or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Apple releases Aperture 1.1
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple releases Aperture 1.1 - Page 3

post #81 of 137
Dude...

Lightroom is like 0% there. Have you SEEN the beta. No class, no functionality, no usefullness.

The only thing that can compete with Aperature is Photoshop itself. If Adobe gets CS3 with a really nice organization system *NOT LIGHTROOM* it would compete
post #82 of 137
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gene Clean
[B]For a person who was successful enough to form a company that was 'in the business for a long time' you certainly show some lack of understanding about pro photography, camera weight, the importance of stability, and last but not least, you show a disturbing lack of grammar skills. In a hurry?

Thank you for commenting on the fact that I neglected to check through my post, as I usually do. That makes your argument stronger, no doubt.

I certainly don't lack knowledge about pro photography. I'm willing to match my knowledge against yours any time.

Camera weight is a matter of preference. While theoretically, a heavier camera will add to stability, and I prefer heaver cameras myself, there isn't much to be gained when using wide angle to moderate tele zoom lenses. Another few ounces one way or the other won't make a difference in low light conditions either. What matters more, is how you hold the camera, how you stand, whether you let your breath out when pressing the shutter, and whether you have mastered the gentle release.

Smaller people with small hands often have more problems with large, heavy cameras than with small, light ones. A heavy camera will often lead to hand shake for someone who isn't strong.

I'm certainly not recommending a Rebel, or for that matter, a D50, for a pro. As a main camera, they will choose higher end models. Even the D200, and the 30D aren't considered to be pro models. They are both thought of as prosumer models, or, at best, light duty studio cameras.

But, pros will throw them into their camera bags just to be safe.

Unfortunately, not all pros do the kind of work that generates the kind of fees that will enable them to spend upwards of $4,000 on a body. Those pro's may rely on D200's, and 30D's. They will throw Rebels and D70's in their bags instead.


Quote:
You missed the whole point. They can use rose gold and pay through the nose for it, but that doesn't change the fact that the camera feels like a snapshot camera that is cheaply built. 'Cheaply built' doesn't mean that the exterior was cheap to get for Canon, or that it's made of cardboard, but that it's a camera that was not built to last a long time.

We've already had a post from someone who doesn't agree with your statement.

But, just how long do you expect any of these low end camera's to last? Models that were criticized as being plastic and flimsy have lasted for three decades now. Polycarbonate is more rugged than the aluminum that most camera bodies were made from. When an aluminum body drops onto a hard surface, it often cracks. The parts inside are subject to the enormous shock. With poly bodies, the camera remains intact. The interior sustains less damage. The lighter weight of these bodies contributes to that as well, as less mass is involved.

The very expensive pro bodies are made from heavy magnesium castings that sustain much less damage than aluminum ones that cheaper bodies use. The pro bodies are also designed with shock mounting for critical assemblies. They are also carefully sealed against dust, water, and some chemicals. None of the lower price cameras can claim that, though the D200, and the 30D do have some seals in delicate areas.

Weight and feel are not good indicators of longevity.


Quote:
Not in a discussion about camera bodies.

The discussion isn't just about camera bodies.


Quote:
Again, this doesn't matter when talking about the build quality of the CAMERA BODY. Lenses are interchangeable. The body is not. That's the point.

As above.

Quote:
And Canon lenses are not a God's gift to humanity, au contraire, most of Canon lenses are lenses that are not of higher quality when compared to Nikon/Nikkor lenses; only the highest of high-end Canon lenses have a slight advantage when compared to high-end Nikon lenses.

The rest are... well, lenses.

We have to compare oranges to oranges. Or, lens lines to lens lines. Both Canon, and Nikon have several lines of lenses. The cheap lines that beginners buy. Those are bought by those buying the cheapest 35mm bodies. the mechanical and optical is pretty good, considering what people are being charged for them.

Then there are the medium quality lenses. Those are bought mostly by amateurs. They are made better, and the optical quality is also better. They may be a half stop or so faster as well.

Then there the pro lenses. These are often much more expensive. Again, they are more rugged, and have much better optical quality. They MAY be faster.

At last we have the top of the line lenses. These use special glass, fluorite (yes, a few lenses still use it), and aspheric elements. They also have complex focusing and zooming mechanisms. They are often faster than any other lenses in their focal length. 300mm f 2.8, 400mm f 2.8, 600mm f 4, etc. These are much more expensive than even the regular pro lenses.

so, compare line to line.

The cheap lenses are a catch as catch can. None of them will win any prizes except when compared to each other. The comparisons between the better lenses are more meaningful, because if one is going to buy only the cheapest lenses, they any camera is good enough.
post #83 of 137
Quote:
Originally posted by icfireball
Dude...

Lightroom is like 0% there. Have you SEEN the beta. No class, no functionality, no usefullness.

The only thing that can compete with Aperature is Photoshop itself. If Adobe gets CS3 with a really nice organization system *NOT LIGHTROOM* it would compete

Yeah, icfireball, I agree completely. Lightroom is definitely not there. Maybe beta 3 will be a miracle?

But then listening to the Lightroom team's podcasts, they're aiming pretty low. Not impressive at all.

Nonetheless, history has shown that bundling a free but lame tool will often kill off a much better tool. IMHO, Apple has no choice but to come out with a PS (or PS Elements)-like tool, and soon.

First there was Final Cut Pro. But that could never be successful by itself in the world of suites and bundles. So then there was DVD Studio Pro. Then Motion and Soundtrack and Live Type (not necessarily in that order). Now it's a classy suite.

IMHO, Apple has to do the same thing for photo/design. Look how all the iLife apps (except the latest one, iWeb) have pro versions. That bodes well for an iWeb Pro (or whatever you want to call it).

First Aperture, then a pro web design tool, then a pro drawing tool, then a pro photography tool, then a pro page layout tool. It's all coming...eventually.

It just seems unlikely that Apple will let Aperture sit there all by itself. Adobe will try to kill it any way it can.
post #84 of 137
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
You really have to stop feeling inferior so often. It wasn't an insult. It was a compliment!

Can I have some of the drugs you're on? That's an interesting reality.
post #85 of 137
Quote:
Originally posted by bikertwin
Can I have some of the drugs you're on? That's an interesting reality.

Because you seem to think that if someone disagrees with you they automatically have no respect for you. Not true.

I was pointing out that since you would have done research before buying your camera, others could be expected to do the same. If you re-read the original post will less venom, you would see that.
post #86 of 137
Quote:
Originally posted by bikertwin
Yeah, icfireball, I agree completely. Lightroom is definitely not there. Maybe beta 3 will be a miracle?



It just seems unlikely that Apple will let Aperture sit there all by itself. Adobe will try to kill it any way it can.

Aperture was too expansive. It's much better now. The 1,1 version is also much better than the previous one, excepting for the noise reduction in the de-rawtisator module, where I do not see any difference while checking or unchecking this option.

Adobe will try to kill this software, but there is a very umportant point. When you have the habit of using a particular software and you love it, you are unwilling to change your habits.
It take time for me, to know to use Aperture : I do not want to re-learn an another software now.
post #87 of 137
Quote:
Originally posted by Powerdoc
When you have the habit of using a particular software and you love it, you are unwilling to change your habits.
It take time for me, to know to use Aperture : I do not want to re-learn an another software now.

Yeah, that's why Adobe has the free beta of Lightroom. Hook 'em while they're not thinking.
post #88 of 137
Quote:
Originally posted by bikertwin
Yeah, that's why Adobe has the free beta of Lightroom. Hook 'em while they're not thinking.

Yes, but the first version that I tested of lightroom was a failure : damn slow. It seems that Adobe released in hurry, lightroom because they where scared by aperture.
The good thing, is that Apple was obliged to discount aperture
post #89 of 137
Hopefully, they will keep other on their toes.
post #90 of 137
Why is it that with cameras, light == cheap, yet with laptops, light == expensive ??

I mostly use my 300D for landscape photography, and that usually means carrying the damned thing to the top of a mountain. Let me tell you, it's quite heavy enough, thank you. If the Nikon were heavier, that would definitely deter me from buying it.
post #91 of 137
Quote:
Originally posted by Gee4orce
Why is it that with cameras, light == cheap, yet with laptops, light == expensive ??

I mostly use my 300D for landscape photography, and that usually means carrying the damned thing to the top of a mountain. Let me tell you, it's quite heavy enough, thank you. If the Nikon were heavier, that would definitely deter me from buying it.

You are right, trekkers, hate weight
post #92 of 137
Quote:
Originally posted by Gee4orce
[B]Why is it that with cameras, light == cheap, yet with laptops, light == expensive ??

Because, some people still regard the word "plastic" to mean "cheap". Which it doesn't.

In relatively inexpensive cameras, polycarbonate has proven to be more durable that aluminum.
post #93 of 137
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Because, some people still regard the word "plastic" to mean "cheap". Which it doesn't.

In relatively inexpensive cameras, polycarbonate has proven to be more durable that aluminum.

Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, should regard the word "plastics" cheap.

i am making plastics right now.
post #94 of 137
I wonder how many current members get that reference.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #95 of 137
Bikertwin.

You might be interested to know that Sigma has just added Minolta and Pentax mounts to some of their lens offerings.
post #96 of 137
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Bikertwin.

You might be interested to know that Sigma has just added Minolta and Pentax mounts to some of their lens offerings.

"just"?

Sure, maybe they just added a couple, but they've been doing Pentax since forever.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/ref=...sigma%20pentax

Hey, did you hear Shake Universal Binary is coming out next month. Sorry, couldn't resist.
post #97 of 137
Quote:
Originally posted by Frank777
I wonder how many current members get that reference.

Count me out.

Was that from The Graduate or something? Googling didn't return much.
post #98 of 137
Quote:
Originally posted by bikertwin
"just"?

Sure, maybe they just added a couple, but they've been doing Pentax since forever.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/ref=...sigma%20pentax

Hey, did you hear Shake Universal Binary is coming out next month. Sorry, couldn't resist.

Not on the current digital series. That's new. At least it's here.

Yes, of course. But did you notice that they had to put FCP 6 back in order to do it?
post #99 of 137
Quote:
Originally posted by JBL
I agree! Those people who bought the original Macintosh. Sheeshh! 8MHz CPU and 128 KB of memory for $3000. If they had just waited 20 years they could have a machine 500 times as fast with 4000 times as much memory (not to mention a hard drive) for that kind of money.

My computer can beat up your computer.
Reply
My computer can beat up your computer.
Reply
post #100 of 137
It's an old joke that originated on these boards.

Kim may have a better recollection than I do, but it has to do with the unveiling of the original iMac which was the first mac to go 'plastic'.

After the changes in colour, the boards were always buzzing with questions about the next iMac colour scheme. Kim's insider claim that he was always right because he was "making plastics right now" became the board's definitive answer to this question.

Did I get that right?
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #101 of 137
Quote:
Originally posted by Frank777
It's an old joke that originated on these boards.

Kim may have a better recollection than I do, but it has to do with the unveiling of the original iMac which was the first mac to go 'plastic'.

After the changes in colour, the boards were always buzzing with questions about the next iMac colour scheme. Kim's insider claim that he was always right because he was "making plastics right now" became the board's definitive answer to this question.

Did I get that right?

Oh yes...you're spot on.

I too am curious...how many people here have been around in those days.

I managed to snag the name after the AI boards went back online and were completely reset.
post #102 of 137
Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol
Oh yes...you're spot on.

I too am curious...how many people here have been around in those days.

I managed to snag the name after the AI boards went back online and were completely reset.

heh. I was but a wee lurker back then-- but it was the drama of insider info, ala "worker bee" that kept me coming back, eventually to become the cranky, ill-informed member of our community that I am today.

Alas, the new Apple of airtight security makes for less fun come product rollout time, although of course I always enjoy the elaborate fakes.

Still, I miss refreshing my browser every ten seconds on the night before MacWorld, on the off-chance somebody spilled some beans (mmmm Canadian Time).
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #103 of 137
I assume that this has been seen?

http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0604aperture.html
post #104 of 137
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
I assume that this has been seen?

http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0604aperture.html

WOW.

Okay, the options I can see are:

1) Aperture has served its purpose, by scaring the daylights out of Adobe.
2) Aperture is being completely re-written by another team.
3) Aperture team was heavily downsized, as the app needed more resources for startup, but not as much to maintain.
4) Think Secret is being fed misinformation.

No. 1. is unlikely, since Apple wouldn't tread on Adobe's turf without resolving to see the matter through.

No 2. is plausible, but one would think Steve would have approved the rewrite before allowing the app to be released.

No. 3 is also plausible. Filemaker 7's team was disbanded after the product was completely rewritten. There were similar rumors of Apple killing the app, which did not materialize and a new version 8 has kept the product moving forward.

With Apple, No. 4. is always a possibility.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #105 of 137
Quote:
Originally posted by Frank777
WOW.

Okay, the options I can see are:

1) Aperture has served its purpose, by scaring the daylights out of Adobe.
2) Aperture is being completely re-written by another team.
3) Aperture team was heavily downsized, as the app needed more resources for startup, but not as much to maintain.
4) Think Secret is being fed misinformation.

No. 1. is unlikely, since Apple wouldn't tread on Adobe's turf without resolving to see the matter through.

No 2. is plausible, but one would think Steve would have approved the rewrite before allowing the app to be released.

No. 3 is also plausible. Filemaker 7's team was disbanded after the product was completely rewritten. There were similar rumors of Apple killing the app, which did not materialize and a new version 8 has kept the product moving forward.

With Apple, No. 4. is always a possibility.

I also agree that 1 is a no go.

2 is basically what Thinksecret said happened.

3 could be possible, but with so many problems, and now that Adobe has weighed in, this isn't likely.

4 is very unlikely. The truth of this will be seen shortly anyway.
post #106 of 137
I'd take anything ThinkSecret publishes with a grain of salt. Its track record in the last 2 years has been, how should I say, terrible at best.
post #107 of 137
I am on board with #2.

The original team Fsked up the app. It looks nice but needs some serious work in order to compete in the years to come. Putting the Motion and Shake teams on it was probably a good idea. These guys know the elaborate tricks and code mojo to get the app to really shine. Pro app team doing the pro app thing for Aperture.

I don't think Apple will kill off a promising new software release shortly after its release. It would create too much animosity with the pro photo crowd.

Also, Apple is pushing the 17" promac with images of Aperture.

No, I think this is just a team shuffle now that it is out the door.
post #108 of 137
I haven't had any major bugs with it (but I haven't used it incredibly long yet). This is an interesting move by Apple. What if Microsoft did the same thing to its engineers who produced messed up software?


Seriously, the only thing that's bugging me about aperture isn't a bug, but the lack of a feature almost all other RAW editors have. Pre-set lighting options. I went to a wedding and took a bunch of pictures in RAW, but my white balance was off. Now all of my pictures are horribly yellow/oarnge. I can adjust them myself, but none of my adjustments look as good as what my dad's program can do automatically.

I may have to start opening the images in Bridge and then move them to Aperture *ugh*
post #109 of 137
I don't think it's such a big deal. The big company Apple has become, it would only be surprising *not* to have a screwup once in a while. They had a team that didn't work well, they changed it, next ...

Good managment should do that.

MS doesn't.
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 #110 of 137
This is likely a non-story. Engineering teams are regularly broken up and re-assigned after the initial objective is achieved. Aperture 1.1 represents that objective. The development objectives for Aperture now change.

The guff about poor design is rubbish.
post #111 of 137
Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol
I'd take anything ThinkSecret publishes with a grain of salt. Its track record in the last 2 years has been, how should I say, terrible at best.

It's interesting that you say that, because every time they predict something good, people here are pointing out how often they have been RIGHT. Like, they are the most reliable of all the rumors sites.

But, when they post something that comes across as negative, then it's said that they are inaccurate.

It can't be both. They are being sued by Apple for a reason.
post #112 of 137
Quote:
Originally posted by vinney57
This is likely a non-story. Engineering teams are regularly broken up and re-assigned after the initial objective is achieved. Aperture 1.1 represents that objective. The development objectives for Aperture now change.

The guff about poor design is rubbish.

So then, you can say with authority that the underlying code is just fine? Because, that's what they are talking about. So, unless you have de-compiled it, you can't say. Can you?
post #113 of 137
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
It's interesting that you say that, because every time they predict something good, people here are pointing out how often they have been RIGHT. Like, they are the most reliable of all the rumors sites.

But, when they post something that comes across as negative, then it's said that they are inaccurate.

It can't be both. They are being sued by Apple for a reason.

In my opinion, while I don't think their accuracy has been terrible, since they were sued by apple it's certainly suffered. Prior to that I thought they were far and away the most accurate rumor site.
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #114 of 137
Quote:
Originally posted by Flounder
In my opinion, while I don't think their accuracy has been terrible, since they were sued by apple it's certainly suffered. Prior to that I thought they were far and away the most accurate rumor site.

My thoughts exactly. AppleInsider did a much better job at MWSF06, for example.

Edit:

I don't think the UI of Aperture is a problem at all. Sure it could be faster and a little less buggy (white balance was reintroduced as a bug in 1.1 after being fixed in 1.0.1, for example), but the overall look & feel is excellent. It does things right.

Of course, maybe this enhances my theory that Aperture is just the start of a new suite from Apple. Maybe a new team will coalesce around photo editing, page layout, and design.
post #115 of 137
My guess is that the Aperture team has been moved to a new project...code named Photoshop Killah.
post #116 of 137
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
It's interesting that you say that, because every time they predict something good, people here are pointing out how often they have been RIGHT. Like, they are the most reliable of all the rumors sites.

But, when they post something that comes across as negative, then it's said that they are inaccurate.

It can't be both. They are being sued by Apple for a reason.

That was a while ago...have they predicted anything correctly in the last year or two?

Not really. I don't know what people are saying about TS but nothing accurate has come out of them in at least a year.

TS brings you such gems as:

-Intel iBooks as early as March; UBS: 1GB nano, Apple DVR, Apple cell phone?
-Final Cut 6 to usher in new video editing era for Apple
-Keynote Reflections: What we got right, what we missed (and let me remind you...they got almost everything wrong)
-Road to Expo: Apple's new media experience coming soon (Front Row 2.0? Media-savvy?)
-EXCLUSIVE: Apple Planning Intel-Ready iBook Debut for January

...and countless other pieces that were written while under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol.
post #117 of 137
Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol
That was a while ago...have they predicted anything correctly in the last year or two?

Not really. I don't know what people are saying about TS but nothing accurate has come out of them in at least a year.

Has ANY rumors site EVER predicted everything correctly?

Besides, this is not a prediction. It's a statement of what's been going on over a period of the last several months, continuing through to the present.

That's very different.

After all, this wouldn't be the first time something like this happened at Apple. The most famous, of course, was the Copeland fiasco. Don't think that just because Jobs in in control, it can't happen again. Remember that he is a marketing person. He knows little about programming. And the program was a disaster when it came out. There isn't any argument about that except for a very few here. Just check out every review of the product.
post #118 of 137
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Has ANY rumors site EVER predicted everything correctly?

Yes...a few do. And ThinkSecret once did. When rumor sites have nothing to say...they don't say anything. ThinkSecret on the other hand is ready to publish anything that drops their way.

OoooOOOooo...a 'statement'. Is that how it's called nowadays?
post #119 of 137
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross

After all, this wouldn't be the first time something like this happened at Apple. The most famous, of course, was the Copeland fiasco. Don't think that just because Jobs in in control, it can't happen again. Remember that he is a marketing person. He knows little about programming. And the program was a disaster when it came out. There isn't any argument about that except for a very few here. Just check out every review of the product.

It's actually 'Copland'...and that project was started under Amelio's helm (and ended under his control I believe.) Jobs knows enough about programming. He wrote games for Atari ... Breakout being the most famous (although the story is that Woz did most of the work for the circuit board)...still, Jobs isn't a complete idiot when it comes to programming.

Ok...maybe I'm confused...what is Copeland? And how was there a review of a product that never got released? Perhaps you're refering to a preview in an old MacWorld (or was it MacUser?) magazine.
post #120 of 137
Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol
It's actually 'Copland'...and that project was started under Amelio's helm (and ended under his control I believe.) Jobs knows enough about programming. He wrote games for Atari ... Breakout being the most famous (although the story is that Woz did most of the work for the circuit board)...still, Jobs isn't a complete idiot when it comes to programming.

Ok...maybe I'm confused...what is Copeland? And how was there a review of a product that never got released? Perhaps you're refering to a preview in an old MacWorld (or was it MacUser?) magazine.

However it's spelled (which really doesn't matter, does it?), it started before Amelio got there. It was a presentation that he asked for when he got to Apple that made him decide to discontinue it.

Jobs had said that he knows almost nothing about programming. I'm going by that. I could program games for the old Atari in my sleep. Those days of programming ease are long behind us. And Woz did ALL of the electronics.

I wasn't talking about a review of it. I was talking about the disaster it was. And as for previews, Apple came down to our usergroup and demo'd various portions of it for us, as they did with most of their technologies they were working on before they were released!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac Software
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Apple releases Aperture 1.1