or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Apple introduces Aperture
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple introduces Aperture - Page 8

post #281 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Of course you can. That's the whole point.

They are mathematical equivalents of the change, as is Core Image. Where do you think Apple got the idea from?

You can go to one of the layers and change it as many times as you want until you're happy with the result. It doesn't render any of the layers unless you tell it to. You can render any layer you want independently of all the others. you can also reorder the layers which will give different priorities to the effects.

In fact, you can do anything you want with layers. You can even have one layer only affect certain other layers if you like.

Unless a layer is a duplicate of the original file, which is done for certain purposes, layers take little memory.

No what I mean is that if you apply a series of effects to the same layer you cannot re-order them or reverse them if you applied another one afterward which you want to keep.
post #282 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
No, absolutely not. It will give those with machinesthat don't run this well an excuse to upgrade.

Hmmm... $500 bucks for CS2/Bridge that actually runs on a PB, or $400 + another $3k (I'm being generous), to run Aperture? Gee, that's a tough call. NOT! I'll take function over elegance, and some might say stupidity, anyday, albeit at a steeper learning curve.

Pisses me off too. The intro audience doesn't seem to have been very well thought out.

-voodoo
post #283 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by MacCrazy
No what I mean is that if you apply a series of effects to the same layer you cannot re-order them or reverse them if you applied another one afterward which you want to keep.

There are certain effects that you can apply to each type of layer. There are a number of different types of layers. You can even choose to make up your own type of layer.

Effects applied to these layers are perfectly adjustable or reversed or, well, whatever. Those of us who have used PS for a time, and who understant it, use 20 or more layers at times with no ill effects.

Someone experienced with PS knows just how to manipulate these layers. Intelligent use of PS and any of its features takes time to learn. That's because PS is a very rich program.

If somehow you find that you have drilled yourself into a hole that you can't get yourself out of in PS, it's only because you are not using the program properly.

You will find that even with Aperture, you have to understand a feature before you are successful in using it.
post #284 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by Big Bad Voodoo
Hmmm... $500 bucks for CS2/Bridge that actually runs on a PB, or $400 + another $3k (I'm being generous), to run Aperture? Gee, that's a tough call. NOT! I'll take function over elegance, and some might say stupidity, anyday, albeit at a steeper learning curve.

Pisses me off too. The intro audience doesn't seem to have been very well thought out.

-voodoo

Yes, agreed.
post #285 of 538
As Aperture can read and be used with other media that RAW, I'm interested in how it performs with JPEG files, and if it's more useable on a PowerBook with JPEG files ?
In the real world, ignorance is truly a bliss.
Reply
In the real world, ignorance is truly a bliss.
Reply
post #286 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by Big Bad Voodoo
Hmmm... $500 bucks for CS2/Bridge that actually runs on a PB, or $400 + another $3k (I'm being generous), to run Aperture? Gee, that's a tough call. NOT! I'll take function over elegance, and some might say stupidity, anyday, albeit at a steeper learning curve.

Pisses me off too. The intro audience doesn't seem to have been very well thought out.

-voodoo

But... but... but it's an APPLE product! Surely that means it's the greatest thing on the planet! Buy it! Be part of the fashionable herd!
post #287 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by Tidelwav
But... but... but it's an APPLE product! Surely that means it's the greatest thing on the planet! Buy it! Be part of the fashionable herd!

MAN, Tidlewav, are you hijacking this thread too ? Please give it up!
In the real world, ignorance is truly a bliss.
Reply
In the real world, ignorance is truly a bliss.
Reply
post #288 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by BoeManE
MAN, Tidlewav, are you hijacking this thread too ? Please give it up!

I have never seen his handle before, so I don't know what you're referring to, but unfortunately I'm encountering some of that here.

There has been some of that "Don't insult my Apple product, it's teh best".
post #289 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
I have never seen his handle before, so I don't know what you're referring to, but unfortunately I'm encountering some of that here.

There has been some of that "Don't insult my Apple product, it's teh best".

As can be expected from an apple-related forum such as this. I think its always going to be like this, in any forum that is closely linked to a certain product or brand.

However, since Aperture has not been released yet, most of this post is based on speculation.

I am no pro photographer, but I would love to have some of Apertures features, but I would like them in an "iPhoto" or "iPhoto Express" package. Based on other applications from Apple, I think we will either see iPhoto, iPhoto Pro and Aperture, or iPhoto, Aperture Express and Aperture Pro as the future Photographic lineup from Apple.
In the real world, ignorance is truly a bliss.
Reply
In the real world, ignorance is truly a bliss.
Reply
post #290 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by BoeManE
As can be expected from an apple-related forum such as this. I think its always going to be like this, in any forum that is closely linked to a certain product or brand.

However, since Aperture has not been released yet, most of this post is based on speculation.

I am no pro photographer, but I would love to have some of Apertures features, but I would like them in an "iPhoto" or "iPhoto Express" package. Based on other applications from Apple, I think we will either see iPhoto, iPhoto Pro and Aperture, or iPhoto, Aperture Express and Aperture Pro as the future Photographic lineup from Apple.

Since, as usual, we had no warning about this, we can't guess what Apple will do.

Adobe may respond. They could beef up Bridge, they could allow RAW support within the program. Both of those solutions would work for both the Mac and Windows.

For all we know, they have been working on those very things for 10.

I won't find out until they send me my beta to test.
post #291 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
There are certain effects that you can apply to each type of layer. There are a number of different types of layers. You can even choose to make up your own type of layer.

Effects applied to these layers are perfectly adjustable or reversed or, well, whatever. Those of us who have used PS for a time, and who understant it, use 20 or more layers at times with no ill effects.

Someone experienced with PS knows just how to manipulate these layers. Intelligent use of PS and any of its features takes time to learn. That's because PS is a very rich program.

If somehow you find that you have drilled yourself into a hole that you can't get yourself out of in PS, it's only because you are not using the program properly.

You will find that even with Aperture, you have to understand a feature before you are successful in using it.

You can't compare non destructive editing to layers. As a betatester of several Photoshop version I can tell you that Adobe have tried to get non destructive editing into Photoshop for years, but every time they pulled it since they couldn't make it work properly. Only Adjustment layers came through.

Why would they work on non destructive editing if layers were basically the same?

Plus 20 layers is nothing compared to non destructive editing - you have to create a new layer for each and every edit you make, and you can't do two things on a layer. You have to remember (or write down) what you did on a layer if you want to redo the filter with altered settings.

A non destructive layer of - let's say - blur would let you adjust the settings later, but in Photoshop you have to create a new copy of the unedited layer and run the filter one more time. That's not very productive.

It gets even worse if you have to run another filter on top of the first one and want to redo the first filter.

And we haven't even begun talking about versions cropped differently.

You'll end up with tons of layers, and probably multiple copies of the same image. Versioning and non destructive editing is the future.

PS: this is not an Apple vs. Adobe post, an Aperture vs. Photoshop post, but a layer vs. non destructive editing.
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
post #292 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Since, as usual, we had no warning about this, we can't guess what Apple will do.

Adobe is better in that regard?

Btw. you can always guess - that's exactly what you do if you don't know what they'll do
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
post #293 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by JLL
You can't compare non destructive editing to layers. As a betatester of several Photoshop version I can tell you that Adobe have tried to get non destructive editing into Photoshop for years, but every time they pulled it since they couldn't make it work properly. Only Adjustment layers came through.

Why would they work on non destructive editing if layers were basically the same?

Plus 20 layers is nothing compared to non destructive editing - you have to create a new layer for each and every edit you make, and you can't do two things on a layer. You have to remember (or write down) what you did on a layer if you want to redo the filter with altered settings.

A non destructive layer of - let's say - blur would let you adjust the settings later, but in Photoshop you have to create a new copy of the unedited layer and run the filter one more time. That's not very productive.

It gets even worse if you have to run another filter on top of the first one and want to redo the first filter.

And we haven't even begun talking about versions cropped differently.

You'll end up with tons of layers, and probably multiple copies of the same image. Versioning and non destructive editing is the future.

PS: this is not an Apple vs. Adobe post, an Aperture vs. Photoshop post, but a layer vs. non destructive editing.

exactly, and for the record melgross I do understand PS!
post #294 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by JLL
You can't compare non destructive editing to layers. As a betatester of several Photoshop version I can tell you that Adobe have tried to get non destructive editing into Photoshop for years, but every time they pulled it since they couldn't make it work properly. Only Adjustment layers came through.

Why would they work on non destructive editing if layers were basically the same?

Plus 20 layers is nothing compared to non destructive editing - you have to create a new layer for each and every edit you make, and you can't do two things on a layer. You have to remember (or write down) what you did on a layer if you want to redo the filter with altered settings.

A non destructive layer of - let's say - blur would let you adjust the settings later, but in Photoshop you have to create a new copy of the unedited layer and run the filter one more time. That's not very productive.

It gets even worse if you have to run another filter on top of the first one and want to redo the first filter.

And we haven't even begun talking about versions cropped differently.

You'll end up with tons of layers, and probably multiple copies of the same image. Versioning and non destructive editing is the future.

PS: this is not an Apple vs. Adobe post, an Aperture vs. Photoshop post, but a layer vs. non destructive editing.

Your understanding of what layers does is very incomplete. Please don't bring up your beta test card. I've been testing this since version 1.

You can adjust any setting you make in a layer. That is the entire purpose of layers. Layers are deliberately designed to make the edits seperable. If you could perform different types of edits on a single layer, it would defeat the purpose of having seperate layers.

We, the users of PS, practicaly demanded this from Adobe. We got what we asked for.

The only reason that Apple can do what it does with images in Aperture is that it does very little. Photoshop does far more than Aperture does.

In order for PS to do the work it does, it must use layers. Layers are also an excellent organizational tool when attempting to try several different tryes of edits. It's very easy to group various layers together nane them and the groups, and turn them on or off to show a client the different results obtained. This way the client can make a judgement more easily.

Aperture doesn't need something as sophistigated as a layering system, because, at least at this time, Apple isn't trying to competer with PS on the level that it exists upon.

If Aperture is ever positioned as a true competitor to PS on that high level, it too will have to choose some form of edit control. It has none now.

At this point in time, Aperture can do perhaps 10% of the work that I, and my company, had to do for clients. It does that 10% very well. I won't argue that. But, so far, it's only good for the most basic needs.
post #295 of 538
I would like to try to clear something up here just a bit, though I know that even this will get arguments.

Having used Aperture at the show while sitting in on the class, I, and others there came to some conclusions while talking about it afterward. Someone else from this thread was also there and if he still is, might want to chime in as well.

Aperture was very well done. What it does it does it does in an interesting and well thought out manner. The totality of the program is unique on the Mac platform, even though there several programs on the PC that come close. But this one goes further, and does it better.

The most interesting part of the program is the way it handles files. The lightbox metaphor is nicely done. You do get a good feel of standing (well, actually sitting) over a lightbox and moving images around. It makes that very easy. Those who are just now moving over to the digital world might find this familliar and comforting

Opening RAW images directly isn't unique, even iPhoto and Preview do that, though you can't do anything with them at all in Preview. You can do this as well on the PC.

So the program, in its parts isn't unique, but it puts it all together better than any other program I've seen (and I've seen a lot).

CoreImage is the icing on the cake. This helps keep the metaphor working with its instantaneous action.

Photographers and studios that don't need more than fairly basic corrections on images will find this program to be very useful.

Now for the controversial part.

Aperture requires a lot of power from the computer to maintain that real-time metaphor. Even with the dual 2.5 or 2.7GHz G5's we used in class, there was hesitation when moving images around, as well as when doing other tasks. This wasn't present when trying the Quad 2.5GHz machines around the sides of the booth.

The Apple personal were reticent about speaking to the ability of the program to function in a manner consistent with the goals that Apple had apparently set for the program if the program was used in a PB, or other single cpu machine. Even if it met the specs.

Aperture seems happy when running on a physically large, high rez monitor. It looked great, and worked well on one 30" 2560 x 1600 monitor used by the Quad's, even thought they were using two.

It worked well enough on the 1920 x 1200 23's used in the class.

Anything smaller will have a problem. The program depends on your having a fair number of photo's lined up from which you can pull selects from. The realtime metaphor depends on your being able to see the differences between those photos in real time. Only the selects were being examined by the magnifier, even though they showed us that anything on the screen could use it.

This is the way we select images in the film world. Line up the photos. Glance at all of them, pull your selects, and examine them closely. Normally the non selects are only looked at again if one or more of the selects are not as good as you think they are upon closer examination. You might even have to start the entire sorting process again - minus the now discarded selects.

If the monitor is too small, with insufficient resolution, you are forced to use the magnifier on most of the photos. This slows the process down, and damages the metaphor. It can be done, but it isn't what Apple wants you to be doing.

I believe that Apple in announcing higher rez screens for the PB's at the same time new PM's and Aperture came out wasn't a coincidence. You NEED the new screens to use Aperture successfully on a PB.

My feeling is that Aperture can be used on a PB, but not happily.

I also think that Apple may very well have in mind the new x86 dual Yonah, and later, the dual Merom's as a target for this program in an Apple portable. These machines might very well be more than twice as powerful as the new PB's are. Aperture will function much better with a dual core chip. Interestingly, the new PB's are reported as being somewhat slower than the last series just before.

As for this being a Photoshop "killer". It's not. It isn't targeted towards those who need PS in their work. The correction controls are certainly much more advanced than those in iPhoto, but are also much closer to that program than what PS offers.

I can see myself using it for those times when I don't need to do more than organizing and basic correcting, but for anything more, PS will be the targeted app.

Apple would also have to overcome the hundreds of pieces of software intended to work with PS as plug-ins and enablers. It would also need to have a viable publishing solution.

We really need for this program to be out for at least a year to see how popular it really is, for what it will be used, and by whom.

We also need to see how Apple looks at its users. When FCP first came out, it didn't receive one single bad or even neutral review.

What it did get was statements from those reviewers about the few bugs, and about the features they wanted to see.

Apple was VERY responsive. The industry was all ajitter about how Apple kept piling on updates to FCP, fixing bugs, and adding features for free.

That was one of the more important reasons why the industry began to adopt the program in ever increasing numbers. Even today, FCP Studio is considered to be a bargain when compared to anything else out there. For $1,300, you get about $2,500 of software, and Apple doesn't raise the price every time they make an upgrade. Instead, they put programs into the package that, by themselves, cost hundreds.

If Apple looks at Aperture through the same lens, it will be successful. If they ignore it, thinking it's done, then it won't.
post #296 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by JLL
Plus 20 layers is nothing compared to non destructive editing - you have to create a new layer for each and every edit you make, and you can't do two things on a layer. You have to remember (or write down) what you did on a layer if you want to redo the filter with altered settings.

A non destructive layer of - let's say - blur would let you adjust the settings later, but in Photoshop you have to create a new copy of the unedited layer and run the filter one more time. That's not very productive.

You're exactly right, JLL.

Unfortunately for this discussion, melgross doesn't understand the difference between a filter and an adjustment layer in Photoshop.
post #297 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by bikertwin
You're exactly right, JLL.

Unfortunately for this discussion, melgross doesn't understand the difference between a filter and an adjustment layer in Photoshop.

I think the thing is - you can't goup them together. You are going to need layers no matter what. There is no way around it, you need layers.

BUT

You can't say that layers is an acceptable replacement for non-destructive editing.

Say you have a blue sky, and you make a layer that you can paint some clouds on. You paint with a brush, make your clouds and apply a blur. Simple. Say I now don't want the clouds to be so blurry. I have to delete the clouds and start again. If I had undestructive editing, I could just re-adjust the blur settings on the layer. Way faster.

Adobe illustrator is like this, I can apply a blur to an object, and I can change the parameters anytime. That's what Photoshop needs.
post #298 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by bikertwin
You're exactly right, JLL.

Unfortunately for this discussion, melgross doesn't understand the difference between a filter and an adjustment layer in Photoshop.

For this disscussion? What does that mean?

Most filters can be applied to layers. you chose which filter when you chose the layer.

It's true that if you go to Filter Gallery, which is the special effects area, you don't use them on layers. But they are special effects after all. If you don't like the result, you don't have to hit "OK". Even if you do, you can undo it.

I find it to be interesting that you can say what you did about filters and adjustment layers.

Which filters that correspond to Aperture's cannot work through an adjustment layer, other than perhaps something that Apple just came up with that PS might not have (though I haven't seen anything significent that they have at this time)? Or be deleted without causing harm?

Even many filters still work with the History Pallette. You can delete something there if you don't want it.

Let's say you apply a Shadow/Highlight adjustment to an image. Then you apply a curve (I'm not saying that I would do something this way).

If you like, you can delete the Shadow/Highlight without affecting the curves which you applied afterwards. Of course, you should apply the curves through a layer, so that you can re-adjust it without losing image quality.

Can you explain exactly what you mean?
post #299 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by the cool gut
I think the thing is - you can't goup them together. You are going to need layers no matter what. There is no way around it, you need layers.

BUT

You can't say that layers is an acceptable replacement for non-destructive editing.

Say you have a blue sky, and you make a layer that you can paint some clouds on. You paint with a brush, make your clouds and apply a blur. Simple. Say I now don't want the clouds to be so blurry. I have to delete the clouds and start again. If I had undestructive editing, I could just re-adjust the blur settings on the layer. Way faster.

Adobe illustrator is like this, I can apply a blur to an object, and I can change the parameters anytime. That's what Photoshop needs.

You can delete the blur through the history palette, as I mentioned earlier. you don't have to redraw the clouds at all. Even if you have done things afterwards to that layer, you can still delete the blur.
post #300 of 538
There seems to be a great deal of misunderstanding about how PS works.
post #301 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
You can delete the blur through the history palette, as I mentioned earlier. you don't have to redraw the clouds at all. Even if you have done things afterwards to that layer, you can still delete the blur.

Yes, considering you don't close the document, or use up your undos.
post #302 of 538
I am no photoshop expert, and i only use photoshop maybe once a month for very besic editing.

But in my opinion PS does not have any kind of non-destructive editing. My PS workflow is most likely flawed, but take this scenario.

1. I have two images which I want to piece together
2. I add one image on one layer, and the other one the other layer
3. I add a mask to the top layer to be able to "paint" the bottom layer on top of the top layer
4. I apply a Gaussian blur to both layers because i figure I need it
5. I start painting the mask, and carefully attemt to paint it so that I only get the parts that I want from the bottom image. This is going to take a LOT of clicks with the mouse.
6. A little while later I am finished, but I figured I want to see the results without the blur anyways.
7. Now, the blur isn't int he history, because I used all the history spots to paint my mask.

As I said, my workflow is most likely flawed, but there would be a lot of PS users that doesn't use PS in an optimum manner. Having each layer have non-destructive editing, undoing the blur, or even changing the blur would have been very easy to do!
In the real world, ignorance is truly a bliss.
Reply
In the real world, ignorance is truly a bliss.
Reply
post #303 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by the cool gut
Yes, considering you don't close the document, or use up your undos.

Yes, if you close your doc, the history is gone. You can set-up quite a lot of undo's though, so that isn't a problem.

Look, I've never said that PS is perfect. No program is. Aperture certainly isn't.

But for those of us who need what PS does, it does it better than anything else.

Aperture is great for what it does, but it simply doesn't do more than 10% of what PS does.

Most things you have to do for most photo's with PS can be done nondestructively. It's more complex to do because PS is a more complex program. Just like FCP is a more complex program than iMovie. I also use iMovie for things that I don't want to wade through in FCP. It's easier, and parts are more automated, does that make it better?

It does if you don't need what FCP has to offer, otherwise no.

That's the same situation here.
post #304 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by BoeManE
I am no photoshop expert, and i only use photoshop maybe once a month for very besic editing.

But in my opinion PS does not have any kind of non-destructive editing. My PS workflow is most likely flawed, but take this scenario.

1. I have two images which I want to piece together
2. I add one image on one layer, and the other one the other layer
3. I add a mask to the top layer to be able to "paint" the bottom layer on top of the top layer
4. I apply a Gaussian blur to both layers because i figure I need it
5. I start painting the mask, and carefully attemt to paint it so that I only get the parts that I want from the bottom image. This is going to take a LOT of clicks with the mouse.
6. A little while later I am finished, but I figured I want to see the results without the blur anyways.
7. Now, the blur isn't int he history, because I used all the history spots to paint my mask.

As I said, my workflow is most likely flawed, but there would be a lot of PS users that doesn't use PS in an optimum manner. Having each layer have non-destructive editing, undoing the blur, or even changing the blur would have been very easy to do!

Just increase the number of undos. Depending on the memory, you can set it pretty high. Go to prefs/general. You will see a small box labeled History States, the box might have 20 in it. Change that number to some larger number that you think will cover what you need, 25, 30, 40, whatever.
post #305 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
It's true that if you go to Filter Gallery, which is the special effects area, you don't use them on layers.

Filters don't apply to layers?! Are you sure you're talking about Photoshop? You know, from Adobe? ;-)

Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Which filters that correspond to Aperture's cannot work through an adjustment layer?

Um, Unsharp Mask? Pretty basic.

Sorry, I'm not going to get dragged into another tit-for-tat exchange here, but I just had to reply to your post, since you show an utter lack of knowledge about the most basic Photoshop theory.
post #306 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Aperture requires a lot of power from the computer to maintain that real-time metaphor. Even with the dual 2.5 or 2.7GHz G5's we used in class, there was hesitation when moving images around, as well as when doing other tasks. This wasn't present when trying the Quad 2.5GHz machines around the sides of the booth.

That's interesting - did you by any chance find out the graphics cards being used in the dual 2.7's and the Quads?


From an article:

My Dual 1.42 G4 with 2 gigs memory and 4 big HD's is running just fine. My video card is listed in the support, and the rest of the specs go beyond the PowerBook minimum. Is there a reason Aperture won't work on my high-end G4?
I asked at the show. The answer I got was that yes it will work. The video card you use is more important than the processor. But in order for aperture to shine it needs a G5. It is highly optimized for the G5 and for multiple processors.


So that, combined with your experience makes me wonder if it was the Graphics card or the Quad processors making the difference.
post #307 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by bikertwin
Filters don't apply to layers?! Are you sure you're talking about Photoshop? You know, from Adobe? ;-)



Um, Unsharp Mask? Pretty basic.

Sorry, I'm not going to get dragged into another tit-for-tat exchange here, but I just had to reply to your post, since you show an utter lack of knowledge about the most basic Photoshop theory.

You really didn't understand which filters I was talking about, did you?

If you weren't being such a wiseguy, you would know, first of all, that sharpening is always the very last thing done. And if a photo is being used for different purposes you need to have different files for each of those purposes. You keep a file that isn't sharpened, OR sized for final output, unless you know that it will be the only usage for it.

So, often there are three files sent out. One for web use, one for placement, and one for print.

No matter what you do, you still need several files.

As Sharpen IS always the last action to be performed, it doesn't need to be on its own layer, as you are going to have to resize it anyway again first.

Resizing and sharpening is normally done to a flattened image that is ready to be sent out.



Photoshop theory. Care to tell us all about it?
post #308 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by the cool gut
That's interesting - did you by any chance find out the graphics cards being used in the dual 2.7's and the Quads?


From an article:

My Dual 1.42 G4 with 2 gigs memory and 4 big HD's is running just fine. My video card is listed in the support, and the rest of the specs go beyond the PowerBook minimum. Is there a reason Aperture won't work on my high-end G4?
I asked at the show. The answer I got was that yes it will work. The video card you use is more important than the processor. But in order for aperture to shine it needs a G5. It is highly optimized for the G5 and for multiple processors.


So that, combined with your experience makes me wonder if it was the Graphics card or the Quad processors making the difference.

I can't say which card was in the class machines. The guys I spoke to who were demoing the Quads didn't know, and I didn't have time to try, in all that crush, to find someone else. The Quads were using the 4500, but it was pushing two 30" displays.

I think they're in a bind. They don't want to scare people off from buying it, but they admit that it really needs two fast G5's to work properly. Some of the operations like the filters need a fast video card with at least 128MB RAM, but the lightbox desktop seems to need the cpu's.
post #309 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
You really didn't understand which filters I was talking about, did you?

If you weren't being such a wiseguy, you would know, first of all, that sharpening is always the very last thing done. And if a photo is being used for different purposes you need to have different files for each of those purposes. You keep a file that isn't sharpened, OR sized for final output, unless you know that it will be the only usage for it.

So, often there are three files sent out. One for web use, one for placement, and one for print.

No matter what you do, you still need several files.

As Sharpen IS always the last action to be performed, it doesn't need to be on its own layer, as you are going to have to resize it anyway again first.

Resizing and sharpening is normally done to a flattened image that is ready to be sent out.



Photoshop theory. Care to tell us all about it?

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.
post #310 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by bikertwin
But what Aperture does, it does very well.

And more importantly it does 90% of what photographers use photoshop for - and in a more intuitive interface.
post #311 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross


I think they're in a bind. They don't want to scare people off from buying it, but they admit that it really needs two fast G5's to work properly. Some of the operations like the filters need a fast video card with at least 128MB RAM, but the lightbox desktop seems to need the cpu's.

They are not in a bind. Apple is the only one that has the balls to push the industry along. So what if it doesn't work on anything but a fast, new Mac? They sell Macs don't they? Part of the point of creating this is to sell new Macs, and to give the platform an advantage. In the Tiger WWDC keynote, Steve actually asked Adobe to support CoreImage on the Mac. If PS is the modern modular code you suggest, that should have been easy enough. Even if that were the case, they will not do it. They have their own agenda, and giving Macs an advantage isn't on it. They try to milk what they already have, or buy something and tack it on. Example: Vanishing Points comes from Canoma. In the short term, I'm actually jazzed about seeing what happens with the Macromedia acquisition. Still, I am more interested in the future and I'm looking for the next great leap forward. I bet that comes from Apple.
When they said "Think Different", I ran with it.
Reply
When they said "Think Different", I ran with it.
Reply
post #312 of 538
My question is:

I have a PowerMac G5, 1.6 ghz
If i switch the graphics card in that (64 MB) with the graphics card in my PC downstairs, GeForce 5200 (same card actualy, different RAM), which has 128 MB RAM, and I upgrade my computer's RAM from 512 to 1 GB, will Appeture work on my G5?
post #313 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by icfireball
My question is:

I have a PowerMac G5, 1.6 ghz
If i switch the graphics card in that (64 MB) with the graphics card in my PC downstairs, GeForce 5200 (same card actualy, different RAM), which has 128 MB RAM, and I upgrade my computer's RAM from 512 to 1 GB, will Appeture work on my G5?

These are the Minimum requirements:

Minimum System Requirements
One of the following Macintosh computers:
Power Mac G5 with a 1.8 gigahertz (GHz) or faster PowerPC G5 processor
17- or 20-inch iMac G5 with a 1.8 GHz or faster PowerPC G5 processor
15- or 17-inch PowerBook G4 with a 1.25 GHz or faster PowerPC G4 processor
1GB of RAM
One of the following graphics cards:
ATI Radeon x600 Pro or x600 XT
ATI Radeon X800 XT Mac Edition
ATI Radeon X850 XT
ATI Radeon 9800 XT or 9800 Pro
ATI Radeon 9700 Pro
ATI Radeon 9600, 9600 XT, 9600 Pro, or 9650
ATI Mobility Radeon 9700 or 9600
NVIDIA GeForce 6600 LE or 6600
NVIDIA GeForce 6800 Ultra DDL or 6800 GT DDL
NVIDIA GeForce 7800 GT
NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500
5GB of disk space for application, templates, and tutorial
DVD drive for installation




One thing about Apple, if you don't have the minimum requirements, the program may not even run. I tried running Motion on my old G4 which didn't have a supported graphics card, and it wouldn't run. It may not have been able to install - but I can't quite remember.
post #314 of 538
Those requirements seem pretty high for what's essentially iPhoto with associative arrays and version management.
post #315 of 538
Photoshop sucks.

Just thought I'd put that out there.

I can be more productive with - get this! - Fireworks simply because everything is nondestructive and you can choose whether you want to use layers or not. Fireworks is, in my opinion, the middle ground between Illustrator and Photoshop: it has nondestructive effects and a full set of vector tooks like Illustrator, but a bitmap grounding and tons of bitmap alteration tools as well.

But for some reason, it's a toy application in every "professional"'s eyes.
post #316 of 538
post #317 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
You can adjust any setting you make in a layer. That is the entire purpose of layers.

No you can't.

Apply a gaussian blur on a layer. How will you adjust that?

By making a new fresh layer and apply a new guassian blur on that.

But how do you remember what settings the filter in the first layer had?

Do you write it down or use your own codes in the naming of layers?

What if you want different crops of that photo?


Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
The only reason that Apple can do what it does with images in Aperture is that it does very little. Photoshop does far more than Aperture does.

Your understanding of Core Image (I'm not talking about Apperture here) is very incomplete Play a little with Core Image Fun House and see what it can do.


Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Layers are also an excellent organizational tool when attempting to try several different tryes of edits. It's very easy to group various layers together nane them and the groups, and turn them on or off to show a client the different results obtained. This way the client can make a judgement more easily.

Cropping? And it isn't easier to show them the different versions at the same time?


Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Aperture doesn't need something as sophistigated as a layering system, because, at least at this time, Apple isn't trying to competer with PS on the level that it exists upon.

Again, I'm not talking about Apperture here.


Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
If Aperture is ever positioned as a true competitor to PS on that high level, it too will have to choose some form of edit control. It has none now.

And it will probably do it like Core Image Fun House.


Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
At this point in time, Aperture can do perhaps 10% of the work that I, and my company, had to do for clients. It does that 10% very well. I won't argue that. But, so far, it's only good for the most basic needs.

Again, I'm not talking about.... Ahh, what the hell.
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
post #318 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by the cool gut
I think the thing is - you can't goup them together. You are going to need layers no matter what. There is no way around it, you need layers.

We do - non destructive editing doesn't remove the need for layers.
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
post #319 of 538
Quote:
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.
post #320 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by MacCrazy
And more importantly it does 90% of what photographers use photoshop for - and in a more intuitive interface.

If you only need what it does, fine. PS is a production tool. It isn't meant for people who only need to do corrections and cropping. I won't argue with that.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac Software
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Apple introduces Aperture