Originally posted by bikertwin
In the same vein, Aperture was designed for photographers. Not photo illustrators, not printing/production, not painters. It's for photographers.
And it hits the bulls eye beautifully!
Actually I know a lot of painters and other visual artists (excluding photographers who we already assume will be interested in this) will be VERY interested in this. All visual artists as part of their job description have to be photographers as well, whether you make paintings, drawings, sculpture, installations you have to have great photographs of your work in order for it to be seen. Anything you apply for, a grant a juried exhibition, or your first intro to a gallery you're courting depends very much on your slides or photographs of your work.
About a year and a half ago, I invested quite a bit of money in a good digital camera so that I could get rid of my dependency on slides. For this situations where I need actual slides because someplace I'm working with hasn't caught up with the technology I can have slides made from digitals. (Which seems expensive at 9-10 ten bucks per slide, but if I use those as your master slides it works out and then make $1 copies for the actual send out, I actually save money on film and processing, not having to take three rolls of slide film just to get five images I can use.)
More on to my point. Having the right photograph to represent an object is very important, so that means often taking dozens of shots just for one object. Those dozens add up pretty quickly. And although iPhoto (in tandem with Photoshop Elements for most editing) in its way of being able to cross reference and sort things in tons of different ways with dates, keywords and ratings, Aperture seems like a godsend. I was making a list of feature requests for iPhoto to send to Apple, because although I knew there were other solutions (usually more expensive) I didn't like how those other solutions worked. So my best bet was to hope iPhoto built on top of its (limited) good thing. But here they go and introduce Aperture with all my wanted features and some that hadn't occurred to me but I see as being essential in making this a real professional app (Loupe, and side by side comparison, zooming on multiple images, working directly from RAW and keeping a copy of the digital negative, and modifications are simply instructions on how to modify, not saved multiples of essentially the same image.
Being able to more easily work with RAW to set white balance (which is VERY important in work with lots of white or light colors close to white). Because of RAW slowness I'd usually just capture in JPEG and take my chances in hoping I'd get the right white balance, which is sometime precarious, even using custom white balance on my camera. This is like I said a godsend, having all the features to work with photos that I wanted, and all the features I never knew I needed, but seem essential to me. There is probably nothing in Aperture that I can't use to my advantage, the things getting the least use from me are the web galleries. Depending on how flexible and customizable it is I could use it to build certain pages for my website, but most of that I'll still do by hand. The books on the other hand will be great. I have been wanting to put a couple books together of my work and use iPhoto, but I'll wait and use this in Aperture.
And the biggest struggle having so many pictures is the amount of time to compare and sort through and organize everything. This seems to be the most intuitive and straightforward solution possible now and for the foreseeable future. I expect the time it takes me to do all my documenting of my work to be SIGNIFICANTLY decreased.
This will definitely hasten my purchase of a Powermac, which I've been preparing and saving for for a couple years. The things I do in Photoshop and most visual artists (excluding those working in digital mediums) use photoshop for are exactly the things that Aperture does and appear to do it so well. Most of the things that Photoshop has to offer don't do me any good personally. They're great features if you need them, but there's not much use for them in my line, aside from levels, color balancing and sharpening, noise reduction.
Now the price is pretty high, especially considering most of us don't have a machine that this will run well on, but I just happened to be in the market for a new Powermac anyway to speed up the sort of tedious flow of sorting and organizing in iPhoto, waiting for Photoshop to load the huge files, editing, and waiting for the files to be saved again. So just speeding up that would have been nice, but most of the wait time of opening and closing with Aperture looks like it will be eliminated, and then sorting and comparing will be a totally different experience.
But if you look at it this way, I'll have a $100 copy of Photoshop Elements which I'll probably use on VERY rare occasions mostly to square off images accidently shot not head-on and then I have Aperture for $500 to do all the 95% of the others things I need to do for the same price as a full version of Photoshop. Which I still have 85-90% of the functionality of Photoshop in Photoshop Elements PLUS all the things Aperture does. Not a bad deal from where I stand
So this is for photographers AND all of those people who have to be a part time photographer as part of their job description.