Apple introduces Aperture - Page 3

I'd say you did because you made an accusation without explaining it at the same time you made the accusation. Basically, you yourself were threadcrapping too.

Did you mean PS Elements?

Whoops, yes.

I'm not saying Apple is going to destroy Adobe, but Adobe sees it as a threat. Microsoft is after their ass too. It's the monopoly they are afraid of losing. I doubt Apple could repeat the Final Cut/Premiere coup.

Apple potential CS Competitor

I kinda hope Adobe will start innovating. I really hope they've got a team of people secretly working in parallel with the PS team building a new Photoshop. It just can't be healthy to keep tacking on code to a dinosauric codebase.

I just got back from the show.

I haven't read all of the latest posts after this one so I don't kniow what's been said.

I spoke to two Apple reps. I was told that Aperture DID require a 128MB board. All of the supported boards are on their site. Of course you have to read between the lines because sometimes a board in a family is supported even though it's not on the site. Often this is so because Apple has blinders on. Because of that, sometimes they only list GPU's that they themselves have offered.

There is no way that Premier can be compared to PS. Premier was a groundbreaking app that didn't keep up with advances in the field.

When Dv came out, Premier couldn't even import it. Radius came out with Edit which was designed for Dv and did a great job of working with it.

When Premier did import it, it required another small program for the purpose. The resulting mess was a joke.

Finally, in version 6 they got their act together. But the program still felt as though it was cobbled together. It was out of touch and out of date.

When FCP came out it was everything Premier should have been, and more. It was a true pro level editor which Premier never was intended to be.

The rest, as they say, is history.

But on the PC, Adobe made significant improvements in ver 7. It is what it should have been on the Mac. If Adobe made those improvements for us, the program would still be selling.

But they chose to remove it.

PS is just the opposite. It is, so to speak, the premier photo editing platform, and much more than that to those involved in using it every day. It won't be so easy to approach it.

People who say that is is old and outdated don't use it. They also don't seem to know that it was completely rewritten in ver 5, and large parts were rewritten again in ver 6. The program was rewritten to be modular so that Adobe could pull modules out when better code became available without affecting other parts of the program. It's an amazing work.

Prove it all or retract it all. Give us a link or something.

I'm not gonna stand here and believe someone that has been wrong very often on this board and that feels like giving opinions about software he doesn't even bother reading about.

PS is not an image creation program even though there are those who do use it for that purpose.

It is a production tool. In production work for publication there are many routes to take. The more approaches you have available to you, the easier it is to take the right one.

I noticed in the demo and after sitting down at the computer in the hands on classroom, that Aperture has lifted a number of things from PS. That is not a criticism. It happens all the time. Good ideas are recycled.

I was actually very impressed with what the program does do. I was also very impressed with the ease and smoothness with with it does it.

If you have a top of the line machine, video card, and large hi-rez monitor.

Otherwise, forget it.

All the demo's were done on Powermacs with at least dual 2.5GHz cpu's with more than a sprinkling of quads. ALL of the monitors were 30", except in the classrom, and those were 23's. And each machine had two attached (except in the class).

On those setups, every change was instantaneous. They said that it would work with slower machines, but that it did need the power.

It does color correction and gamma well. There are tools that will speed up the process of dealing with contrast, much as Adobe introduced.

The process of selection is excellent. The process of organization is excellent in the areas it handles, but it does need work.

The important area of CMYK conversion is not implemented well at all. You can choose profiles. If local printing is off, you can adjust gamma. But whole slews of corrections for CMYK are left out.

There is nothing for Hexachrome or other printing methods which have become more popular over the years. Nothing to deal with screening is available either. Or trapping.

Its print production tools are interesting but too basic for anything other than the most basic of layout work, and there is no way to retrieve the layout to input it to an imposition program.

The program is very slick, and doesn't seem to compete with PS except in basic areas of photo correction. It is like others in more ways than it is like PS.

I'll probably buy it and play around with it, but certainly, at this time it is not a production tool for the publishing shop. It seems more oriented towards the individual photog who does printing on a local machine, or who wants to send for books printed from Apple.

You're being an ass.

No I'm not...I want some proof that Photoshop was rewritten from scratch, please.

You can't just make a hand gesture and hope the Jedi mind trick works on all board members. I want some solid proof that Photoshop was rewritten.

We have to remember that this is very difficult to do. Apple, Adobe, and the other programs that have managed to get this working are to be praised. These companies have to deal with the camera manufacturers constantly getting samples of the equiplent and software, then updating their supported lists.

I would hope that Apple might wish to take advantage of their doing this for Aperture, but it's hard to say. I wish I thought of asking them this today. Maybe if I have time to go back.

I make that mistake too.

You really are an inane person.

I will never say that I'm right all the time, but to say that I've been wrong "very often" is wrong itself. Just because some of us disagree at times doesn't give you the right to be insulting when you are on the short side of the stick.

If anything, you know far less than I do. You know nothing about Photoshop, for instance.

I doubt that you can evaluate Aperture because you obviously don't work in a graphics/publishing workflow.

Often you don't have to know all the details of a program to know that the broad strokes aren't suitable for a purpose, based on years of experience in working in that area.

Be polite, or leave.

It's great. But notice that Apple has chosen to carefully keep out of Adobe's territory.

I'll ask one more time...prove your earlier assertions. If you don't, you don't know what you're talking about.

Photoshop is about image creation.

Aperture is a photographer's production tool. And a better one. In key fundamentals....it does most of what I'd use Photoshop for. Take out the cheesy filters....add brush tools and layers...

If Adobe won't include Core Image functionality. Apple will. What have Adobe been doing for the last 18 months? Will they include it in the next 18 months or will Bruce Sales Guy Chisen give us the 'non-trivial' intel port and say, 'well...alot of work just went into the port...' (Because we should have heaved our fat code off Code Warrior into X-Code years ago?)

Fact is, if it added brush tools and layers? (Well, that can come with version 2....) Along with Automator?

I could see myself using this beautiful program rather than photoshop.

It's ironic that Aperture is more Photoshop than Photoshop is. It sings with a pure mission brief...

5, 6, 7, 8, 9. That's five upgrades since Version 4 (which I still rate...) And what innovation has Adobe given us for that £2,500?

So, because I don't see the world through Melgross eyes I'm 'trolling'.

I think the 'improvements' since version 4 have been largely cosmetic in a 'sales'/gamesmanship kind of way...and feature clutter..? The interface?

Don't get me wrong...if Photoshop was a woman? I'd shag her...

...but if Aperture is going where I think it is? I'd marry her...

Lemon Bon Bon

PS. Qualify you statements with links. Kim Kap Sol asked you to validfy your argument. You've failed to do so. So your statement is unqualified. He's not being an 'ass' for asking you do so.

How do you know that? Do you KNOW Kim?

I own Photoshop? It's my favourite Mac app. Do I not know what I'm talking about either?

For now, Aperture is complimentry (heh...'yeah, right...') but if it improves like Final Cut Pro improved...Photoshop could be in serious trouble come version 4 of Aperture...

I think Apple might have been dicked off with Bruce Chizen once too often...

Quark was invulnerable once. Now? Indesign is giving it a right kicking.

No program is invulnerable. Not Word. Not Quark. Not Photoshop. History shows otherwise.

Complacent monopolies...shrivel over time...from the top down....

Lemon Bon Bon

PS. Adobe couldn't compete in several media areas with Macromedia. So they bought them out. We'll see if they innovate with that. I'm guessing it will be just a bundle job with the Creative Suite. Call Xreative Suite 1 or something...

Apple have bought programs. But they have innovated with that core tech'.

You really are a something, but I'll try to find information as I can, after all, we're only talking about 8 years ago.

This doesn't come near to explaining the complete changeover Adobe made, but it's a start. He just makes a brief reference to it.

http://www.atpm.com/4.08/page18.shtml

If I have time I'll try to find more at some point.

I like a good argument . But when you guys just make unprovoked stements, that's not helpful.

Lemon Bon Bon

PS. "stements"? Unprovoked? You called someone an 'ass'. And speaking of provoking... You're still here, aintcha?
PPS. Maybe you'll have to accept the fact that not everybody sees things as you do.

http://www.publish.com/article2/0,1895,1873588,00.asp

Worth a read.

Invulnerable no more.

Lemon Bon Bon

I wouldn't be surprised if Apple had a number of top-secret projects of the kind (the 'just in case' kind if MS decided to pull Office or if Adobe decided to pull Photoshop).

Sure, if MS and Adobe pull their flagship product, it'll hurt the Mac platform...but Apple will make sure these apps don't break for years to come so that current Office and PS users can slowly transition to the apps they'll be releasing in the next few years.

Seeing how Apple could keep Aperture secret for so long is a good indication Numbers/Spreadsheet app and other interesting apps are coming. And it'll be all about 'workflow'.

Adobe has had competition from other's over the years for Photoshop dominance. Even from Microsoft itself.

I agree with Melgross in the reason Photoshop has become entrenched is because it effectively serves the need of its market. I don't know many photographer's, graphics artist, or photo editors who do not use Photoshop, and would take some doing to move Photoshop form its position.

I also agree that Photoshop's user interface can use some serious rethought. And that Aperture is an example of that. From what I've seen has an excellent design for its user interface.

Adobe should take a close look at Aperture, look at Apple's example of use of Core Image, and take advantage of these API's. Adobe may need to do this also with Vista as Microsoft is doing the same in developing photo API's native to the OS.

I thoughroughly dissagree that Aperture is a Photoshop killer. They do not over lap function that much.

What can happen as in my case is that I really need the functionality of an app like Aperture more than I need the advanced functions of Photoshop.

Because I am more in the photography side. I take still pictures of my lighting and camera set ups. I don't do much digital photo manipulation.

melgross, thank you for the report from the show. I can't wait to see Aperture in person myself. Did Apple have it running on any laptops? Any hint on how it might possibly run on intel laptops perhaps?

It'd be appreciated if melgross could use the bathroom instead of relieving his/her bowels on this thread.

You don't call that unprovoked? Perhaps you didn't read it?

I'm surprised at you.

No, they did not. From my conversation, I got the feeling that this wasn't intended to be used on a laptop, though it could be.

I wouldn't even dream of asking about "future products".

The requirements of Aperture are quite hefty (significantly higher than any other app in the Pro line.) I wouldn't be surprised if Apple produced an "Express" version of Aperture that runs better than "barely" on the best laptops.

I bet that there are a lot of people that, while I would still call them experts, they're not really professionals in the field. They don't have their own studios, $20,000 cameras, and the like, but they are better than iPhoto. These people would definitely appreciate much of the Aperture functionality, but they still would like to be able to take it around on their laptop.

It should be interesting, the Powerbooks BARELY squeak by 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

It's a shame that Aperture won't run on the 12" Powerbook at all but will run on the iMac G5 - a consumer machine. What a joke the Powerbooks have become.

My only hopes are (1) that Apple updates the Powerbook 12" before or shortly after the release of Aperture to meet the minimum requirements or (2) that Aperture's web site shows a change to the minimum requirements to include the 12" Powerbook. The second is possible - they changed the Core Image "requirements" when the iBooks were released and only had 32 MB of video RAM, but I highly doubt it's going to happen in this case.

Those requirements make the app severely limiting. Sure, if you're a studio photographer who shoots on the road for short periods of time (weekends or even a single day during the week) or in studio and then works for days editing, culling and printing, Aperture will be fine with your Power Mac G5 with dual 30" displays sitting in your studio. But what about photojournalists who are in Latvia, Iraq, Syria, etc. and need a mobile system to edit and cull photos while moving from place to place, possibly working on a plane during travel in order to submit by a deadline. Sorry. You're out of luck.

It's not for pro photographers. It's for SOME pro photographers. Looks like I'll be shooting in JPEG for another 5 years until I finish my PhD and am ready to buy a new system. What a shame.

Here's a good article.

http://www.thestreet.com/stocks/troy.../10248381.html

Several people have said that Aperture doesn't directly challenge Photoshop. I think that that is true now but that Aperture will challenge Photoshop sooner rather than later. Apple uses its software to drive its hardware sales. Right now, the only hardware that can run Aperture in a reasonable way is expensive, so Aperture can be expensive. A year from now Aperture will run smoothly on cheaper hardware, and Aperture's price will be lowered accordingly. Non-professionals who use Photoshop or Elements primarily for image adjustment can switch to Aperture, which may be a superior tool for this since it fully uses Apple technology. Professionals who want pixel-perfect images won't abandon Photoshop, but a lot of other people--like me--might. Of course, then I wouldn't have the pleasure of arguing with the Photoshop Installer over whether each new version I install is really an upgrade.

I won't speak to Apple's future plans, since I don't know them. I'll only talk about the present.

Aperture is to Photoshop as InDesign is to Word.

Photoshop is powerful and complex and can be used for just about anything, from photography to CMYK production to de novo image creation to photo illustration. Word is powerful and complex and is used for everything from memos to newsletters to Ph.D. theses to mailmerge.

But neither Photoshop nor Word excel at any one thing. They're general purpose tools. It's great that they're so flexible (and lots of people buy them because of that flexibility), but for a *certain* audience that flexibility is a liability.

On the other hand, InDesign and Aperture are designed for a very *specific* audience. Creating newsletters and brochures is a dream in InDesign. Sure, you can replicate a lot of that in Word, but that's not the point. InDesign was crafted for creative types, not memo writers.

In the same vein, Aperture was designed for photographers. Not photo illustrators, not printing/production, not painters. It's for photographers.

And it hits the bulls eye beautifully!

My pitchfork is used exclusively in my garden. My wife won't let me bring a torch in the house outside of my shoops.

Ok, let me straighten things out here.

Thursday I went to the show. This is what I did regarding Aperture.

I spoke to several Apple reps about the program and hardware needed to run it.

I sat through the 20 minute presentation.

I took the hands on class they gave.

I think I have a pretty good idea of what this program is capable of doing at this time, and who would benefit from it the most.

Wedding and event photogs.

This group of people is going to get the most out of this. The great ability to organize and select photos is this program's strength. The work ing with RAW images is well done, though it does need support for more pro cameras than it has now. That would limit it. The amount of correction available will satisfy most of their needs. Wedding photog's will still have to go to PS for "special effects" (picture in picture,etc), but most of it can be done here. For them, the book layout function can be useful, if the client doesn't object to getting something that isn't a "real" photo. Otherwise this app can be close to perfect for them

Photojournalists.

It would depend on how the photog has to work. If (s)he has to organize and select photos, while doing their own corrections, then the front end of this program will again be perfect. If, like many journalists, they don't do any of that, just sending or bringing their work in for the editors to organize and select, with the journal itself doing all of the setup and correction, then the program won't be useful. Possibly the front end will be of use to the editorial staff.

Individual pro's other than the above mentioned.

It depends on how their work is used and output. If it goes to publication, and they do the selecting, then is will be of great help, again in the front end, as long as extensive work is not required. The output part of the program is not ready for that as yet. For local printing it is fine.

Commercial studio work.

Here, this program is the least suitable. Most comm photog's who are digital are using camera's and backs that are supplied with hi level programs that suit their purpose. Two systems I work with, Leaf and Phase One are setup for the high volume studio. The programs come with realtime abilities. As photo's are being shot at speeds of up to about a photo a second (medium format backs can't shoot faster than that as yet) the pics appear on the monitor screen in a contact sheet like format. The pics parade down the screen and can be instantly picked and enlarged to look at, or discarded from the emerging group (but not actually thrown away, just put into a discard folder). The editor is usually sitting at the computer doing this as the session is live, often stopping it to consult with the people on the set. These programs also do hi level correcting to preset standards the photog can adjust to meet individual clients needs.

Aperture may have some use after this is all done, but I can't see it taking the place of these highly specialized programs. These companies also will work with the individual photog and customize certain parts of the program as needed. Apple can't give that kind of service as they are not making or selling cameras and backs in the five figures. Nor should they be expected to.

Those are the main categories. There are sub categories, but that covers it fairly well. It remains to be seen if Apple is as responsive to the needs of photographers are they have been to filmmakers.

Well that's also what Apple is saying

Yes, it is. But tempered by those groupings.

Having now read through the info on the web site and watched the videos, I guess I can understand why it's not going to run on a 12" PB with only 64MB video RAM. If I've understood it correctly, the processing is done on the fly, since the original RAW file is untouched, and the changes are just a set of commands that tells Aperture what to do to the image. No wonder it takes serious horsepower .

I think there have been some excellent posts here summing up Aperture's mandate.

It may not directly compete now. But if it follows Final Cut's road to potential...then...

Give it brushes, layers/channels, a few more of Final Cut's whizzy fx...and...I'd give it serious consideration. I'd use it.

I still think Photoshop is more for photo-illustration. I use it as such. It is great at manipulating and editing images. You can, of course, touch up photographs. But over the years it's become much more a an 'art shop' product. It's not got the raw fine art approach of Painter. (and god knows why Adobe didn't buy it when they had the chance...) But I think more and more...it's name is a misnoma. Photography might have been its original mandate...but it became a bit more sprawling than that...

Aperture hits the spot perfectly for a photographer. It is a 'photoshop'.

But for a Photographer? Who isn't also an 'artist' or illustrator? There's a new kid in town.

And it's Aperture.

If I'm an artist? At this stage of the game. If I want to create Artwork or manipulate it to any extent? If I want to take it beyond being merely a source photo? Or source piece of art? I'd use Photoshop.

If I was 'merely' photographer? I'd use Aperture. No question. Hands down. It's superb.

Lemon Bon Bon

Let me tell you how they demo'd it.

All of the machines they had around the booth (actually around the booth on both sides. The center was used for the demo and classroom.) were PM's. I didn't ask which, but each one was using two 30" displays.

The classroom was also using PM's with 23" displays. I think they would have used 30", but you couldn't have seen above them to the screen in front.

No iMacs, No Powerbooks.

I think the new PB's have had a screen upgrade only so that they could run this, if more slowly. This is not a program that will be happy on a small low rez (1280x1024) screen.

Hmmm. Uncalled for. But...you didn't have to name call back...

Lemon Bon Bon