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

Apple introduces Aperture - Page 13

post #481 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by bikertwin
Not sure why that's being interpreted as elitist. It seems very matter-of-fact to me. It just seems that the performance issue has been beaten to death in this very thread.

I do care, and it is of interest to me. It's just that the question has been answered before. FWIW, my current hardware won't run Aperture, and it's less than a year old. I feel the pain, believe me.

But I also understand what Aperture can do, and why it needs that horsepower.

Now, if you want to discuss an interesting topic--why does a new G4 Powerbook run Aperture, but (technically, at least) a dual-G4 Power Mac can't--even with upgraded RAM and video card? Is there a technical reason for that? If so, it's not obvious to me.

Apple simply decides (somewhat arbitrarily) that a certain speed processor or video card won't give the experience they would like people to have for that product. As you say, people would complain about its speed.

They often put these restraints in a pList, installer, or other place telling the program whether the machine has what they want it to have.

If you know where to look, you can go to terminal and change the requirements yourself.

When I bought motion, it said that it needed a G4 of at least 867MHz. I installed it into my dual 2GHz G5. But then, just to check, tried to install it into my not yet upgraded Digital Audio 733MHz G4.

It wouldn't let me. But it did install into my dual 533MHz G4 Digital Audio.

Way too slow for the dual G4. Still too slow for several functions with the dual 2 G5.

A review said that the dual 2.7 was too slow for motion 2, though Apple had speeded it up considerably.

Oh, people don't read back more than a few posts. so the same information has to be repeated, over, and over.
post #482 of 538
An early review.

http://www.macintouch.com/aperture02.html#nov30
post #483 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
An early review.

http://www.macintouch.com/aperture02.html#nov30

I don't like the sound of your images being stuck in a large database file. If Aperture fails to launch for whatever reason you have lots all your photographs until you can fix it. This is bad design.
post #484 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by MacCrazy
I don't like the sound of your images being stuck in a large database file. If Aperture fails to launch for whatever reason you have lots all your photographs until you can fix it. This is bad design.

Same thing happens if the file system gets corrupted. What's the difference? There is none.

All the posts on this board are in a huge database. So is user login information. Your credit card data. Bank accounts. Databases are where you store lots of data. It's very efficient.

This board (hopefully!) has a backup, as does your credit card company and bank. Hopefully, you have a backup, too.
post #485 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by bikertwin
Same thing happens if the file system gets corrupted. What's the difference? There is none.

All the posts on this board are in a huge database. So is user login information. Your credit card data. Bank accounts. Databases are where you store lots of data. It's very efficient.

This board (hopefully!) has a backup, as does your credit card company and bank. Hopefully, you have a backup, too.

I think your missing the point. If iPhoto crashes on start-up and I can't get into it to perform a backup I can browse all my photos in the Finder and edit in photoshop. If I want to search in Spotlight for an image Aperture files won't show up. If I want to grab one image that's in Aperture I have to open it first.

I understand there's less chance of corruption if you don't have access to these files but I would prefer to have it - as you do in iLife.

Edit: Also what if my Mac goes down and I have to access my photographs for a client who doesn't have a Mac - I have to find someone with a computer which will run Aperture to get the files. Obviously these are worst case scenarios but they don't sound too good to me.

I think I'll just do what I do at the moment - Import once onto my external drive and then again into Aperture instead of iPhoto.
post #486 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by MacCrazy
I think your missing the point. If iPhoto crashes on start-up and I can't get into it to perform a backup I can browse all my photos in the Finder and edit in photoshop. If I want to search in Spotlight for an image Aperture files won't show up. If I want to grab one image that's in Aperture I have to open it first.

I never access my iPhoto/iTunes data from the Finder. It's not designed that way. It's like copying text from a Word document by opening it in TextEdit. Why would you do that?

In Aperture, this is even more important. Think about it. What if Aperture did leave your files "out in the open" so that you could get to them via the Finder. In the Finder, you'd never see the changes that you made in Aperture (since it's non-destructive), so what's the point of having access via the Finder?

In terms of backup...

Quote:
Originally posted by MacCrazy
I think I'll just do what I do at the moment - Import once onto my external drive and then again into Aperture instead of iPhoto.

That's a good way of doing it. Nothing wrong with that. You could also use Aperture's Vaults. That's what they're designed for.

With new applications and new paradigms, you have to change the way you think about data and workflow. Aperture is a huge world-view change. I think you'll end up liking it.
post #487 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by bikertwin
I never access my iPhoto/iTunes data from the Finder. It's not designed that way. It's like copying text from a Word document by opening it in TextEdit. Why would you do that?

I search for a song and then open it -= it automatically opens iTunes and plays it - much easier than opening iTunes and finding it as Spotlight is so fast.

When I use photoshop I often use the Browse... feature and then browse my iPhoto library that way although I often right-click in iPhoto but it's got so damn slow recently i try to avoid using it.

I do see what you're saying and the non-destructive element makes sense of why it's a database.

Although saying all this I've got serious financial worries especially when I have to think of all the Christmas presents I have to buy, Aperture is looking less and less likely.
post #488 of 538
Yeah, but I think Spotlight is working with iTunes to play the song without reimporting it into the iTunes library every time. If it didn't, that would be very stupid of Spotlight.

If Spotlight does not already do it the same way with Aperture images, I would imagine that Apple would add this in an upcomming OSX update. I can't imagine that they would only allow searches from within Aperture.
post #489 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by MacCrazy
Although saying all this I've got serious financial worries especially when I have to think of all the Christmas presents I have to buy, Aperture is looking less and less likely.

Now that's the best reason I've heard so far for not buying Aperture. I know how that goes.
post #490 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by WhiteRabbit
Yeah, but I think Spotlight is working with iTunes to play the song without reimporting it into the iTunes library every time. If it didn't, that would be very stupid of Spotlight.

If Spotlight does not already do it the same way with Aperture images, I would imagine that Apple would add this in an upcomming OSX update. I can't imagine that they would only allow searches from within Aperture.

RIght, so using Spotlight is not the same thing as using the Finder. Spotlight ends up using the "native" application to open the files.

[Edit]

Yes, the Finder opens files in their "native" applications, but only at the most basic level. For example, browsing for a JPEG file in the Finder, if you double-click the file it will open in Preview. If you double-click the same file in Spotlight, it opens in iPhoto.

Actually, it would be nice if Spotlight provided more information than the Finder, i.e. it communicated with the native app better. For example, using a keyword search in Spotlight returns a bunch of iPhoto photos, but it doesn't say which album they came from.

That being said, I typically only use Spotlight to find "lost" things. If I know I'm looking for a photo or an e-mail or a song, I'll use Mail or iPhoto or iTunes--it reduces the background clutter quite a bit.

That being said again (!), you guys made me realize there are some cool things about Spotlight I didn't know.

[/Edit]

It'll be interesting to see how Spotlight works with Aperture. If you have 3 versions of a single raw file, and you do a Spotlight search for a metadata tag that the raw file has, which image will it bring up--the original, one of the 3 versions, or all 4 of them?
post #491 of 538
The problem is that Aperture has a database, not individual songs when in the Finder. Maybe the database will be accessible from spotlight - I'm sure Apple have thought of something.
post #492 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by MacCrazy
The problem is that Aperture has a database, not individual songs when in the Finder. Maybe the database will be accessible from spotlight - I'm sure Apple have thought of something.

Apparently it's a package within a package and not a true database:

http://www.studio2f.com/misc/2005/12...mpressions.php
post #493 of 538
This is from Peachpit. It should be of interest;

http://www.peachpit.com/bookstore/pr...321422759&rl=1
post #494 of 538
Have any of you noticed that safari is crashing more and more?

It seems like the case after installing apeture.

It is so bad that safari won't stay open for more than one page load.

Thanks.
post #495 of 538
No more safari crashing for me, since I installed aperture.

Aperture is an huge software dispite it's only a version 1. It's not as big as photoshop, but for the number of display options it's a king.

It's rather fast on my quad G5. Raw files from my 20 D are opening rather quickly. It's seems that the bigger you display your files, the more time it recquieres for doing the adjustements.

I need a lot of time, learning this software.
post #496 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by Powerdoc
It's rather fast on my quad G5. Raw files from my 20 D are opening rather quickly. It's seems that the bigger you display your files, the more time it recquieres for doing the adjustements.

That's because it doesn't actually make any changes to the file itself. All it does is to make the change to the virtual file e.g. the image that is displayed. The more pixels displayed, the more work the machine has to do, therefore the longer it takes. It then stores that mathematical formula (the adjustment) away. When you export the file, it applies the formula to the file, where it becomes permanent.

This is the way several programs in the early '90's used to work when cpu's were very slow. Photoshop does that as well, but in a different way.
post #497 of 538
More Apple Knowledge-base articles on Aperture.

http://search.info.apple.com/?q=kf8%...50&gup=5-1-1-1

Look here first for answers.
post #498 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
That's because it doesn't actually make any changes to the file itself. All it does is to make the change to the virtual file e.g. the image that is displayed. The more pixels displayed, the more work the machine has to do, therefore the longer it takes. It then stores that mathematical formula (the adjustment) away. When you export the file, it applies the formula to the file, where it becomes permanent.

This is the way several programs in the early '90's used to work when cpu's were very slow. Photoshop does that as well, but in a different way.

What programs?

With the exclusion of Adjustment Layers, Photoshop does and always has worked the exact opposite wayimmediately applying all filters. I.e., changing the data but not storing the changes made.
post #499 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by gregmightdothat
What programs?

I believe LivePicture did this.
post #500 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by Chucker
I believe LivePicture did this.

Yes, that was one. The big one. I beta'd it for them. It satarter out as a $4,000 program. I still have it around somewhere. I remember the times Kai came to my place to demo it. There was another, but I can't remember the name. It started with a "C". Adobe bought it, and used it as the basis of its non-destructive layering.
post #501 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Yes, that was one. The big one. I bete's it for them. It satarter out as a $4,000 program. I still have it around somewhere. I remember the times Kai came to my place to demo it. There was another, but I can't remember the name. It started with a "C". Adobe bought it, and used it as the basis of its non-destructive layering.

I own one copy of live picure, but I never used it. It was a bundle with an Umax pro grade scanner.
post #502 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by Powerdoc
I own one copy of live picure, but I never used it. It was a bundle with an Umax pro grade scanner.

Yeah. When it came out, it was supposed to replace hi-end machines that cost $20,000. So they thought it was cheap at the price. But it never really caught on, because it didn't do as much as PS. It couldn't. Not with the non-destructive concept taken all the way. It's too limiting.

As cpu's got faster, and the need for the program became less of a factor, the price started to come down. In the end, it started to come with equipment, as you see. And PS wasn't nearly as ensconced as it is today.
post #503 of 538
Ars just published a review of Aperture, and their conclusions are unsettling.

http://arstechnica.com/reviews/apps/aperture.ars
post #504 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by Nautical
Ars just published a review of Aperture, and their conclusions are unsettling.

http://arstechnica.com/reviews/apps/aperture.ars

Dang, you just beat me to it!
post #505 of 538
Take it for what its worth, but the concensis unfortunately seems to be moving in this direction.

http://discussions.apple.com/thread....57791&tstart=0

I'm pleased that I decided to wait until January until I got (no maybe) my Quad. It might be best to see if Apple updates this as fast as they did FCP when it first came out. Sigh, this is going back to what I was saying when I got back from the show. Not enough tools. Some of them seemed too simple, and it slowed down or hesitated with a dual 2.5 (or 2.7).

The quality problems weren't known. We didn't have a way to check that.

I hope they fix this fast, or it will die on the vine.

p.s. It would be interesting if those who were promoting and defending this program so strongly before they ever had a chance to see it from those of us who had, would come back and discuss the issues that have arisen now that it's out.
post #506 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Take it for what its worth, but the concensis unfortunately seems to be moving in this direction.

http://discussions.apple.com/thread....57791&tstart=0

I'm pleased that I decided to wait until January until I got (no maybe) my Quad. It might be best to see if Apple updates this as fast as they did FCP when it first came out. Sigh, this is going back to what I was saying when I got back from the show. Not enough tools. Some of them seemed too simple, and it slowed down or hesitated with a dual 2.5 (or 2.7).

The quality problems weren't known. We didn't have a way to check that.

I hope they fix this fast, or it will die on the vine.

p.s. It would be interesting if those who were promoting and defending this program so strongly before they ever had a chance to see it from those of us who had, would come back and discuss the issues that have arisen now that it's out.

That Ars Technica review was laughable. Not useless, just laughable.

He starts out by saying "it's not a Photoshop competitor" then quickly ignores *all* workflow features and concentrates only on filters.

WTF?

His sample images are so full of defects (blurry, blown highlights, etc.), it's hard to tell what Aperture can or cannot do with a decent image. (The thing about Aperture that Photoshop fan-boys don't get is that it's a tool for making good images great--it's not a tool for taking crappy images and rescuing them. I don't see the point in saving crappy images, but apparently from this and other forums, a lot of Photoshop users do. Ever look at the Retouching forum on dpreview.com? It's full of terrible images that need to be rescued. Generally, 90% of those images could simply be taken again, lessons learned about depth of field, lighting, composition, etc. But no, some geeks just like playing with Photoshop. They're not into photography; they're into retouching.)

That being said (I'm off my high horse now ), if Aperture's raw conversion doesn't match Adobe's in terms of quality then it will quickly die on the vine. If there truly are problems (and it sounds like there are), then Apple will need to fix them.

Hopefully 10.4.4's rumored raw fixes will fix a lot of this (since it's not Aperture that has the conversion tools themselves). Even if it doesn't, I'd give Apple 6 months to fix things and/or make public statements/acknowledgements.

DVD Studio Pro 1.x had many problems and yet it was still well worth having. By the time DVDSP 3 came out, it was a world beater for the price.

I'm expecting Apple to work the same magic on Aperture. But only time will tell. Yet it's clear Apple has invested a lot of money in Aperture; I'd be very surprised if they didn't attack these problems head-on.

As mentioned previously, I haven't bought Aperture yet because it doesn't support my Pentax camera. But I have used it in the local Apple Store and it is way, way, WAY impressive!

But without quality raw conversions, workflow means nothing.
post #507 of 538
I'm guessing that what Apple did is this: they came out with a software program where the innovation (the workflow) was fully fleshed out, but the technical details (raw conversion) weren't.

You have to make compromises in a 1.0 version. You just have to.

If they did the opposite--spent all their time on perfect raw conversions--then there wouldn't be many workflow innovations and people would say, "You're charging $500 for what Adobe gives away (ACR)." And they'd be right.

So, IMHO, Apple had no choice but to innovate on the workflow and fix the raw conversions as time goes by.

I guess we'll see.
post #508 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by bikertwin
That Ars Technica review was laughable. Not useless, just laughable.

He starts out by saying "it's not a Photoshop competitor" then quickly ignores *all* workflow features and concentrates only on filters.

WTF?

His sample images are so full of defects (blurry, blown highlights, etc.), it's hard to tell what Aperture can or cannot do with a decent image. (The thing about Aperture that Photoshop fan-boys don't get is that it's a tool for making good images great--it's not a tool for taking crappy images and rescuing them. I don't see the point in saving crappy images, but apparently from this and other forums, a lot of Photoshop users do. Ever look at the Retouching forum on dpreview.com? It's full of terrible images that need to be rescued. Generally, 90% of those images could simply be taken again, lessons learned about depth of field, lighting, composition, etc. But no, some geeks just like playing with Photoshop. They're not into photography; they're into retouching.)

That being said (I'm off my high horse now ), if Aperture's raw conversion doesn't match Adobe's in terms of quality then it will quickly die on the vine. If there truly are problems (and it sounds like there are), then Apple will need to fix them.

Hopefully 10.4.4's rumored raw fixes will fix a lot of this (since it's not Aperture that has the conversion tools themselves). Even if it doesn't, I'd give Apple 6 months to fix things and/or make public statements/acknowledgements.

DVD Studio Pro 1.x had many problems and yet it was still well worth having. By the time DVDSP 3 came out, it was a world beater for the price.

I'm expecting Apple to work the same magic on Aperture. But only time will tell. Yet it's clear Apple has invested a lot of money in Aperture; I'd be very surprised if they didn't attack these problems head-on.

As mentioned previously, I haven't bought Aperture yet because it doesn't support my Pentax camera. But I have used it in the local Apple Store and it is way, way, WAY impressive!

But without quality raw conversions, workflow means nothing.

Sadly, I'm reading more articles that are not happy with the program than are. I've a feeling that Apple rushed this out the door. There are legitimate issues here. The review wasn't a crock. He's showing highly enlarged sections of photo's to illustrate the problems. That's standard.

I posted this there a short while ago. I think it's relevant;

"While I'm disappointed with the results of the review, as a long time pro Mac user, I can't argue with the conclusions. I have only sat down with the program at the show.

But the best part of the way Apple has done this is also the worst.

If the quality improves each time the converters that are part of the OS is improved, then yea for that. But, as was pointed out earlier, if that changes corrections already made based upon those earlier converters, then nea to the idea.

The other point raised is also valid. Is the noise seen from Apple's converters caused by the conversion process, or is the smoother result due to something that Adobe's is doing instead? What I did notice is that the Apple converters seemed to get more detail out of the shadow areas on the photos shown in the review. The noise also results when attempting to do the same thing in PS manualy, so perhaps it is that Apple is trying to preserve all of the detail, while Adobe is letting it go.

Perhaps he should take Canon's program and convert it there. Canon's program does a very good job, and has some of the features of Aperture. Then compare the result with the others. Try a couple of independent programs as well, and then do another article.

It's possible that all of these programs are somewhat different.

It's like a problem we have in one of my other areas of interest. Hi end audio.

Tubes give a highly inaccurate sound. But some swear by it. Why? Because the way it is inaccurate can be very pleasant. It makes bad quality sources sound "nice". But it also brings the quality of good source material down to that same "nice" level. So, is that better than solid state which makes bad source material sound just as bad as it is, when it allows good source material to sound better?

So Dave, please do as I suggest, and get back to us. This would be even more useful to know than a review of this single program."
post #509 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
If the quality improves each time the converters that are part of the OS is improved, then yea for that. But, as was pointed out earlier, if that changes corrections already made based upon those earlier converters, then nea to the idea.

This is true of any converter, even Adobe's ACR. When you replace the 3.0 plug-in with the 3.1 plug-in, you may get different results. And if--God forbid--you use the Auto checkboxes in ACR, things could change wildly between versions. It's happened to me. Unlike other "auto" buttons in Photoshop, the "auto" checkboxes in ACR are live--they're not a one-time deal like the Auto Levels button.

Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
The other point raised is also valid. Is the noise seen from Apple's converters caused by the conversion process, or is the smoother result due to something that Adobe's is doing instead? What I did notice is that the Apple converters seemed to get more detail out of the shadow areas on the photos shown in the review. The noise also results when attempting to do the same thing in PS manualy, so perhaps it is that Apple is trying to preserve all of the detail, while Adobe is letting it go.
...
It's possible that all of these programs are somewhat different.

Excellent point, melgross. People "compare" different raw converters all the time, but they're usually comparing the converters' default settings. That tells you almost nothing about the potential quality of a conversion (other than what people prefer as a default).

I think it will be months before we have a good handle on how Apple's raw converters work, and things will likely improve with each 10.4 point release.
post #510 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by bikertwin
I'm guessing that what Apple did is this: they came out with a software program where the innovation (the workflow) was fully fleshed out, but the technical details (raw conversion) weren't.

You have to make compromises in a 1.0 version. You just have to.

If they did the opposite--spent all their time on perfect raw conversions--then there wouldn't be many workflow innovations and people would say, "You're charging $500 for what Adobe gives away (ACR)." And they'd be right.

So, IMHO, Apple had no choice but to innovate on the workflow and fix the raw conversions as time goes by.

I guess we'll see.

I don't know. I'm sure that it sounds lame, even to you.

This is a major step for Apple. The people in the industry I've spoken to after this was announced were shocked that Apple would attempt this. They HAD to put their best foot foward.

It's hard to believe that Apple couldn't have put more software engineers on the job if they had to.

Somehow, they screwed up. Not just with RAW, but with CMYK (remember I mentioned that in the beginning) as well. Convert CMYK to RGB? Horrors!!! CMYK originals are NEVER converted to RGB.

The primitive tools are also a problem. NO curves??? Levels are nice for some limited usage, but no curves??? No threshold on unsharp mask??? Impossible!

These things have got to be rectified quickly, or it will die on the vine, even if RAW is improved, and they must add proper support for DNG which they had better do, because more companies than Hassleblad and Leica are going to standardise on it.
post #511 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by bikertwin
This is true of any converter, even Adobe's ACR. When you replace the 3.0 plug-in with the 3.1 plug-in, you may get different results. And if--God forbid--you use the Auto checkboxes in ACR, things could change wildly between versions. It's happened to me. Unlike other "auto" buttons in Photoshop, the "auto" checkboxes in ACR are live--they're not a one-time deal like the Auto Levels button.



Excellent point, melgross. People "compare" different raw converters all the time, but they're usually comparing the converters' default settings. That tells you almost nothing about the potential quality of a conversion (other than what people prefer as a default).

I think it will be months before we have a good handle on how Apple's raw converters work, and things will likely improve with each 10.4 point release.

The one thing that Adobe does with the file (and the other programs do as well) is to make the correction permanent once the file is moved out of RAW. This doesn't happen with Aperture. There is nowhere for the file to go. The converter IS the program. If you stay within Aperture as has been suggested here as being what 90% of photographers will do, then it's a problem.
post #512 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
I don't know. I'm sure that it sounds lame, even to you.

This is a major step for Apple. The people in the industry I've spoken to after this was announced were shocked that Apple would attempt this. They HAD to put their best foot foward.

It's hard to believe that Apple couldn't have put more software engineers on the job if they had to.

Somehow, they screwed up. Not just with RAW, but with CMYK (remember I mentioned that in the beginning) as well. Convert CMYK to RGB? Horrors!!! CMYK originals are NEVER converted to RGB.

The primitive tools are also a problem. NO curves??? Levels are nice for some limited usage, but no curves??? No threshold on unsharp mask??? Impossible!

These things have got to be rectified quickly, or it will die on the vine, even if RAW is improved, and they must add proper support for DNG which they had better do, because more companies than Hassleblad and Leica are going to standardise on it.

No it doesn't sound lame to me.

All the FUD you're spreading was spread the same way when DVDSP and FCP 1.0 came out. Look where they are now. Apple doesn't give in easily.

Throwing more engineers at a problem doesn't solve it faster. It's the old "you can't deliver a baby with 2 women and 4.5 months" issue.

No curves? No threshold on unsharp mask? These were only added to ACR in the last 6 months. If people scream Apple will add them. It doesn't make the product worthless, though. Lots of people still use PS CS1 and ACR 2.x, right?

Apple's DNG implementation is not complete. It only supports those cameras in which it supports raw conversion directly. Yes, that's pretty stupid. But again, raw conversion comes with the operating system, and new features will be in 10.4.4, 10.4.5, etc.

If you put your expectations in check--FCP 1.0 was not FCP 4.5, after all--then you'll find Aperture is ground breaking.

Bringing these issues up with Apple is great--they need to hear what people think is important so they can prioritize changes--but it hardly means Aperture is going to die on the vine.
post #513 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
The one thing that Adobe does with the file (and the other programs do as well) is to make the correction permanent once the file is moved out of RAW. This doesn't happen with Aperture. There is nowhere for the file to go. The converter IS the program. If you stay within Aperture as has been suggested here as being what 90% of photographers will do, then it's a problem.

This is no different from ACR.

If you export from ACR to PSD, tweak it, print it, and show it to the customer, and then decide the exposure or white point need to change, you need to go back to ACR and generate it again. If you've upgraded ACR, you may very well get a different PSD.

I agree that this can be an issue (as I said, I ran across it myself), but ACR and Aperture act exactly the same way in this regard.

[Edit]
Personally, I think the raw converters themselves need version control, and the user should be able to choose which version of the converter gets used for each image and/or be able to upgrade all or selected images to a new raw converter version.

[/edit]
post #514 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by bikertwin
No it doesn't sound lame to me.

All the FUD you're spreading was spread the same way when DVDSP and FCP 1.0 came out. Look where they are now. Apple doesn't give in easily.

Throwing more engineers at a problem doesn't solve it faster. It's the old "you can't deliver a baby with 2 women and 4.5 months" issue.

No curves? No threshold on unsharp mask? These were only added to ACR in the last 6 months. If people scream Apple will add them. It doesn't make the product worthless, though. Lots of people still use PS CS1 and ACR 2.x, right?

Apple's DNG implementation is not complete. It only supports those cameras in which it supports raw conversion directly. Yes, that's pretty stupid. But again, raw conversion comes with the operating system, and new features will be in 10.4.4, 10.4.5, etc.

If you put your expectations in check--FCP 1.0 was not FCP 4.5, after all--then you'll find Aperture is ground breaking.

Bringing these issues up with Apple is great--they need to hear what people think is important so they can prioritize changes--but it hardly means Aperture is going to die on the vine.

Please don't start with that again. I'm certainly not spreading FUD.

I bought FCP when it first came out. Version 1.0. I now have version 5. Has it gotten better/ Well, gee, of course. But FCP was never ripped the way this is being ripped. The reviews for FCP were uniformly excellent. It had few bugs, and no show-stoppers. There were missing features. Apple responded rapidly, and the program improved at an amazing pace.

But Aperture has far more problems than FCP ever had. And it's getting ripped for them. The missing features I mentioned aren't something that can be added if people ask for them. They are absolutely essential in a professional enviornment. Few real pros will accept a program that doesn't have them. I could mention a bunch more, but these are really essential. Who cares about ACR?
These programs are modular in nature. That's the way most software is done these days. If you don't have time to do something because you have to get it out on time, you can assign an engineer to work on that one function. Adobe does that wirth PS. It isn't limitless, but more people does help.

Some features can wait. That's natural. I'll expect Aperture to get better, and add more features as time goes by.

But there are certain minimum requirements that a program intended for pro's, at a $500 dollar price, that had to be included from the get go.

How can you do a proper correction without curves? That is the most important tool for correction. Unsharp mask without threshhold? That's why the sharpening looks so bad. It's a very important control.

Don't make me out as a bad guy here! These things have to be fixed, pronto!

Read around the web, you'll see the disappointment, and even anger. At least I'm calm about it.
post #515 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by bikertwin
This is no different from ACR.

If you export from ACR to PSD, tweak it, print it, and show it to the customer, and then decide the exposure or white point need to change, you need to go back to ACR and generate it again. If you've upgraded ACR, you may very well get a different PSD.

I agree that this can be an issue (as I said, I ran across it myself), but ACR and Aperture act exactly the same way in this regard.

[Edit]
Personally, I think the raw converters themselves need version control, and the user should be able to choose which version of the converter gets used for each image and/or be able to upgrade all or selected images to a new raw converter version.

[/edit]

See, again, I don't care about ACR. I care about Aperture. I WANT it to do well. I don't want people to turn away from it before it has a chance to get off the ground.

I'm very concerned, because as someone who was doing this work long before PS was invented, I know what pros want. Many of my customers used PS. I gave training courses in it. Apple has to realize that some things can't be done their way. It makes me wonder if Jobs had a heavy hand in making these decisions, because it seems very much like his handiwork.
post #516 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
But there are certain minimum requirements that a program intended for pro's, at a $500 dollar price, that had to be included from the get go.

How can you do a proper correction without curves? That is the most important tool for correction. Unsharp mask without threshhold? That's why the sharpening looks so bad. It's a very important control.

Don't make me out as a bad guy here! These things have to be fixed, pronto!

Read around the web, you'll see the disappointment, and even anger. At least I'm calm about it.

The things that you describe as so essential are all very, very recent innovations.

DNG is barely a year old:

http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/pres...DNGQUOTES.html

Curves and sophisticated sharpening were only added to ACR in version 3.0: mere months ago. Photographers have been using ACR without these tools for several years (since PS 7 and ACR 1).

Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
The missing features I mentioned aren't something that can be added if people ask for them.

If Adobe added them to ACR 3.0, what makes them so hard to add to Aperture? I don't understand your argument.

Are they useful tools? Yes.

Are they essential, and any product without them in the next 30 days will quickly die? Hardly.

Have you seen the movie "Chicken Little"?
post #517 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by bikertwin
The things that you describe as so essential are all very, very recent innovations.

DNG is barely a year old:

http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/pres...DNGQUOTES.html

Curves and sophisticated sharpening were only added to ACR in version 3.0: mere months ago. Photographers have been using ACR without these tools for several years (since PS 7 and ACR 1).



If Adobe added them to ACR 3.0, what makes them so hard to add to Aperture? I don't understand your argument.

Are they useful tools? Yes.

Are they essential, and any product without them in the next 30 days will quickly die? Hardly.

Have you seen the movie "Chicken Little"?

Why do you keep mentioning ACR? That's not the only program out there. And just because it was very much behind the times has nothing to do with anything.

What do you mean by very recent? Are you a PS user?

Adobe just invented the DNG format in response to the confusing, and fleeting nature of RAW. That's true.

But curves, and threshold as a part of unsharp mask, have been around almost forever. These are by no means new. I don't ever remember PS without them. All pro programs over the years have had them.

I have in front of me, my old "The Official Adobe Photoshop Handbook", 1991, Bantom Books, ISBN 0-553-34876-0. Just in case you want to check. I keep a lot of material for my historical interest. This was written for version one, but "covers" version two as well.

In it are both "new" controls from version one. Unsharp mask, with threshhold, and Curves, then called Arbitrary Map.

Both were out before then. My old Crossfield system, from England, for those interested, had both, years before PS was out.
post #518 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Why do you keep mentioning ACR? ...
But curves, and threshold as a part of unsharp mask, have been around almost forever. These are by no means new. I don't ever remember PS without them. All pro programs over the years have had them.

I have in front of me, my old "The Official Adobe Photoshop Handbook", 1991, Bantom Books, ISBN 0-553-34876-0. Just in case you want to check. I keep a lot of material for my historical interest. This was written for version one, but "covers" version two as well.

In it are both "new" controls from version one. Unsharp mask, with threshhold, and Curves, then called Arbitrary Map.

I thought you were one of the people who agreed that Aperture was a complement to Photoshop and not a replacement. Must've misremembered.
post #519 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by bikertwin
I thought you were one of the people who agreed that Aperture was a complement to Photoshop and not a replacement. Must've misremembered.

I do. But you are avoiding the point.

A program must stand on its own. I have nothing against that. In fact, I insist upon it!

I can see bringing files into Aperture, making adjustments to the RAW image, and exporting out to PS for further work.

But the adjustments to the RAW file must be there, and they must work better than the adjustments in PS. If not, then what point do they serve?

I can also see myself using it for those images that only need some corrections. But if the corrections don't work, how do I use them?

Is the program only good as a database and sorting program then?

It must be more. Don't think that other companies in the field aren't trying this right now in their programming departments. Other programs will adopt features from this, and add what Apple left out, or didn't do well.

In order for this to succeed, Apple has to stay ahead. I'm rooting for them, but I'm not going to pretend that it doesn't have serious flaws. We don't help Apple if we don't let them know, loud and clear, that something isn't right.

No one here wants this to succeed more than I do.
post #520 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
But the adjustments to the RAW file must be there, and they must work better than the adjustments in PS.

You mean, ACR, right?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac Software
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Apple introduces Aperture