How much do you guys want to bet that a bunch of pathetic ass holes will jump all over the new release claiming it is no longer a professional app because feature xyz is missing? You all know it will happen so we probably have nothing to bet on here. It is almost guaranteed that these idiots will gloss over all of the new features and improvements just to dwell on their favored functionality of the past. It is also a certainty they will see such a release as a brick wall that isn't malleable with updates even though Apple has continuously updated its professional software.
I may have to tune out when and if the software is released because it will be unbearable to listen to all of the crying from the so called adult men that label themselves professionals.
You are angry over nothing on this one. In terms of being viable for commercial use, Lightroom won that war long ago. Their algorithms have improved since the early versions, yet they keep a list of legacy options if you need to match something from several years ago or match the default camera software results. Their XML file instructions take up a lot less extra space on disk than the library data stored by Aperture. Neither works on its own for huge catalogs. If you were dealing with photo syndication or a stock photo agency, you'd need to look at other software. This can often include in house development. For the photographers with typically 6-10TB RAID storage online and the rest offline, Lightroom is a much better fit due to its efficiency with disk space, and it's fast. The only gripe I can think of would be if they dropped support for files from certain older digital cameras. Adobe and Lightroom preemptively handled that through .DNG conversions. If support goes away and they can no longer access old files, they could make DNGs with the last version that supports these older models. That has never been an option with Aperture, which is one of the reasons it never caught on there.
. I would love to see aperture get editing on pace with elements- allowing actions, a much more diverse editing layount, etc- and knock photoshop elements right in the jaw. Get a 2 for 1- (solid) editing & organizing program.
The main issue with trying to have Aperture have certain abilities of Elements is the fact that its engine has to deal with RAW images at its core for the higher end of its users. The editing happens at the RAW level and ending up with TIFFS or JPGs happens at export (though it works fine to import those to edit as well). Editing RAW on Elements (or any pixel based editor pretty much) is even more limited/kludgy than doing the same functions in Aperture. There are so many areas where I would love Aperture to more closely work as well as a good pixel editor., Brushing on filters is the most obvious example, where it's more time consuming to not have the result look like you used sidewalk chalk to touch up your image ("detect edges" isn't nearly as effective as working within a selection for detailed work, the no-choice blur tool is like letting the cat pee on it, etc). The code is more intense for the higher resolution of the RAW files and the fact that they need to have an image decoded for a preview with every move adds to it. n It's only been since getting a 2.5mhz i7 with 16 gig of ram that I could even approximate what I get using brushes in PSE without wanting to smash my computer every two minutes. I also just assume that there are similar programming reasons why certain things that are so easy in PSE (working within selections, easily brushing with accuracy within a single level range, more sharpening/unsharp masking parameters) due to the target image being RAW.
But I agree that this is high on the wish list. Especially since Apple is only competing within itself with iPhoto, which isn't even up to the same niche PSE is. I can see why Adobe would want to keep some of the functionality clearly owned by either LR, PS or PSE, but I don't see a strategic reason why Apple needs to keep Aperture as limited as they do. I've always figured it to be a programming/horsepower issue due to its RAW focus.
I really hate the use of the roman numeral X for versioning software. I pronounced it OS "X" and not OS 10 as the roman numeral would indicate. The actual version would be OS 18 or XVIII by now. To say each version of OSX is a minor version by their internal numbering of 10.x.x is ridiculous. Apple's marketing team got carried away with this scheme that makes no sense. Maybe that's why I believe iOS is their escape from this versioning hell. If they do eventually go with iOSX for version ten then I'm switching to all Android and Chrome operating systems.
The actual version would be OS 18 or XVIII by now. To say each version of OSX is a minor version by their internal numbering of 10.x.x is ridiculous. Apple's marketing team got carried away with this scheme that makes no sense.
It warms my heart to see this written, for we don't often, if at all. A kick to the crotch of the Microsoft posers that pretend "Mac users pay for service packs".
If they do eventually go with iOSX for version ten then I'm switching to all Android and Chrome operating systems.
Abject nonsense. Abject nonsense, I repeat. Idiocy in naming versions of devices or software is a direct indicator of idiocy, yes, but it extends only to idiocy in marketing. The same minds that brought us the Genius commercials brought us the "iPhone 5" name. That is marketing, nothing more. The device itself is extraordinary. Magnificently well-built and designed, both in hardware and software.
Even today, still, I find complete morons on the Internet that claim Apple is a marketing company. Apple has never invented anything. Apple has never innovated anything. They sell only because of their marketing. What does one say to these idiots? What can one say? It's vexing.
Absolutely! And please Numbers X as well. For many tasks I prefer Numbers over Excel, but when ever I have to process really huge amount of data, it get's slow as a frozen snail.
Doesn't really matter what they call it. It will have bugs. People will complain. It will have new features that people will love. The fan-boys will go into a rage over any mention of the new release's faults. The Apple haters will announce that this is the death of Apple. Photographers will just continue taking pictures and managing their workflows with Aperture, Lightroom, or whatever else pleases them.
I have never had anyone look at one of my images and say, "Wow! You must have a really good work flow program." They do look at my pictures and say, "Wow! You must have a really good camera." Well, yeah. But, you know -- no one ever goes to the chef and says, "Wow, you must have really good pots." It is the artist, not the tools. Some tools make life a little easier for the artist. As long as Apple and Adobe remember that, all will be right with the world.
The main issue with trying to have Aperture have certain abilities of Elements is the fact that its engine has to deal with RAW images at its core for the higher end of its users. The editing happens at the RAW level and ending up with TIFFS or JPGs happens at export (though it works fine to import those to edit as well). Editing RAW on Elements (or any pixel based editor pretty much) is even more limited/kludgy than doing the same functions in Aperture. There are so many areas where I would love Aperture to more closely work as well as a good pixel editor., Brushing on filters is the most obvious example, where it's more time consuming to not have the result look like you used sidewalk chalk to touch up your image ("detect edges" isn't nearly as effective as working within a selection for detailed work, the no-choice blur tool is like letting the cat pee on it, etc). The code is more intense for the higher resolution of the RAW files and the fact that they need to have an image decoded for a preview with every move adds to it. n It's only been since getting a 2.5mhz i7 with 16 gig of ram that I could even approximate what I get using brushes in PSE without wanting to smash my computer every two minutes. I also just assume that there are similar programming reasons why certain things that are so easy in PSE (working within selections, easily brushing with accuracy within a single level range, more sharpening/unsharp masking parameters) due to the target image being RAW.
But I agree that this is high on the wish list. Especially since Apple is only competing within itself with iPhoto, which isn't even up to the same niche PSE is. I can see why Adobe would want to keep some of the functionality clearly owned by either LR, PS or PSE, but I don't see a strategic reason why Apple needs to keep Aperture as limited as they do. I've always figured it to be a programming/horsepower issue due to its RAW focus.
One of the big selling features of Aperture is the seamless integration with iPhoto. On advice from users experienced with Lightroom and Aperture, I bought Aperture based on that deciding factor (and I can vouch that it is a huge benefit to be able to use both). So to some extent, Aperture is like iPhoto on steroids. But what I really don't know much about are a couple of the points you raised on RAW editing engines. That said, could the limitations you speak of in Aperture be due to the file/library compatibility with iPhoto?
One of the big selling features of Aperture is the seamless integration with iPhoto.
Really? Why would anyone want to 'integrate' with iPhoto? There're both photo management and (light) editing applications. Personally I think iPhoto is a joke and Aperture is a great tool - especially for large libraries.
On advice from users experienced with Lightroom and Aperture, I bought Aperture based on that deciding factor (and I can vouch that it is a huge benefit to be able to use both).
Why do you use both? Which benefit has one over the other?
Why would they name an update after anything but the forthcoming year?
I guess I just wanted to point out that I am so desperate for an iWork update that I would even take an iWork '11 - better than nothing. If the current version of Aperture is becoming old ... well what do you call the current iWork suite - Methusalem?
I guess I just wanted to point out that I am so desperate for an iWork update that I would even take an iWork '11 - better than nothing. If the current version of Aperture is becoming old ... well what do you call the current iWork suite - Methusalem?
I don't care how old it is; what's wrong with it? What about it demands a new version number? What features couldn't be added as x.x.x updates?
There have been numerous suggestions in the past, the one that come immediately to my mind are:
Pages: easy line numbering, reasonable full screen mode with sensible arranged controls (goes for all)
Keynote: 3D objects, new transitions (magic move is great - but doesn't work all the time), new themes, ...
Numbers: much more functions, much easier cell styling
and in particular: fix the 2 separate file systems!! E.g., if you save a document in iCloud and you have written an email - try to attach the iCloud document easily to your email ...
The benefit of .x updates is that they are free, as opposed to x.0 updates.
I'm actually wondering if any of us will ever pay for iWork or iLife again. We haven't had an update to either since the App Store transition, and I think that might be partially due to Apple's unwillingness (or inability) to charge for updates.
The benefit of .x updates is that they are free, as opposed to x.0 updates.
I'm actually wondering if any of us will ever pay for iWork or iLife again. We haven't had an update to either since the App Store transition, and I think that might be partially due to Apple's unwillingness (or inability) to charge for updates.
I understand your point, but don't think free updates will be the case. They do have the ability for delta updates, as they do with iOS. iLife is free with a new Mac, and you'll get the latest version. But iWork, which may have become a bit cheaper now through the MAS, still sells from what I hear. I'd be baffled if they make a new version and release it for free. Perhaps even not allowed, looking at the $2 or whatever for that WiFi update the other day year.
PS, TS, take the dot out of 'Horrible.' I think that will look better
They do have the ability for delta updates, as they do with iOS.
YEAH, AND THEY REFUSE TO DO 'EM. (And I don't see what that has to do with this; "delta updates" implies "you're only downloading the changed bits, not the whole app each time", rather than anything to do with the content of said updates) Every time I get an update it's the full size of the application OR app…
Perhaps even not allowed, looking at the $2 or whatever for that WiFi update the other day year
Wait, you mean the 802.11n enabler? In 2009? I'm pretty sure Apple can offer whatever (non-standard-based) applications they want for free.
PS, TS, take the dot out of 'Horrible.' I think that will look better.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
How much do you guys want to bet that a bunch of pathetic ass holes will jump all over the new release claiming it is no longer a professional app because feature xyz is missing? You all know it will happen so we probably have nothing to bet on here. It is almost guaranteed that these idiots will gloss over all of the new features and improvements just to dwell on their favored functionality of the past. It is also a certainty they will see such a release as a brick wall that isn't malleable with updates even though Apple has continuously updated its professional software.
I may have to tune out when and if the software is released because it will be unbearable to listen to all of the crying from the so called adult men that label themselves professionals.
You are angry over nothing on this one. In terms of being viable for commercial use, Lightroom won that war long ago. Their algorithms have improved since the early versions, yet they keep a list of legacy options if you need to match something from several years ago or match the default camera software results. Their XML file instructions take up a lot less extra space on disk than the library data stored by Aperture. Neither works on its own for huge catalogs. If you were dealing with photo syndication or a stock photo agency, you'd need to look at other software. This can often include in house development. For the photographers with typically 6-10TB RAID storage online and the rest offline, Lightroom is a much better fit due to its efficiency with disk space, and it's fast. The only gripe I can think of would be if they dropped support for files from certain older digital cameras. Adobe and Lightroom preemptively handled that through .DNG conversions. If support goes away and they can no longer access old files, they could make DNGs with the last version that supports these older models. That has never been an option with Aperture, which is one of the reasons it never caught on there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Not really.
Why would they name an update after anything but the forthcoming year?
For consistency
Originally Posted by quinney
In order to vex the anally retentive.
In order to vex those with common sense, you mean.
Originally Posted by Shameer Mulji
For consistency
Consistency would be naming it after the forthcoming year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol
. I would love to see aperture get editing on pace with elements- allowing actions, a much more diverse editing layount, etc- and knock photoshop elements right in the jaw. Get a 2 for 1- (solid) editing & organizing program.
The main issue with trying to have Aperture have certain abilities of Elements is the fact that its engine has to deal with RAW images at its core for the higher end of its users. The editing happens at the RAW level and ending up with TIFFS or JPGs happens at export (though it works fine to import those to edit as well). Editing RAW on Elements (or any pixel based editor pretty much) is even more limited/kludgy than doing the same functions in Aperture. There are so many areas where I would love Aperture to more closely work as well as a good pixel editor., Brushing on filters is the most obvious example, where it's more time consuming to not have the result look like you used sidewalk chalk to touch up your image ("detect edges" isn't nearly as effective as working within a selection for detailed work, the no-choice blur tool is like letting the cat pee on it, etc). The code is more intense for the higher resolution of the RAW files and the fact that they need to have an image decoded for a preview with every move adds to it. n It's only been since getting a 2.5mhz i7 with 16 gig of ram that I could even approximate what I get using brushes in PSE without wanting to smash my computer every two minutes. I also just assume that there are similar programming reasons why certain things that are so easy in PSE (working within selections, easily brushing with accuracy within a single level range, more sharpening/unsharp masking parameters) due to the target image being RAW.
But I agree that this is high on the wish list. Especially since Apple is only competing within itself with iPhoto, which isn't even up to the same niche PSE is. I can see why Adobe would want to keep some of the functionality clearly owned by either LR, PS or PSE, but I don't see a strategic reason why Apple needs to keep Aperture as limited as they do. I've always figured it to be a programming/horsepower issue due to its RAW focus.
Originally Posted by MacTel
The actual version would be OS 18 or XVIII by now. To say each version of OSX is a minor version by their internal numbering of 10.x.x is ridiculous. Apple's marketing team got carried away with this scheme that makes no sense.
It warms my heart to see this written, for we don't often, if at all. A kick to the crotch of the Microsoft posers that pretend "Mac users pay for service packs".
If they do eventually go with iOSX for version ten then I'm switching to all Android and Chrome operating systems.
Abject nonsense. Abject nonsense, I repeat. Idiocy in naming versions of devices or software is a direct indicator of idiocy, yes, but it extends only to idiocy in marketing. The same minds that brought us the Genius commercials brought us the "iPhone 5" name. That is marketing, nothing more. The device itself is extraordinary. Magnificently well-built and designed, both in hardware and software.
Even today, still, I find complete morons on the Internet that claim Apple is a marketing company. Apple has never invented anything. Apple has never innovated anything. They sell only because of their marketing. What does one say to these idiots? What can one say? It's vexing.
Superb! Generally I never read whole articles but the way you wrote this information is simply amazing and this kept my interest in reading
and I enjoyed it.
[url=http://www.ubootsbuy.com/ugg-boots-c-4.html]Ugg Boots[/url]
[url=http://www.monclerjacketshub.com/women-moncler-coat-c-4.html]Women Moncler Coat[/url]
[url=http://www.topbeatsdrdre.com/beats-by-dre-studio-c-5.html]Monster Beats By Dre Studio[/url]
[url=http://www.topbeatsdrdre.com/beats-by-dre-kobe-bryant-c-1.html]Beats By Dre Kobe Bryant[/url]
[url=http://www.usacosmeticswholesale.com/mac-eyeliner-c-12.html]Mac Eyeliner[/url]
Perhaps they'll do something creative, like <sup>¡</sup>0<sub>S</sub>
Doesn't really matter what they call it. It will have bugs. People will complain. It will have new features that people will love. The fan-boys will go into a rage over any mention of the new release's faults. The Apple haters will announce that this is the death of Apple. Photographers will just continue taking pictures and managing their workflows with Aperture, Lightroom, or whatever else pleases them.
I have never had anyone look at one of my images and say, "Wow! You must have a really good work flow program." They do look at my pictures and say, "Wow! You must have a really good camera." Well, yeah. But, you know -- no one ever goes to the chef and says, "Wow, you must have really good pots." It is the artist, not the tools. Some tools make life a little easier for the artist. As long as Apple and Adobe remember that, all will be right with the world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlandd
The main issue with trying to have Aperture have certain abilities of Elements is the fact that its engine has to deal with RAW images at its core for the higher end of its users. The editing happens at the RAW level and ending up with TIFFS or JPGs happens at export (though it works fine to import those to edit as well). Editing RAW on Elements (or any pixel based editor pretty much) is even more limited/kludgy than doing the same functions in Aperture. There are so many areas where I would love Aperture to more closely work as well as a good pixel editor., Brushing on filters is the most obvious example, where it's more time consuming to not have the result look like you used sidewalk chalk to touch up your image ("detect edges" isn't nearly as effective as working within a selection for detailed work, the no-choice blur tool is like letting the cat pee on it, etc). The code is more intense for the higher resolution of the RAW files and the fact that they need to have an image decoded for a preview with every move adds to it. n It's only been since getting a 2.5mhz i7 with 16 gig of ram that I could even approximate what I get using brushes in PSE without wanting to smash my computer every two minutes. I also just assume that there are similar programming reasons why certain things that are so easy in PSE (working within selections, easily brushing with accuracy within a single level range, more sharpening/unsharp masking parameters) due to the target image being RAW.
But I agree that this is high on the wish list. Especially since Apple is only competing within itself with iPhoto, which isn't even up to the same niche PSE is. I can see why Adobe would want to keep some of the functionality clearly owned by either LR, PS or PSE, but I don't see a strategic reason why Apple needs to keep Aperture as limited as they do. I've always figured it to be a programming/horsepower issue due to its RAW focus.
One of the big selling features of Aperture is the seamless integration with iPhoto. On advice from users experienced with Lightroom and Aperture, I bought Aperture based on that deciding factor (and I can vouch that it is a huge benefit to be able to use both). So to some extent, Aperture is like iPhoto on steroids. But what I really don't know much about are a couple of the points you raised on RAW editing engines. That said, could the limitations you speak of in Aperture be due to the file/library compatibility with iPhoto?
Really? Why would anyone want to 'integrate' with iPhoto? There're both photo management and (light) editing applications. Personally I think iPhoto is a joke and Aperture is a great tool - especially for large libraries.
Why do you use both? Which benefit has one over the other?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Not really.
Why would they name an update after anything but the forthcoming year?
I guess I just wanted to point out that I am so desperate for an iWork update that I would even take an iWork '11 - better than nothing. If the current version of Aperture is becoming old ... well what do you call the current iWork suite - Methusalem?
Originally Posted by MacApfel
I guess I just wanted to point out that I am so desperate for an iWork update that I would even take an iWork '11 - better than nothing. If the current version of Aperture is becoming old ... well what do you call the current iWork suite - Methusalem?
I don't care how old it is; what's wrong with it? What about it demands a new version number? What features couldn't be added as x.x.x updates?
There have been numerous suggestions in the past, the one that come immediately to my mind are:
Pages: easy line numbering, reasonable full screen mode with sensible arranged controls (goes for all)
Keynote: 3D objects, new transitions (magic move is great - but doesn't work all the time), new themes, ...
Numbers: much more functions, much easier cell styling
and in particular: fix the 2 separate file systems!! E.g., if you save a document in iCloud and you have written an email - try to attach the iCloud document easily to your email ...
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie
The benefit of .x updates is that they are free, as opposed to x.0 updates.
I'm actually wondering if any of us will ever pay for iWork or iLife again. We haven't had an update to either since the App Store transition, and I think that might be partially due to Apple's unwillingness (or inability) to charge for updates.
I understand your point, but don't think free updates will be the case. They do have the ability for delta updates, as they do with iOS. iLife is free with a new Mac, and you'll get the latest version. But iWork, which may have become a bit cheaper now through the MAS, still sells from what I hear. I'd be baffled if they make a new version and release it for free. Perhaps even not allowed, looking at the $2 or whatever for that WiFi update the other
dayyear.PS, TS, take the dot out of 'Horrible.' I think that will look better
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie
They do have the ability for delta updates, as they do with iOS.
YEAH, AND THEY REFUSE TO DO 'EM. (And I don't see what that has to do with this; "delta updates" implies "you're only downloading the changed bits, not the whole app each time", rather than anything to do with the content of said updates) Every time I get an update it's the full size of the application OR app…
Perhaps even not allowed, looking at the $2 or whatever for that WiFi update the other day year
Wait, you mean the 802.11n enabler? In 2009? I'm pretty sure Apple can offer whatever (non-standard-based) applications they want for free.
PS, TS, take the dot out of 'Horrible.' I think that will look better.
I'm making a statement.