I'm not sure "between Wednesday and the next iLife/iWork releases" is going to cut it, nor is Tim Cook saying they are seeing a "small year over year increase" in pro apps like Aperture. "Economically challenged area", indeed.
Well, we got Aperture 3, but it's about half of what I hoped it would be.
Quote:
Nondestructive brushes let you make selective adjustments to specific parts of your image without creating masks or layers.
What Aperture needed to be a real game changer was masks/layers.
Faces and places isn't going to cut it. Instead of real competition for Lr/Ps, at first glance it looks like instead we got iPhoto on steroids.
Worse yet, because nobody is kicking Adobe's proverbial arse, we'll continue to get Flash-based "features" in the next versions of Ps and Lr instead of real enhancements... <sigh>
Masks and layers are the last thing on Earth I'd want for Aperture. Are you crazy?
That's what makes Photoshop so hard to use. If you want them, use Photoshop. Please.
But would you have to use layers and masks? Or could you ignore them? Did it occur to you that those features don't have to be hard to use? That Adobe alone is responsible for the lack of usability in Photoshop?
Some of us would like a chance to get away from the expensive parade of Adobe upgrades.
But would you have to use layers and masks? Or could you ignore them? Did it occur to you that those features don't have to be hard to use? That Adobe alone is responsible for the lack of usability in Photoshop?
Some of us would like a chance to get away from the expensive parade of Adobe upgrades.
Every feature you add to software adds to the complexity of the user interface. That balance is what Apple is so good at.
It seems to me that layers and masks go beyond photography to image manipulation. Apple has been very clear what Aperture is: a tool for photographers, not a tool for designers or graphic artists.
I think Apple would create a new product aimed at designers (and/or Photoshop users) before they'd add layers and masks to Aperture. But I could be wrong.
If Apple built Aperture mainly as a photographer's database, they would have been better off just fixing the finder.
Aperture is like iTunes. You don't even think about Finder when you use them. The location of files is irrelevant to the user.
You just concentrate on the task at hand.
It's sorta like iPhone/Touch/iPad apps: there is no file system that the end-user deals with. In fact there was an interesting article recently about just that: Apple more-or-less dealing away with the file system (for end-users) on iPhones and iPads. Really, they've already done that with iTunes and Aperture.
It seems to me that layers and masks go beyond photography to image manipulation. Apple has been very clear what Aperture is: a tool for photographers, not a tool for designers or graphic artists.
It's not just Photoshopping Oprah's head onto Ann Margaret's body.
Layers and masks are the tools used to selectively apply corrections so, for example, adjustments like noise reduction can easily be applied differently to separate sections of an image.
It wouldn't need to be every feature of Ps (and would be far better if it didn't). Just the stuff that photographers use.
It's not just Photoshopping Oprah's head onto Ann Margaret's body.
Layers and masks are the tools used to selectively apply corrections so, for example, adjustments like noise reduction can easily be applied differently to separate sections of an image.
It wouldn't need to be every feature of Ps (and would be far better if it didn't). Just the stuff that photographers use.
You can have multiple "layers" of each tool (the demo shows two different color adjustments), plus the brush you draw with is essentially a "mask" that applies the current adjustment, isn't it? And it can detect edges on top of that. There's even an eraser and feather tools for modifying the "mask"/brush.
Seriously, if you need more than that... *shrugs* ... I think we're talking Photoshop.
You can have multiple "layers" of each tool (the demo shows two different color adjustments), plus the brush you draw with is essentially a "mask" that applies the current adjustment, isn't it? And it can detect edges on top of that. There's even an eraser and feather tools for modifying the "mask"/brush.
Seriously, if you need more than that... *shrugs* ... I think we're talking Photoshop.
I need to get home (to my Mac) where I can spend some quality time with the 30-day trial.
So now Aperture 3 is released, and a part of the slogan says "iPhoto simplicity". It seems Aperture 3 is a much more powerful photo management tool, but I am afraid I won't be able to understand the user interface. Should I switch from iPhoto anyway?
So now Aperture 3 is released, and a part of the slogan says "iPhoto simplicity". It seems Aperture 3 is a much more powerful photo management tool, but I am afraid I won't be able to understand the user interface. Should I switch from iPhoto anyway?
Download the 30-day trial and try it for yourself for free.
I recommend anyone considering the 30-day trial or buying Aperture 3 as an upgrade their previous version, to check out Apple's discussion board for Aperture beforehand.
There have been some significant issues ran into by many who installed version 3.
I tried the trial, pointed to my iPhoto library without converting/copying, and had the problems you'll read about on that forum; memory leaks, dramatic computer slowdown, lockups. Even trying things like stopping the Faces and Places setup, I still have a barely usable program, and don't trust it. For me, the initial release trial version has been a disappointment and waste of time. I'll be waiting for one or two updates before trying again. I definitely would LIKE to get the newest Aperture and use it rather than iPhoto, but for now, I'm not motivated enough to endure the hassles and risks with the current build. As always, your mileage may vary.
I tried the trial, pointed to my iPhoto library without converting/copying, and had the problems you'll read about on that forum; memory leaks, dramatic computer slowdown, lockups. Even trying things like stopping the Faces and Places setup, I still have a barely usable program, and don't trust it.
I think anyone who pointed Aperture 3 at an entire iPhoto library and expected the new Faces feature to work on thousands and thousands of photos probably didn't completely think through what they were doing.
I recommend anyone considering the 30-day trial or buying Aperture 3 as an upgrade their previous version, to check out Apple's discussion board for Aperture beforehand.
There have been some significant issues ran into by many who installed version 3.
I tried the trial, pointed to my iPhoto library without converting/copying, and had the problems you'll read about on that forum; memory leaks, dramatic computer slowdown, lockups. Even trying things like stopping the Faces and Places setup, I still have a barely usable program, and don't trust it. For me, the initial release trial version has been a disappointment and waste of time. I'll be waiting for one or two updates before trying again. I definitely would LIKE to get the newest Aperture and use it rather than iPhoto, but for now, I'm not motivated enough to endure the hassles and risks with the current build. As always, your mileage may vary.
Seems like most that have used it at Ars are giving it a rather luke warm reception.
In have been considering moving from iPhoto to Aperture as well but I think I'll just keep iPhoto a while longer. Photography is just a hobby for me. No need to make it painful.
I think anyone who pointed Aperture 3 at an entire iPhoto library and expected the new Faces feature to work on thousands and thousands of photos probably didn't completely think through what they were doing.
Yes, it was probably naive of me (and all the other trial users and new owners of Aperture 3) to 'expect' this.
The thing is, there is NO indication there would be any sort of problem with this. Check out the video tutorial for importing from iPhoto, where the suggestion is you import from iPhoto EASILY (they use the usual Apple editing to reduce the time needed, it would appear).
The decision to have or not have Faces in the import is just a little check box. In the webpages of info on the new version, it says that previous info one has put into iPhoto (identifying sets of faces) would be copied over. Without checking the box, does this happen? Seems more naive to think it'll be faster by doing it after importing (and losing all identification effort one has already done). I've already done scans of my library for missing faces in iPhoto and had certain expectations for how long it would take, and hours was NOT my expectation.
Besides, although there was commentary in the forums about turning off the feature, it didn't really resolve the other horrible processing hangs and problems I had, it just moved from one problem to another. I think it was recreating preview thumbnails that were causing lots of problems for others with larger libraries of imported data.
Certainly many people worked their way through all this and have a working program, but it appears that nobody imported an Aperture 2 or iPhoto library without hours of processing of the data, and that was not well indicated by Apple as being necessary or expected. And this is without the faces feature... And since it's still not working for me, I'm remain disappointed.
But again, others should try for themselves, just understand the possible time commitment, either in researching issues in the forums or just installing and hoping.
Its not like condemed the damn thing. If you think I'm full of shit why don't you post something of substance.
PS I guess this guy doesn't know what he talking about either.
Hey, I wasn't saying you take pictures of cats and sneakers. I was talking about Ars' reviewers and many (not all) of the forum posters (see also: dpreview.com, ). Hey, I'm an amateur photographer, but my snapshots don't look like the demo photos that Ars' reviewer for Aperture 1.0 and 2.0 used. The only interesting photos in his review were ones that were submitted by other people.
That doesn't mean his opinion is worthless, just that it was very limited in scope. It would be like asking an American engine designer to review a European sport coupe and have him complain about the relative lack of absolute horsepower. Maybe it's a valid complaint compared to American cars, but there's so much more to a fine European car than RAW (pun intended) horsepower.
In terms of the review you linked to, this is what he wrote (emphasis mine):
Quote:
If all the features in Aperture work as advertised, it is very conceivable that it could replace the need for Photoshop for many photographers. I?ve never said that before. I?ve ALWAYS said the two programs compliment each other. Not any more. If Aperture 3.0 works as advertised, many of you will not need Photoshop. I sense a further chill in the Adobe and Apple relationship.
So, yes, he'll wait until version 3.01 comes out. But he's pretty much sold on the product.
This is no surprise. The same thing happened with Aperture 1.0 and 2.0, and happens with each release of Final Cut Pro: Professionals always wait for a maintenance release. Hell, they do that with OS X itself!
In any case, I imported a 90+ GB Aperture 2.0 library and had zero problems (except the acknowledged problem of my registration key getting screwed up in the upgrade, and having to use both my 2.0 and 3.0 upgrade keys again--no biggie).
I also imported 3 iPhoto libraries of 3-12 GB each and had no problems there. I left face detection on during import, but I opened the Activity window while it was importing, and Paused the Faces activity until the Previews activity was finished. Maybe that's why I had better luck than most?
Aperture always uses <1 GB of RAM on my 4 GB MBP. However, I have not used brushes extensively yet--I'm still learning. Maybe my opinion will change as I make more changes--but hopefully 3.0.1 will be out by then.
Comments
I'm not sure "between Wednesday and the next iLife/iWork releases" is going to cut it, nor is Tim Cook saying they are seeing a "small year over year increase" in pro apps like Aperture. "Economically challenged area", indeed.
Well, we got Aperture 3, but it's about half of what I hoped it would be.
Nondestructive brushes let you make selective adjustments to specific parts of your image without creating masks or layers.
What Aperture needed to be a real game changer was masks/layers.
Faces and places isn't going to cut it. Instead of real competition for Lr/Ps, at first glance it looks like instead we got iPhoto on steroids.
Worse yet, because nobody is kicking Adobe's proverbial arse, we'll continue to get Flash-based "features" in the next versions of Ps and Lr instead of real enhancements... <sigh>
Well, we got Aperture 3, but it's about half of what I hoped it would be.
What Aperture needed to be a real game changer was masks/layers.
Masks and layers are the last thing on Earth I'd want for Aperture. Are you crazy?
That's what makes Photoshop so hard to use. If you want them, use Photoshop. Please.
Leave them out of Aperture.
Aperture 3 is everything I always thought it could be. Much bigger upgrade than I was expecting.
Masks and layers are the last thing on Earth I'd want for Aperture. Are you crazy?
That's what makes Photoshop so hard to use. If you want them, use Photoshop. Please.
But would you have to use layers and masks? Or could you ignore them? Did it occur to you that those features don't have to be hard to use? That Adobe alone is responsible for the lack of usability in Photoshop?
Some of us would like a chance to get away from the expensive parade of Adobe upgrades.
But would you have to use layers and masks? Or could you ignore them? Did it occur to you that those features don't have to be hard to use? That Adobe alone is responsible for the lack of usability in Photoshop?
Some of us would like a chance to get away from the expensive parade of Adobe upgrades.
Every feature you add to software adds to the complexity of the user interface. That balance is what Apple is so good at.
It seems to me that layers and masks go beyond photography to image manipulation. Apple has been very clear what Aperture is: a tool for photographers, not a tool for designers or graphic artists.
I think Apple would create a new product aimed at designers (and/or Photoshop users) before they'd add layers and masks to Aperture. But I could be wrong.
If Apple built Aperture mainly as a photographer's database, they would have been better off just fixing the finder.
Aperture is like iTunes. You don't even think about Finder when you use them. The location of files is irrelevant to the user.
You just concentrate on the task at hand.
It's sorta like iPhone/Touch/iPad apps: there is no file system that the end-user deals with. In fact there was an interesting article recently about just that: Apple more-or-less dealing away with the file system (for end-users) on iPhones and iPads. Really, they've already done that with iTunes and Aperture.
It seems to me that layers and masks go beyond photography to image manipulation. Apple has been very clear what Aperture is: a tool for photographers, not a tool for designers or graphic artists.
It's not just Photoshopping Oprah's head onto Ann Margaret's body.
Layers and masks are the tools used to selectively apply corrections so, for example, adjustments like noise reduction can easily be applied differently to separate sections of an image.
It wouldn't need to be every feature of Ps (and would be far better if it didn't). Just the stuff that photographers use.
It's not just Photoshopping Oprah's head onto Ann Margaret's body.
Layers and masks are the tools used to selectively apply corrections so, for example, adjustments like noise reduction can easily be applied differently to separate sections of an image.
It wouldn't need to be every feature of Ps (and would be far better if it didn't). Just the stuff that photographers use.
Have you looked at the Aperture How To video on using Brushes? http://www.apple.com/aperture/how-to/
You can have multiple "layers" of each tool (the demo shows two different color adjustments), plus the brush you draw with is essentially a "mask" that applies the current adjustment, isn't it? And it can detect edges on top of that. There's even an eraser and feather tools for modifying the "mask"/brush.
Seriously, if you need more than that... *shrugs* ... I think we're talking Photoshop.
Have you looked at the Aperture How To video on using Brushes? http://www.apple.com/aperture/how-to/
You can have multiple "layers" of each tool (the demo shows two different color adjustments), plus the brush you draw with is essentially a "mask" that applies the current adjustment, isn't it? And it can detect edges on top of that. There's even an eraser and feather tools for modifying the "mask"/brush.
Seriously, if you need more than that... *shrugs* ... I think we're talking Photoshop.
I need to get home (to my Mac) where I can spend some quality time with the 30-day trial.
So now Aperture 3 is released, and a part of the slogan says "iPhoto simplicity". It seems Aperture 3 is a much more powerful photo management tool, but I am afraid I won't be able to understand the user interface. Should I switch from iPhoto anyway?
Download the 30-day trial and try it for yourself for free.
http://www.apple.com/aperture/trial/
There have been some significant issues ran into by many who installed version 3.
I tried the trial, pointed to my iPhoto library without converting/copying, and had the problems you'll read about on that forum; memory leaks, dramatic computer slowdown, lockups. Even trying things like stopping the Faces and Places setup, I still have a barely usable program, and don't trust it. For me, the initial release trial version has been a disappointment and waste of time. I'll be waiting for one or two updates before trying again. I definitely would LIKE to get the newest Aperture and use it rather than iPhoto, but for now, I'm not motivated enough to endure the hassles and risks with the current build. As always, your mileage may vary.
http://discussions.apple.com/forum.j...D=1092&start=0
I tried the trial, pointed to my iPhoto library without converting/copying, and had the problems you'll read about on that forum; memory leaks, dramatic computer slowdown, lockups. Even trying things like stopping the Faces and Places setup, I still have a barely usable program, and don't trust it.
I think anyone who pointed Aperture 3 at an entire iPhoto library and expected the new Faces feature to work on thousands and thousands of photos probably didn't completely think through what they were doing.
I recommend anyone considering the 30-day trial or buying Aperture 3 as an upgrade their previous version, to check out Apple's discussion board for Aperture beforehand.
There have been some significant issues ran into by many who installed version 3.
I tried the trial, pointed to my iPhoto library without converting/copying, and had the problems you'll read about on that forum; memory leaks, dramatic computer slowdown, lockups. Even trying things like stopping the Faces and Places setup, I still have a barely usable program, and don't trust it. For me, the initial release trial version has been a disappointment and waste of time. I'll be waiting for one or two updates before trying again. I definitely would LIKE to get the newest Aperture and use it rather than iPhoto, but for now, I'm not motivated enough to endure the hassles and risks with the current build. As always, your mileage may vary.
http://discussions.apple.com/forum.j...D=1092&start=0
Seems like most that have used it at Ars are giving it a rather luke warm reception.
In have been considering moving from iPhoto to Aperture as well but I think I'll just keep iPhoto a while longer. Photography is just a hobby for me. No need to make it painful.
Seems like most that have used it at Ars are giving it a rather luke warm reception.
I love it when people who take pictures of cats, running shoes, and street signs do evaluations of software for creative people.
I think anyone who pointed Aperture 3 at an entire iPhoto library and expected the new Faces feature to work on thousands and thousands of photos probably didn't completely think through what they were doing.
Yes, it was probably naive of me (and all the other trial users and new owners of Aperture 3) to 'expect' this.
The thing is, there is NO indication there would be any sort of problem with this. Check out the video tutorial for importing from iPhoto, where the suggestion is you import from iPhoto EASILY (they use the usual Apple editing to reduce the time needed, it would appear).
http://www.apple.com/aperture/how-to/#video-moving
The decision to have or not have Faces in the import is just a little check box. In the webpages of info on the new version, it says that previous info one has put into iPhoto (identifying sets of faces) would be copied over. Without checking the box, does this happen? Seems more naive to think it'll be faster by doing it after importing (and losing all identification effort one has already done). I've already done scans of my library for missing faces in iPhoto and had certain expectations for how long it would take, and hours was NOT my expectation.
Besides, although there was commentary in the forums about turning off the feature, it didn't really resolve the other horrible processing hangs and problems I had, it just moved from one problem to another. I think it was recreating preview thumbnails that were causing lots of problems for others with larger libraries of imported data.
Certainly many people worked their way through all this and have a working program, but it appears that nobody imported an Aperture 2 or iPhoto library without hours of processing of the data, and that was not well indicated by Apple as being necessary or expected. And this is without the faces feature... And since it's still not working for me, I'm remain disappointed.
But again, others should try for themselves, just understand the possible time commitment, either in researching issues in the forums or just installing and hoping.
I love it when people who take pictures of cats, running shoes, and street signs do evaluations of software for creative people.
That's a pretty dick head response.
Its not like condemed the damn thing. If you think I'm full of shit why don't you post something of substance.
PS I guess this guy doesn't know what he talking about either.
That's a pretty dick head response.
Its not like condemed the damn thing. If you think I'm full of shit why don't you post something of substance.
PS I guess this guy doesn't know what he talking about either.
Hey, I wasn't saying you take pictures of cats and sneakers.
That doesn't mean his opinion is worthless, just that it was very limited in scope. It would be like asking an American engine designer to review a European sport coupe and have him complain about the relative lack of absolute horsepower. Maybe it's a valid complaint compared to American cars, but there's so much more to a fine European car than RAW (pun intended) horsepower.
In terms of the review you linked to, this is what he wrote (emphasis mine):
If all the features in Aperture work as advertised, it is very conceivable that it could replace the need for Photoshop for many photographers. I?ve never said that before. I?ve ALWAYS said the two programs compliment each other. Not any more. If Aperture 3.0 works as advertised, many of you will not need Photoshop. I sense a further chill in the Adobe and Apple relationship.
So, yes, he'll wait until version 3.01 comes out. But he's pretty much sold on the product.
This is no surprise. The same thing happened with Aperture 1.0 and 2.0, and happens with each release of Final Cut Pro: Professionals always wait for a maintenance release. Hell, they do that with OS X itself!
In any case, I imported a 90+ GB Aperture 2.0 library and had zero problems (except the acknowledged problem of my registration key getting screwed up in the upgrade, and having to use both my 2.0 and 3.0 upgrade keys again--no biggie).
I also imported 3 iPhoto libraries of 3-12 GB each and had no problems there. I left face detection on during import, but I opened the Activity window while it was importing, and Paused the Faces activity until the Previews activity was finished. Maybe that's why I had better luck than most?
Aperture always uses <1 GB of RAM on my 4 GB MBP. However, I have not used brushes extensively yet--I'm still learning. Maybe my opinion will change as I make more changes--but hopefully 3.0.1 will be out by then.