiate the download, because I think I can get the trial code separate.

Well I wasn't originally going to go there but since you brought it up, Flash is also a really great application. Again there is nothing that can touch it for power and flexibility. Sure when misused it can become an annoyance but just as an example, I will let the Flash bashers see a Flash application I wrote, well part of my suite of Flash medical applications. Please tell me how this technology is irrelevant? What do you propose to replace it with? HTML5? Really? Please do elaborate with some technical examples.

http://216.23.184.32/3d/40x80-revb.html

PS I will only leave this file up for a little while.

BTW this app will use 30% CPU on an old iMac Core Solo which is the same amount that loading Googles home page uses on the same machine

Trial code comes in the email. Try it again.

Nope - still no equivalent of Final Cut Server for Aperture


Well, the latest iTunes at least has Home Sharing which will sync content purchased in iTunes automatically between up to five computers. I picked up a copy of SuperSync recently on sale from MacZot and it works wonderfully - Mac, Windows or even an iTunes library saved on a hard drive. It glitches every once in a while, but restarts and picks up where it left off (seems to affect all library synchronization programs). I used it to merge multiple libraries together and to selectively sync files from my desktop to my laptops.

Apple does need a multi-machine solution for Aperture. Changes to the way the vaults work may accomplish this easier than before, and you can export projects as libraries now (even consolidating masters in one step) - still experimenting and reading...

It's 3MB without the extraneous files. Perhaps around 4MB if I added everything up. That is one that looks like it would work well with a touchscreen. Hell, it looks like it was designed with a touchscreen in mind, just not a 3.5" display running 600MHz ARM CPU with 256MB RAM. Flash has its place but a slow mobile with a small screen and no buttons is not on of them.

BTW, how does Google Maps work in a desktop browser if they aren't using Flash, except for StreetView? You can zoom and change your route dynamically, among other things, that seem much more complex and use less resources and smaller data packets than that Flash demo.

If we're talking about medical files there are iPhone apps that tie into DBs that offer a lot more options with better performance.

Yep it is 2.9 MB but that is a savings of about 390 MB that the actual image data stated out with.

Check out GIMP ~

My old Photoshop CS works on a 2008 3.06Ghz Core 2 Duo iMac with no problems!

As an amateur, Gimp does a lot of things one could do in older versions of Photoshop. And it is free!

http://sourceforge.net/projects/gimponosx/

As a post says~

"GIMP is by no means as powerful as photoshop when it comes to the many advanced features adobe now offers, however, it has numerous excellent features, great for all the basics most people use photoshop for, and, of course, it's $700 less"

For the iPhone or iPad, there is always the SDK that can go way beyond flash. It depends on your needs and your target audience.

The objection is to the massive overuse of flash that can be accomplished via other more open and standards compliant means, and the generally lackluster performance of flash on anything other than Windows. Adobe has taken Mac users for granted for a long time - pardon me if I don't shed a tear for Flash loosing it's dominance.


Very impressive.


I never said flash in general was irrelevant - it can have it's uses. Also I would find it hard to believe that you would expect that application to run on an iPhone or iPod Touch. Heck, even an iPad would be awkward with that control interface - the iPad a different experience and I hope you would want to fully take advantage of it instead of just porting a mouse-based flash app over.


For the iPad it would be best replaced with an actual app via the SDK that takes full advantage of the device's unique UI. I think that's also another big point in Apple not support Flash on the iPhone/iPad - consistency of interface. Probably not what you, as a developer, wants to hear - but this is why I don't have a problem with Apple blocking flash, nor acting as gatekeeper with the app store. This may come off as a little harsh but I couldn't care less that as a developer you might be inconvenienced a little. It's about time the focus shifts from making it all about the developers and instead focusing on the end user for once. Apple prizes their consistent user experience. Rather than considering Apple nuts for trying to do so, I think everyone else is nuts for tolerating such a crap and generally inconsistent user experience from Windows and to a lesser extent Mac OSX for so long.

I'll always own a general purpose computer like a Mac or Windows PC, and I'll be using them at work for some time to come, but that doesn't mean I also won't look forward to coming home to using an iPad for my home computing needs - an appliance that let's me read email, surf the web, control devices in my house - and do it without having to think about the underlying hardware, OS or any other "techie stuff". I do enough of that at work, thank you. When I get home I just want it to work.

And no, I don't think the two models are mutually exclusive either, despite all the chicken little's running around wringing their hands about the demise of the Mac


Maybe from a cold boot, but if you have had flash running for some time there is no way you can predict it's resource usage on any one machine - it's extremely inconsistent and usually ends in either a crash of the plugin or a pinwheel of death. And that's just not anecdotal. I get that flash is a great tool for you - great! It's just not a universally great tool and it's not nearly as efficient as you are implying.

Comments by some beta testers (for example, http://edmondterakopian.blogspot.com/) are that it flies compared to 2.x.

Downloading the trial seems like a cheap way to find out.