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

Apple introduces Aperture - Page 2

post #41 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by Aquatic
OK another awesome app. However...Apple is making all our apps now. Is this good or bad?

Considering that before you had very little photography applications for the Mac I say this is a win/win. We've lost nothing you still need Photoshop for the myriad of creative options and filters it has but Aperture simply makes editing your RAW footage seamless and hopefully effortless.

I consider it the new front end in a high end digital photography workflow.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #42 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by TenoBell
I don't see the need for heated comparison of Photoshop and Aperture. They don't really serve the same purpose.

Aperture is primarily for managing with some manipulation, Photoshop is for graphics and editing.

Aperture is primarily for the photographer and Photoshop is primarily for the graphic artist or photo editor.

You have to admit though the UI is slick.

That's one of the things I'm saying. I'm also saying that there isn't anything here that, if it proves popular, can't be added to the Adobe suite next year.
post #43 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by rok
okay, first, put the pitchfork and torch DOWN.

my point is this: there are many types of photoshop users, and a lot of them are not photographers. me, for instance. my forté is creating stuff out of nothing. give me photoshop, and even a blank canvas, colors, filters, brushes and a wacom tablet, and i can WORK it. i'm even more dangerous when i have a photo to start with. i've made myself and my companies a lot of money by taking a pretty sorry photos.com image, and turning it into something unique and special. i'm not bragging (much... ahem *blush*), just proud of what i can do with the app and the experience i've gained. but i'm not a photographer.

but, and this is a guess, i don't think a non-photographer would know what to do with aperture. it's that focused (some would say niche). photoshop does a lot, A LOT, but does a photographer use the vector shape tool? i'm not being facetious here (or if i were, i'd be trying a lot harder). that's a serious question. my guess is that if you're overlaying type on the photo, and compositing it with things like, for my example, the blobby vector shape, you probably aren't aperture's target. who is photoshop's target market? EVERYone. and it can be every tool to every task and every person. the phoographer, yes. and the painter. and the typographer. and the layout artist. and the video editor... etc. it's not a bad thing, but i've said this for a logn time, if it weren't for branding, photoshop could stand to have a new name, because it's just not indicative of how WIDE its scope has become. but there are a lot of photographers who couldn't care less about those extra features. they consider the painting and typography and the video editing and the file management someone else's thing, not theirs. and they might, just might be looking for something that focused.

please note, i come not to bury photoshop, but to praise it.

Ok, now you're getting my point.

To tell the truth, if you would just rather paint from scratch, and do some more basic work with photo's, Paint is an even better tool to use, and it accepts all of the plug-ins from PS.
post #44 of 538
Blah, Blah, Blah. I know so much and I'm going to tell you how much I think I know. Are you professional photographer?If you are, use the program, find out what it does, then let us know if "it's iPhoto on steroids" or if it fills a need in a professional photographer's workflow.
NOTICE: While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information supplied herein, fahlman cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Unless otherwise indicated,...
Reply
NOTICE: While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information supplied herein, fahlman cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Unless otherwise indicated,...
Reply
post #45 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by nagromme
Not a Photoshop competitor. Something different. Good!

Now... how about a Core Image-accelerated Photoshop?

I haven't read all the posts yet, so sorry if someone mentioned it, but this is really competing against Capture One : http://www.phaseone.com/Content/Soft...OSoftware.aspx

and Bibble : http://www.bibblelabs.com/

If you take a look at these Apps, you will realize that this area is ripe for the taking.

This is a great move, no software in this area is really *great and it shouldn't piss off Adobe since they don't compete in this area (yet)

It is just for processing RAW files before you take it into Photoshop. Photoshop can process files, but you are only doing one at a time, and has no real workflow. One big thing it could be missing is capturing straight from the camera - does anyone know if it does this or not?
post #46 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by fahlman
Blah, Blah, Blah. I know so much and I'm going to tell you how much I think I know. Are you professional photographer?If you are, use the program, find out what it does, then let us know if "it's iPhoto on steroids" or if it fills a need in a professional photographer's workflow.

You should read some posts so that you would know.
post #47 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by the cool gut
I haven't read all the posts yet, so sorry if someone mentioned it, but this is really competing against Capture One : http://www.phaseone.com/Content/Soft...OSoftware.aspx

or Bibble - or something like that.

This is a great move, no software in this area is really *great and it shouldn't piss off Adobe since they don't compete in this area (yet)

It is just for processing RAW files before you take it into Photoshop. Photoshop can process files, but you are only doing one at a time, and has no real workflow. One big thing it could be missing is capturing straight from the camera - does anyone know if it does this or not?

See, this is the thing I'm talking about. I already said that Adobe's last update to RAW does batch files. It's also been mentioned on many sites.

No, it's not as sophisticated as this appears to be. But it works well.

Apple also has to be as diligent as Adobe is in updating its lists of supported cameras. It isn't just a matter of saying "we support RAW". Apple has to make deals with some companies who's file format is encrypted, like Nikon. It's the little things that will make this work.

Since Apple is saying that this doesn't compete with PS I feel relieved. I hope it has success. But I have to see it tomorrow first.

Why can't everything wait until tomorrow night when those of us who will be there can report back, instead of working in a vacuum?
post #48 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Unless I missed it on Apple's site, it's missing CMYK, coordinated image sizing and sharpen control, etc.

You missed it. I suggest watching the tour movies ( all of them ). All the image manipulation takes place in RAW, but you can apply a color sync profile to the image and then continue to manipulate it. That includes printer profiles.

You can take an operation and apply it to multiple photos ( although its not clear how wide spread that is ) in much the same way that excel can cut and paste styles.

I also think that this will shine in combination with Automator, but that remains to be seen.

It is clear to me that Apple have looked at the end to end workflow of a PHOTOGRAPHER and created an app to support that process, from capture through to delivery.

I watched the tours, and in every one I saw features that I _wished_ that iPhoto had. Im only a bad amateur, and I can see aperture improving my photography workflow.

There is no comparison to be had with photoshop. Photoshop is a creation app, not a workflow app, and the two will complement each other very nicely.
post #49 of 538
^ I suppose it is a precarious line for Apple to walk. The Macintosh platform needs cutting edge apps, but Apple doesn't want to alinenate 3rd party developers.

So far though, Apple's apps have helped keep the Macintosh platform healthy and ecourages 3rd party developers to build execellent and complementary apps.
post #50 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
See, this is the thing I'm talking about. I already said that Adobe's last update to RAW does batch files. It's also been mentioned on many sites.

Yes, Adobe does batch support, but, there are some serious problems with that. The problem with batching is that you can't see the result on the file until it is processed. No pro photographer (or aspiring pro, or anyone who takes photos seriously) is going to want to apply the same adjustment to a group of photos. Flashes do not fire at the exact same intensity every time, and each photo needs minor adjustments. With Aperture, you can apply the same adjustment across a group of pictures, and see the result before processing, and go into each one and tweak it. After you have adjusted all the photos, you hit a button, and they are all processed.

I am not a pro yet, but I do the photo shoots for my companies catalogues - and a day session will produce 1500 photos. Photoshop really has no solution for this situation. And the other solutions are pretty weak.

This really couldn't be any further from a photoshop competitor. No type tools, no layers, masking, filters, - it is purely a digital darkroom and organizer. Aperture is to Photoshop, what Photoshop is to InDesign or Quark.

I also just when through the project management movie, and it's great to see the extensive cataloguing and organization features. What I think is most exciting about this, is I think a few of these features will make their way into the Finder in Leopard. I certainly hope anyway.

As melgross mentioned, there are a few key details which need to be addressed in this program, and being version 1.0 we will see how well it does. But I am certainly looking forward to it. I want to see first hand the speed before I buy.
post #51 of 538
While it isn't a competitor just now, I think that is Apple well planned decision. Quite impressive for 1.0, but still gingerly avoiding pissing Adobe off too much. Future versions may be a different story depending on how the politics play out. If Adobe drops Macs, Apple will be ready. If Aperture sells well enough, they may go ahead and make the leap anyway. Sure I love Photoshop, but Adobe isn't the creative company it once was. Chizen ain't Warnock.
When they said "Think Different", I ran with it.
Reply
When they said "Think Different", I ran with it.
Reply
post #52 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by murk
While it isn't a competitor just now, I think that is Apple well planned decision. Quite impressive for 1.0, but still gingerly avoiding pissing Adobe off too much. Future versions may be a different story depending on how the politics play out. If Adobe drops Macs, Apple will be ready. If Aperture sells well enough, they may go ahead and make the leap anyway. Sure I love Photoshop, but Adobe isn't the creative company it once was. Chizen ain't Warnock.

Well, I just went through all the movies, and my position has changed a bit.

Those book and web layout features are a serious fuck shot across the bow of Adobe. I mean h*ly f*ck - I didn't think you could merge photoshop and inDesign together, but it seems a possible direction for this app. Or another App that plugs into this.

Adobe is in a strange position though, they can't really pull Mac support, because it is too big a part of their business, and Apple is coming up with these serious kick ass pro applications which are only going to bring more creative pros (adobes target audience) to the mac platform.
post #53 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by mmmpie
You missed it. I suggest watching the tour movies ( all of them ). All the image manipulation takes place in RAW, but you can apply a color sync profile to the image and then continue to manipulate it. That includes printer profiles.

You can take an operation and apply it to multiple photos ( although its not clear how wide spread that is ) in much the same way that excel can cut and paste styles.

I also think that this will shine in combination with Automator, but that remains to be seen.

It is clear to me that Apple have looked at the end to end workflow of a PHOTOGRAPHER and created an app to support that process, from capture through to delivery.

I watched the tours, and in every one I saw features that I _wished_ that iPhoto had. Im only a bad amateur, and I can see aperture improving my photography workflow.

There is no comparison to be had with photoshop. Photoshop is a creation app, not a workflow app, and the two will complement each other very nicely.

I've just watched them. Interesting, but a lot of questions remain to be answered.

The CMYK (which it does have) is primitive, but might be ok in some enviornments.

I still don't get the printing part though. I suppose that for a wedding photog or someone similar, it might have some use. The layout function which is nicer than the one in iPhoto would need to be output in a standard file that can be read by an imposition program for it to be of commercial use. it's also very basic, which shouldn't be surprising as it isn't a page layout app.It doesn't say one way or the other.

The best part of the program is the project management.

Again, I'll see tomorrow.
post #54 of 538
Good lord people. Go to Apples site. Watch the Quick tours and the profiles.

There are some fairly high profile professional photographers going on and on about how this thing uses old school techniques but have brought it into the new school of digital photography. They gloat how it is so intuitive to how they work.

Sure there is some marketing here. But do a little review time here.

This app just may end up displaying more of the slick goodies of OS X than any app before it. While it is certainly a much different app than Photoshop, it really shows how outdated the UI and unwieldly ease of use is with Photoshop.

Face it, Adobe could do so much more with the Mac version of Photoshop. But they can't because Windows is a$$. Apple can now further display this a$$iness with Aperture.
iPad2 16 GB Wifi

Who is worse? A TROLL or a person that feeds & quotes a TROLL? You're both idiots.....
Reply
iPad2 16 GB Wifi

Who is worse? A TROLL or a person that feeds & quotes a TROLL? You're both idiots.....
Reply
post #55 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by the cool gut
Yes, Adobe does batch support, but, there are some serious problems with that. The problem with batching is that you can't see the result on the file until it is processed. No pro photographer (or aspiring pro, or anyone who takes photos seriously) is going to want to apply the same adjustment to a group of photos. Flashes do not fire at the exact same intensity every time, and each photo needs minor adjustments. With Aperture, you can apply the same adjustment across a group of pictures, and see the result before processing, and go into each one and tweak it. After you have adjusted all the photos, you hit a button, and they are all processed.

I am not a pro yet, but I do the photo shoots for my companies catalogues - and a day session will produce 1500 photos. Photoshop really has no solution for this situation. And the other solutions are pretty weak.

This really couldn't be any further from a photoshop competitor. No type tools, no layers, masking, filters, - it is purely a digital darkroom and organizer. Aperture is to Photoshop, what Photoshop is to InDesign or Quark.

I also just when through the project management movie, and it's great to see the extensive cataloguing and organization features. What I think is most exciting about this, is I think a few of these features will make their way into the Finder in Leopard. I certainly hope anyway.

As melgross mentioned, there are a few key details which need to be addressed in this program, and being version 1.0 we will see how well it does. But I am certainly looking forward to it. I want to see first hand the speed before I buy.

Actually, a pro studio has flash units that are very stable and repeatable. These multi thousand dollar units can pop off thousands of shots and the ones I've worked with will be off by less than a tenth of a stop, with undetectable variations in color temp. I don't know about problems from studio usage in a hi quality setting. And I work with Leaf backs.

Outdoor settings can go either way.

Nevertheless, these photo's are imported into PS as 16 (per channel) bit images. They still have all of the info they had as RAW files. Until we bring them down to 8 bits at the very end of the process there isn't a problem. Remember that work done in PS is also non-destructive when done on layers, as most pro's prefer.
post #56 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by the cool gut
Well, I just went through all the movies, and my position has changed a bit.

Those book and web layout features are a serious fuck shot across the bow of Adobe. I mean h*ly f*ck - I didn't think you could merge photoshop and inDesign together, but it seems a possible direction for this app. Or another App that plugs into this.

Adobe is in a strange position though, they can't really pull Mac support, because it is too big a part of their business, and Apple is coming up with these serious kick ass pro applications which are only going to bring more creative pros (adobes target audience) to the mac platform.

It is a possible direction. I just don't think that Apple can afford to take it.

PS is in version 9 and InDesign is in version 3. Then they would need an Illustrator as well, which is in version 12.

Even though i always give Apple's people a lot of credit (I use FCP Studio), this is an awful big bone to chew through.

In order for Apple to be successful the have to be THERE. They can't edge their way up over five years or so because they won't be able to sell it against an ever improving CSx suite.

If they keep this program as an auxiliary to the Suite, then it's an interesting adjunct.
post #57 of 538
I don't think Apple is looking at designing apps to replace Adobes Creative suite. I think they are instead just highlighting how lame the Adobe suite is compared to what it could be if they would cater more to the Mac and more specifically OS X and quit dumbing things down to stay in the Windows market. (And first and foremost of course, there appears to be a need for this app.)

In fact with each new version and their ever increasing expansion of features, Adobe apps et al have more in common with the Windows mentality than that of the Mac.

Apple is leading the way in apps for their OS. That's really what this mostly is about. A display of beauty, power, simplicity, etc. Adobe could take notice of that if nothing else.
iPad2 16 GB Wifi

Who is worse? A TROLL or a person that feeds & quotes a TROLL? You're both idiots.....
Reply
iPad2 16 GB Wifi

Who is worse? A TROLL or a person that feeds & quotes a TROLL? You're both idiots.....
Reply
post #58 of 538
I watched the Quick Tours. TWICE.

First - this is not even close to Photoshop. It's better for photography but has no graphic design features whatsoever. It's a perfect app for the digital photography who wants to work in RAW and have a single-app workflow for editing ALREADY GOOD images. We're not talking about dad took the bad night shot that needs some work to look ok. This is for PROFESSIONALS who take really good shots the first time and need an app to help them pick the best shots, organize their images and prepare them for production.

Second - Even though many of Apple's pro apps have a consumer version and a "middle" version - i.e. GarageBand/Logic Express/Logic Pro - others do not - i.e. iDVD/DVD Studio Pro. My bet is that there will be no in between app for iPhoto and Aperture. iPhoto is meant for the consumer. Aperture is meant for the serious hobbyist as well as the pro. The edu price is only $249 - about the same price as Adobe Creative Suite license for edu as well. If you're into photography, this is the app to have. If you're into photography and graphic design, Photoshop is the only choice. The inclusion of photo books, publishing to .Mac, etc. is very appealing to an amateur/hobbyist who wants to work with RAW. Not only that, but Aperture looks like a much easier workflow than Photoshop-Bridge-Canon software/etc.

I think its ease of use, sweet-looking design, and simple, all-in-one workflow will make it a very successful app both for professionals and hobbyists/enthusiasts. iPhoto will still have its place but this app will be getting some serious attention from me...

IF IT WOULD RUN ON THE FREAKING 12" POWERBOOK! But it doesn't because the app requires a 128 MB video card which Apple kindly neglected to include on the 12" PRO LAPTOP. So much for the PowerBook line being COMPLETELY professional, I guess. It's a shame, too, because the 12" is SO portable and its ability to hook up to 20" and 23" Cinema Displays would make it perfect for photographers. Take the 12" on the road to load your images into Aperture at the end of the shoot so they are there and on the memory card for safekeeping. Hook the 12" up to your 23" Cinema Display when you get back to the studio and edit with Aperture. Instead... you have to have a 15", 17", PowerMac or iMac (a consumer model, if Apple needs to be reminded!) in order to run the thing. No offense, but I'm a small/weak guy and the 15" is too heavy. When I go to Africa for my photo shoot, I want the 12" with me, nothing larger. But I won't be able to run the application that I want in order to edit my pictures using an all-in-one workflow.

Thanks Apple. Again.
post #59 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by adamrao
I watched the Quick Tours. TWICE.

First - this is not even close to Photoshop. It's better for photography but has no graphic design features whatsoever. It's a perfect app for the digital photography who wants to work in RAW and have a single-app workflow for editing ALREADY GOOD images. We're not talking about dad took the bad night shot that needs some work to look ok. This is for PROFESSIONALS who take really good shots the first time and need an app to help them pick the best shots, organize their images and prepare them for production.

Second - Even though many of Apple's pro apps have a consumer version and a "middle" version - i.e. GarageBand/Logic Express/Logic Pro - others do not - i.e. iDVD/DVD Studio Pro. My bet is that there will be no in between app for iPhoto and Aperture. iPhoto is meant for the consumer. Aperture is meant for the serious hobbyist as well as the pro. The edu price is only $249 - about the same price as Adobe Creative Suite license for edu as well. If you're into photography, this is the app to have. If you're into photography and graphic design, Photoshop is the only choice. The inclusion of photo books, publishing to .Mac, etc. is very appealing to an amateur/hobbyist who wants to work with RAW. Not only that, but Aperture looks like a much easier workflow than Photoshop-Bridge-Canon software/etc.

I think its ease of use, sweet-looking design, and simple, all-in-one workflow will make it a very successful app both for professionals and hobbyists/enthusiasts. iPhoto will still have its place but this app will be getting some serious attention from me...

IF IT WOULD RUN ON THE FREAKING 12" POWERBOOK! But it doesn't because the app requires a 128 MB video card which Apple kindly neglected to include on the 12" PRO LAPTOP. So much for the PowerBook line being COMPLETELY professional, I guess. It's a shame, too, because the 12" is SO portable and its ability to hook up to 20" and 23" Cinema Displays would make it perfect for photographers. Take the 12" on the road to load your images into Aperture at the end of the shoot so they are there and on the memory card for safekeeping. Hook the 12" up to your 23" Cinema Display when you get back to the studio and edit with Aperture. Instead... you have to have a 15", 17", PowerMac or iMac (a consumer model, if Apple needs to be reminded!) in order to run the thing. No offense, but I'm a small/weak guy and the 15" is too heavy. When I go to Africa for my photo shoot, I want the 12" with me, nothing larger. But I won't be able to run the application that I want in order to edit my pictures using an all-in-one workflow.

Thanks Apple. Again.

I'll try to remember to ask about that at the show tomorrow.
post #60 of 538
THANK YOU! I was hoping you'd still be awake and checking this thread!

PLEASE ask about it at the show tomorrow. It seems COMPLETELY insane to me that Apple still has the PowerBook 12" for sale if it won't even run their latest pro app while a new iMac will!
post #61 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by adamrao
But it doesn't because the app requires a 128 MB video card which Apple kindly neglected to include on the 12" PRO LAPTOP.

There's no mention of GPU memory requirements under the Minimum System Requirements on the Tech Specs page. Is it because the 12" PB isn't listed that you say Aperture requires 128MB? Looks like my rev. B iMac G5 qualifies, barely.
post #62 of 538
I think this program is actually competitive with Photoshop. Not completely of course, not the organization part, but definitely for retouching. I know there are a lot of people that, for the most part, use Photoshop only for retouching photographs. In fact, to me at least, the name suggests that it was specifically designed for this originally, and then expanded to other illustration work too.
post #63 of 538
One of the biggest things that makes this app so nice is that it ISN'T version 9, 11, or something along those lines. Photoshop has so much old code, and it is impeded by a UI that refuses to be revolutionary: don't alienate your user-base!

I think that Aperture is both iPhoto on steroids and a great pro photographer's workflow app. Why? iPhoto is a workflow app. It handles importing, organization, basic editing/support for external editors, and exporting to web/file/print. Aperture does the same thing, just with without worrying about the one-button mouse conundrum. Professional photographers need a good iPhoto on steroids, and will find it in Aperture.

Photoshop is still essential for any pro- or anyone that wants to do content creation/compositing/serious editing. No question about that.

Can apple make an app to compete with photoshop for that external editor option? Yes, and I bet they have something in the design stage. Can Adobe create a workflow solution as elegant and intuitive as Aperture? Yes, but not as features in photoshop. It would have to be a new app from the ground up. I know they tried to do that with CS2, but they'll have to try again and harder if they want to impress people who have seen Aperture.

All of a sudden, photographers using a PC are at a serious disadvantage. This is what Apple needs to continue its market-share push.
Ranger in training
PMDF
Ashan McNealy
Reply
Ranger in training
PMDF
Ashan McNealy
Reply
post #64 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by Aquatic
OK another awesome app. However...Apple is making all our apps now. Is this good or bad?

Mmm ... Adding a fine 3D app would do nicely, thank you.
(They *still* should have bought Maya, darn it ...)
2x2.7 PowerMac - 1.25 Powerbook - 10.4 Tiger - '65 Mustang
Reply
2x2.7 PowerMac - 1.25 Powerbook - 10.4 Tiger - '65 Mustang
Reply
post #65 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
I'll try to remember to ask about that at the show tomorrow.

I'm looking forward to hearing the answer to this too. I have a 12" PB, and whilst I'm not a pro, I am an entusiastic amateur. From the looks of it (can't watch the vids now, must wait till I get home ), Aperture provides the tools I would want for my photo work - levels, crop/resize, sharpening, colour management, that sort of thing. I don't need all the extras that PS has to offer, but I could see myself making use of the extras that Aperture has to offer .
post #66 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by macfly
i have to disagree with the idea that this is not just a souped up iphoto. its basically like photoshop's bridge. it appears to be a management/workflow app that lets you organize and prune shots quickly. but what does it let you do in terms of image editing? iphoto allows for the basic elements like saturation, tints, sharpness blah blah. what can this do that iphoto cant?

It uses CoreImage to display really huge images in a snap. iPhoto is really slow to work with, but this thing should be able to zoom into and out of really big images in a snap. Or apply image filters in real time.
post #67 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Creating a lie vs. correcting images? What the hell does that kind of judgemental nonsense mean?

Apple =good. Adobe=bad?


NO! they are differant tools, like a chain saw and a table saw. Apature corrects images in so far as color, hwite balance...from raw, as well as basic things like red eye.

If you want to do something fancy, like blur the background in a picture of, say a football player catching a ball so those in the croud cant be recognised, that is where photo shop comes in, not a lie, just advanced modification.

Apples tool is a manager FIRST with a few basic "correction" tools, Adobe PS is all about "MODIFICATION", with managment tacked on as an after thought - It is an editor, Apples tool is a manager

(in Adobes defence, PS is really old software, predating digital photography and they cant piss off the user base by making too many radical changes, and probably shouldnt. it serves a differant need)
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
post #68 of 538
After rereading the Think Secret info on CS3 and Apple Photo Pro, it is apparent that Adobe had a heads up.

Quote:
The Adobe survey presented Photo Pro (Aperture) as a product geared towards photographers who handle numerous images regularly, offering extensive batch processing features and several automated features.

Among those listed were one-click importing with automatic backup to a second location, batch processing of metadata on import, rapid image browsing, support for multiple RAW settings per image, integrated high-quality camera raw processing, automated multi-page prints, and flexible contact sheet creation.

Apple, for the time being at least, is trying to appease Adobe. The amazing thing is the speed which Apple can produce stuff like this. How long did it take to get Photoshop up to it's current level? That's a real testament to Cocoa. And that, my friends, is the reason Adobe is worried. Apple is much more nimble.
When they said "Think Different", I ran with it.
Reply
When they said "Think Different", I ran with it.
Reply
post #69 of 538


It's so hilarious to read people talking about Apple threatening Adobe's PS market.
post #70 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by Tidelwav
It's so hilarious to read people talking about Apple threatening Adobe's PS market.

It is funny, but then again, where is Premiere on the Mac? I'm not saying it is going to happen. In fact I don't think it will. I'm just saying it's not totally unprecedented.
post #71 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by Tidelwav
It's so hilarious to read people talking about Apple threatening Adobe's PS market.

I agree. Photographers don't necessarily make a large portion of the buyers of Photoshop, and I can easily imagine photographers still using Photoshop as well as Aperture.

Quote:
Originally posted by Simple Ranger
It is funny, but then again, where is Premiere on the Mac? I'm not saying it is going to happen. In fact I don't think it will. I'm just saying it's not totally unprecedented.

I'd argue that Apple's video editing offerings were a lot more similar to Adobe's than the photo software offerings. Aperture isn't a direct competitor to Photoshop, rather more like complementary (at least for now), which wasn't the case for the video editing software.

Personally, I won't use either, I'm just using iPhoto and PS Essentials, and I look forward to the upgrades of those programs.
post #72 of 538
Quote:
You missed it. I suggest watching the tour movies ( all of them ). All the image manipulation takes place in RAW, but you can apply a color sync profile to the image and then continue to manipulate it. That includes printer profiles.

You can take an operation and apply it to multiple photos ( although its not clear how wide spread that is ) in much the same way that excel can cut and paste styles.

I also think that this will shine in combination with Automator, but that remains to be seen.

It is clear to me that Apple have looked at the end to end workflow of a PHOTOGRAPHER and created an app to support that process, from capture through to delivery.

I watched the tours, and in every one I saw features that I _wished_ that iPhoto had. Im only a bad amateur, and I can see aperture improving my photography workflow.

There is no comparison to be had with photoshop. Photoshop is a creation app, not a workflow app, and the two will complement each other very nicely.



Lemon Bon Bon
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
post #73 of 538
This is not a Final Cut/ Premiere situation but a Motion/After Effects situation. Apple is a hardware company and its stratagy ever since Jobs 2.0 has been to seek out software niches that leverage the 'whole widget' philosophy. Motion and Aperture use the Core Libraries to good effect and do things it would be very hard to achieve under Windows until Longwait (theoretically). Apple knows that nobody is going to get rid of After Effects or Photoshop and it doesn't want them to. It wants to push Adobe to keep competing on the Mac space; to sell more Macs.
post #74 of 538
I would have thought that this could replace alot of what a Photographer might use Photoshop for. There's colour correction. Comparison of photos. Blemish removal. Workflow.

Photoshop is is more image-creation in my book. ie it's more an art creation package.

For me, Aperture is more 'Photoshop' than Photoshop is.

Photoshop is more...'Art or Image' shop.

I think Aperture does for busy pro' Photographers what Front Row does for Media Computers.

It's back to basics...but with an elegance and sophistication that Photoshop can't match.

Photoshop is my favourite Mac app. But it has an ancient interface that in no way compares to the digital professionalism of Aperture. PS is still with the 90's interface Photoshop. PS is cluttered.

Yes. It does have depth. For Image creation. Photoshop can't be beat.

For a photographer? If I was working with just Photographs and wasn't into 'image creation'? One could easily eliminate it from workflow.

Creating something other than a photograph? That's Photo or 'Artshop/Image Shop's job....

Aperture definitely shows the way forward on interface design. Adobe could learn so much from real time effects...cocoa potential and in UI design from Apple.

Adobe have sat on their a** defending Tabs from the encroaching Macromedia. (Ironic...) How long have we had Core Image now? Core Video? What have Adobe done with it?

Bruce is just a s*ck up to M$. The Mac version of Photoshop should be lightyears ahead right now. Aperture shows the way. Brightly.

Lemon Bon Bon
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
post #75 of 538
It'd be appreciated if melgross could use the bathroom instead of relieving his/her bowels on this thread.
post #76 of 538
I noticed that Aperture does handle the RAW format of the Canon Digital Rebel XT/350D. Now if we only had that in iPhoto 5.
post #77 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol
It'd be appreciated if melgross could use the bathroom instead of relieving his/her bowels on this thread.

I'd argue you have done what you just accused, because I don't remember anything melgross wrote that would cause a person to think this.
post #78 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by kwsanders
I noticed that Aperture does handle the RAW format of the Canon Digital Rebel XT/350D. Now if we only had that in iPhoto 5.

It's probably coming in 6 if it isn't in 5. I hope the speed and the CoreData stuff from Aperture gets pushed down into iPhoto.
post #79 of 538
internet hiccup
post #80 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by JeffDM
I'd argue you have done what you just accused, because I don't remember anything melgross wrote that would cause a person to think this.

Not really...I actually read about products and look at guided tours before opening my mouth.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac Software
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Apple introduces Aperture