Originally posted by bikertwin
Well, care to tell us which filters you're alluding to, that don't work on layers?
And the fact that sharpening is done last is irrelevant (you're good at changing the subject). The fact is (as a previous poster mentioned), sharpening--like all filters in Photoshop--is totally destructive, irreversible, and cannot be modified at a later date--unlike sharpening in Aperture, which has none of those drawbacks.
You can somewhat get around that in Photoshop by duplicating a layer and sharpening the new layer, but congratulations you've now doubled your already enormous file size (I'm not talking about web images here). And you still can't tweak the sharpening after the fact, unless you delete the layer, reduplicate it, and apply new settings (having no idea what the old settings were unless you wrote them down or tried hacking them into the layer name).
In Aperture, you can have 10 different versions of the same file, each with different (and non-destructive, reversible, and modifiable) sharpening settings (say, for different output resolutions) that take up almost no disk space.
Which would you rather have?
And please stop repeating the straw horse statement that Aperture is not a Photoshop killer. You're restating the obvious. Nobody here is saying Aperture can totally replace everything that Photoshop does. It can't; we all agree on that.
But what Aperture does, it does very well.
You can't apply most of the Gallery filters as a layer. I said that earlier. Read the posts.
Sure, you can create another duplicate layer and do it there, but as we both have said about sharpness, that increases file size. It's not the same as adding it as a layer effect.
If I say something you don't like you accuse me of changing the subject. That's not correct, and it still doesn't make you right.
Creating a layer to perform a sharpening is only useful if you haven't added other pixel edited effects somewhere else, and have flattened. If you have added those effects and haven't flattened, then what to duplicate becomes a problem. you have to include all the other effects in your sharpen or you might get unexpected results (unless you want some special result).
Also, you don't guess with sharpening. It's pretty well defines as to how much sharpening is given any file for any purpose.
And stop telling me what to say. Several people here have been saying about how this a PS Killer. Tell them to stop saying that, and I will also desist.
Again, if you real all of my posts, you would see that I have said that I like Aperture, that I'm going to buy it when it becomes available in 5 weeks or so, and that I said almost exactly what you said in your last line - several times.
What we are arguing about here is not really useful because they are two very different programs, and PS does so much mre that it is difficult for Adobe to change everything at once. There is a vast amount of code in PS. Over the years they have enabled more and more items on layers. No doubt they will continue to do so. I know that blur and sharpen controls are in their sights, as is HighLight/Shadow. Other filters are also being rewritten. The beta stage for 10 should be coming my way fairly soon, and I hope to see a number of changes. You might be surprised. I know that more integration of RAW and digital negative, which all the major camera companies have already adopted will be incorporated. That was always their goal.