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…
You're right, and it is annoying. Or at least to those who pay per bit, as opposed to a monthly fee for unlimited access. But yes, for Apple, such an advanced computer company this is quite ridiculous indeed.
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.
That's the one. And they weren't allowed to give it away for free. Some financial restriction for a ...edit, found this:
Apple is required to charge you for the enabler. 802.11n was R & D intensive; it's not your granny's WiFi. You can't amortize R & D costs against new products--in this case, AirPort Extreme and Apple TV--and then give that same R & D away somewhere else. That would create what's called an accounting irregularity, and these aren't popular at places like Apple and Dell just now. The only way to put 802.11n into existing Mac users' hands was to turn it into a product against which R & D could be charged. $1.99 is a token, the very least that Apple could charge you and still call the enabler a product. If Apple hadn't come up with this sound solution, you'd have to buy AirPort Extreme--an extraordinary product, as you'll read in my review--or wait for Leopard in order to get 802.11n.
PS, TS, take the dot out of 'Horrible.' I think that will look better.
I'm making a statement.
I understand, but won't it look better if it's perceived as
"Horrible Administrator" (as opposed to the current)
"Horrible. Administrator"
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?
Two very simple and good reasons:
1) If you already have iPhoto (and I imagine most Aperture users migrated from iPhoto), all of the work put into photo organization in iPhoto is preserved. That can be a big deal.
2) My wife doesn't have to learn Aperture. She can do what she wants with our photo library in iPhoto while I can do whatever picture editing I want in Aperture and it all "just works".
1) If you already have iPhoto (and I imagine most Aperture users migrated from iPhoto), all of the work put into photo organization in iPhoto is preserved. That can be a big deal.
2) My wife doesn't have to learn Aperture. She can do what she wants with our photo library in iPhoto while I can do whatever picture editing I want in Aperture and it all "just works".
This, coupled with the fact that they now share a single library file, makes using both of them an even more logical idea, since if you just need quick changes you can pop open iPhoto, do it, and then they're applied the next time you use Aperture.
1) If you already have iPhoto (and I imagine most Aperture users migrated from iPhoto), all of the work put into photo organization in iPhoto is preserved. That can be a big deal.
2) My wife doesn't have to learn Aperture. She can do what she wants with our photo library in iPhoto while I can do whatever picture editing I want in Aperture and it all "just works".
(Already pipped by TS, but....)
I expected people to migrate / upgrade from iPhoto to Aperture, and do that once, but your #2 explains what the benefit of it is if you use both. Didn't know that iPhoto preserved your masters like Aperture does.
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.
Raw interpretation is a somewhat complicated subject. I've expected them to trend toward real time interpretation for years. It's possible with video data, but a single frame there isn't necessarily as big as some still photos or layouts can be. I'd imagine they don't want it to run like sludge on slower systems, and the lack of efficient n-core scaling may also play a role as it does for so many other programs. The most likely way to handle such interpretation in real time would be through OpenCL functions. Some renderers provide real time lighting feedback, yet the real time aspect is always grainy, not a near perfect representation cached at several levels of magnification. With raw interpreters, they have to rasterize the data to 3 complete channels, interpolate any gaps, and interpret the numbers through a camera specific input profile prior to applying things such as white balance and gamma correction or a tonal response curve to bring the raw data to something readable on a (approximately) gamma 2.2 display. Unfortunately it's not currently possible to interpret the raws in real time, although After Effects and some video compositing programs have a better implementation for dealing with data in linear form while it's displayed as you would expect to see it. Most of them interpret the images at 32 bpc float values, which might make it impractical for lighter hardware. Some tools work in a much more pleasing manner at that level. Modes such as subtract or linear dodge actually work properly. I don't know how long it will be before we see this kind of capability.
Well, that should make the Aperture 3 reviewed by bcbcbroderick on the right hand side of AI pages disappear in no time. It will of course be a welcomed upgrade, in spite of all the free updates we got since version 3 came out. Do wish we get an option in the prefs to turn back on colored icons in the side- and toolbar, but looking at iTunes that will be wishful thinking. Less is more and all that.
I am interested in feedback from Lightroom users; that software has caught up to Aperture and supposedly became superior. I just don't know in what way...
I have used both of these programs extensively and I really like them both. Lightroom has better editing capabilities. The curves tool is more like that of Photoshop, for example. Some people like the organizational structure better, too. Lightroom's interface is more customizable and allows a great deal more personalization such as branding. Aperture does seem to me to interpret Nikon raw files better -- meaning I personally like their look better than what Lightroom does with them. I also think Lightroom's interface is more modal than it needs to be. Kind of reminds me of those old word processors where you were in edit mode or print mode or browse mode, only prettier. Anyway, I continue to use Aperture. The fact is, the function of these work flow tools is to organize your images and provide a platform for the plug-ins and external editors that your real editing tools. Switching tools can cause you to lose some of your edits and it is a huge, time consuming pain in the butt.
The problem with your view is people relied on Final Cut Pro to make a living. Final Cut Pro X initially dropped support for certain needed plugins, multi-monitors, network sharing, projects from older versions of the software, and numerous other things. Apple billed the software as professional ready.
Of course, this is not something peculiar to Apple. Every update of Photoshop tends to break all or most of your plugins, too.
Real professionals have learned: don't update your software until the rest of your tools have been updated to work with it. If you work with raw files, for example, you don't buy a new camera until your editing software has been updated to read the new file formats.
There is absolutely no reason to update to the latest and greatest if it means disruption of your work. Real professionals know the value of patience.
These've been right more often than wrong in the past, though.
It's not a right or wrong thing. According to this posting by Michael Grothaus, the author of "Using iPhoto" published by a major publishing house,
"Since Apple never releases betas of their desktop apps, authors like me begin writing the books on the (hopefully) upcoming software so we can have the book as completed as possible when the new version does actually come out."
Stet, but that only works when the thing is basically just a point update with a new name.
He should know by now that Apple is in the "completely redesign it" game as of late. If it's really to be "Aperture X" (and they should also know by now not to use that as a placeholder name), it'll take more than "2-3 weeks" to go over new features.
He should know by now that Apple is in the "completely redesign it" game as of late. If it's really to be "Aperture X" (and they should also know by now not to use that as a placeholder name), it'll take more than "2-3 weeks" to go over new features.
I read that article, and apparently they (writers in general, according to him) only take 2-3 weeks (or some such) to try out and write up the new features. The rest of the book already consists of placeholders.
Must be hectic weeks for writers after Apple releases something! Guess time to market is more important than quality...
Aperture does seem to me to interpret Nikon raw files better -- meaning I personally like their look better than what Lightroom does with them.
This is the reason Ken Rockwell doesn't shoot raw; he feels that only camera manufacturers are able to interpreted the captured light and reproduce that image, not some computer company like Adobe or Apple. As a statement, I agree with him. Just haven't tried out all the differences in raw processing from varying camera makers and software makers/applications to form my own opinion on the matter.
The rest of your post is good as well, I'm just too lazy to respond...to say it is good.
He should know by now that Apple is in the "completely redesign it" game as of late. If it's really to be "Aperture X" (and they should also know by now not to use that as a placeholder name), it'll take more than "2-3 weeks" to go over new features.
The placeholders are totally publishers' things. Authors aren't involved. I've worked with publishers on audio releases for decades and that's how they've always been with the work I've been involved with. No one involved with the content of the projects I've worked on ever had anything to do with things like this. Just the promo division on the other side pushing the interest.
This is the reason Ken Rockwell doesn't shoot raw; he feels that only camera manufacturers are able to interpreted the captured light and reproduce that image, not some computer company like Adobe or Apple. As a statement, I agree with him. Just haven't tried out all the differences in raw processing from varying camera makers and software makers/applications to form my own opinion on the matter.
The rest of your post is good as well, I'm just too lazy to respond...to say it is good.
I read Ken Rockwell every day. I don't always agree with him. He also cultivates an aura of being bombastic on his web site -- his way, I suppose, of ridiculing real technical experts for things like "pixel peeping." Nevertheless, his views can be valuable. Ken's real point has always been that it is the artist, not the artist's tools. So he sometimes says things that really are more aimed at getting you to think about why you need a particular camera or piece of software than they are at really claiming what is "best." "Best" is always relative and subjective. Ken's point is that if it does what you want it to do, then for you it is the "best."
If you ask three photographers about shooting raw, you will get at least four opinions. I do shoot raw. I think JPG is for journalists and other casual shooters. Nikon does a fine job of interpreting raw photos in its Capture NX2 software, but I am not convinced that it is any better than what we get in Aperture. In fact, I like Aperture's interpretation better. It is all subjective. You cannot truthfully say that one is more realistic than the other since there is no real standard other than your own observation and prejudices of how you want your pictures to look. I like the Nik designed interface in NX2. However, I can get Nik plugins for both Lightroom and Aperture and have the benefits of those programs as well.
Seriously, is Ken really claiming that the only accurate representation of a photo is that which you get on the camera's LED screen? I don't think so. Ken also has no problem with contradicting himself (and he will flatly tell you so). He has written in the past that Aperture does a better job of presenting Leica raw files than Leica does, for example. Of course, when he wrote that, Leica was getting some pretty heavy criticism from darned near everyone for the disappointing quality of its raw files. It was years ago and Leica has made many changes since then.
Which, I guess, is my point. Professionals buy the tools that they need in order to do their jobs. They don't buy tools just because they are the newest tools. If the new version of Aperture doesn't do what you need, such as running your Nik plugins, then wait a bit. Nik will fix their plugins, then you can buy the newest version of Aperture and all will be right with the world. And you didn't have to close shop for three months just because you insisted on having the latest version of Aperture.
I haven't read through all of the contents but Apple missed a great opportunity (if one can call it that) by not scooping up NIKsiftware and integrating the u-point tech with their software suite into Aperture.
This is the reason Ken Rockwell doesn't shoot raw; he feels that only camera manufacturers are able to interpreted the captured light and reproduce that image, not some computer company like Adobe or Apple. As a statement, I agree with him. Just haven't tried out all the differences in raw processing from varying camera makers and software makers/applications to form my own opinion on the matter.
The rest of your post is good as well, I'm just too lazy to respond...to say it is good.
If you shot long exposure with ND filters, you would shoot RAW or you would take really bad photo's. Ken is going off Ken's work experience and what he does. I am sure that if he strapped on a Lee Big Stopper he would have a change of heart. The blue hue can only be cured correctly and completely in RAW in post production.
A new release of Aperture is overdue, whether Apple wants it or not. The current version is underfeatured, slow, buggy and lacking consistency. In fact it is probably the worst piece of Apple software at the moment.
Comments
You're right, and it is annoying. Or at least to those who pay per bit, as opposed to a monthly fee for unlimited access. But yes, for Apple, such an advanced computer company this is quite ridiculous indeed.
That's the one. And they weren't allowed to give it away for free. Some financial restriction for a ...edit, found this:
Apple is required to charge you for the enabler. 802.11n was R & D intensive; it's not your granny's WiFi. You can't amortize R & D costs against new products--in this case, AirPort Extreme and Apple TV--and then give that same R & D away somewhere else. That would create what's called an accounting irregularity, and these aren't popular at places like Apple and Dell just now. The only way to put 802.11n into existing Mac users' hands was to turn it into a product against which R & D could be charged. $1.99 is a token, the very least that Apple could charge you and still call the enabler a product. If Apple hadn't come up with this sound solution, you'd have to buy AirPort Extreme--an extraordinary product, as you'll read in my review--or wait for Leopard in order to get 802.11n.
I understand, but won't it look better if it's perceived as
"Horrible Administrator" (as opposed to the current)
"Horrible. Administrator"
?
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie
"Horrible Administrator" (as opposed to the current)
"Horrible. Administrator"
Oh, I see. Am I a horrible administrator? I just wanted to say that I'm horrible; also that I'm an administrator.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie
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?
Two very simple and good reasons:
1) If you already have iPhoto (and I imagine most Aperture users migrated from iPhoto), all of the work put into photo organization in iPhoto is preserved. That can be a big deal.
2) My wife doesn't have to learn Aperture. She can do what she wants with our photo library in iPhoto while I can do whatever picture editing I want in Aperture and it all "just works".
Originally Posted by Hudson1
Two very simple and good reasons:
1) If you already have iPhoto (and I imagine most Aperture users migrated from iPhoto), all of the work put into photo organization in iPhoto is preserved. That can be a big deal.
2) My wife doesn't have to learn Aperture. She can do what she wants with our photo library in iPhoto while I can do whatever picture editing I want in Aperture and it all "just works".
This, coupled with the fact that they now share a single library file, makes using both of them an even more logical idea, since if you just need quick changes you can pop open iPhoto, do it, and then they're applied the next time you use Aperture.
I expected people to migrate / upgrade from iPhoto to Aperture, and do that once, but your #2 explains what the benefit of it is if you use both. Didn't know that iPhoto preserved your masters like Aperture does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlandd
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.
Raw interpretation is a somewhat complicated subject. I've expected them to trend toward real time interpretation for years. It's possible with video data, but a single frame there isn't necessarily as big as some still photos or layouts can be. I'd imagine they don't want it to run like sludge on slower systems, and the lack of efficient n-core scaling may also play a role as it does for so many other programs. The most likely way to handle such interpretation in real time would be through OpenCL functions. Some renderers provide real time lighting feedback, yet the real time aspect is always grainy, not a near perfect representation cached at several levels of magnification. With raw interpreters, they have to rasterize the data to 3 complete channels, interpolate any gaps, and interpret the numbers through a camera specific input profile prior to applying things such as white balance and gamma correction or a tonal response curve to bring the raw data to something readable on a (approximately) gamma 2.2 display. Unfortunately it's not currently possible to interpret the raws in real time, although After Effects and some video compositing programs have a better implementation for dealing with data in linear form while it's displayed as you would expect to see it. Most of them interpret the images at 32 bpc float values, which might make it impractical for lighter hardware. Some tools work in a much more pleasing manner at that level. Modes such as subtract or linear dodge actually work properly. I don't know how long it will be before we see this kind of capability.
http://m.tuaw.com/2012/12/28/sorry-folks-book-publishers-dont-know-apples-plans/
Originally Posted by jlandd
http://m.tuaw.com/2012/12/28/sorry-folks-book-publishers-dont-know-apples-plans/
These've been right more often than wrong in the past, though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie
Well, that should make the Aperture 3 reviewed by bcbcbroderick on the right hand side of AI pages disappear in no time. It will of course be a welcomed upgrade, in spite of all the free updates we got since version 3 came out. Do wish we get an option in the prefs to turn back on colored icons in the side- and toolbar, but looking at iTunes that will be wishful thinking. Less is more and all that.
I am interested in feedback from Lightroom users; that software has caught up to Aperture and supposedly became superior. I just don't know in what way...
I have used both of these programs extensively and I really like them both. Lightroom has better editing capabilities. The curves tool is more like that of Photoshop, for example. Some people like the organizational structure better, too. Lightroom's interface is more customizable and allows a great deal more personalization such as branding. Aperture does seem to me to interpret Nikon raw files better -- meaning I personally like their look better than what Lightroom does with them. I also think Lightroom's interface is more modal than it needs to be. Kind of reminds me of those old word processors where you were in edit mode or print mode or browse mode, only prettier. Anyway, I continue to use Aperture. The fact is, the function of these work flow tools is to organize your images and provide a platform for the plug-ins and external editors that your real editing tools. Switching tools can cause you to lose some of your edits and it is a huge, time consuming pain in the butt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
The problem with your view is people relied on Final Cut Pro to make a living. Final Cut Pro X initially dropped support for certain needed plugins, multi-monitors, network sharing, projects from older versions of the software, and numerous other things. Apple billed the software as professional ready.
Of course, this is not something peculiar to Apple. Every update of Photoshop tends to break all or most of your plugins, too.
Real professionals have learned: don't update your software until the rest of your tools have been updated to work with it. If you work with raw files, for example, you don't buy a new camera until your editing software has been updated to read the new file formats.
There is absolutely no reason to update to the latest and greatest if it means disruption of your work. Real professionals know the value of patience.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlandd
http://m.tuaw.com/2012/12/28/sorry-folks-book-publishers-dont-know-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
These've been right more often than wrong in the past, though.
It's not a right or wrong thing. According to this posting by Michael Grothaus, the author of "Using iPhoto" published by a major publishing house,
"Since Apple never releases betas of their desktop apps, authors like me begin writing the books on the (hopefully) upcoming software so we can have the book as completed as possible when the new version does actually come out."
Not my words, his.
Originally Posted by jlandd
Not my words, his.
Stet, but that only works when the thing is basically just a point update with a new name.
He should know by now that Apple is in the "completely redesign it" game as of late. If it's really to be "Aperture X" (and they should also know by now not to use that as a placeholder name), it'll take more than "2-3 weeks" to go over new features.
I read that article, and apparently they (writers in general, according to him) only take 2-3 weeks (or some such) to try out and write up the new features. The rest of the book already consists of placeholders.
Must be hectic weeks for writers after Apple releases something! Guess time to market is more important than quality...
This is the reason Ken Rockwell doesn't shoot raw; he feels that only camera manufacturers are able to interpreted the captured light and reproduce that image, not some computer company like Adobe or Apple. As a statement, I agree with him. Just haven't tried out all the differences in raw processing from varying camera makers and software makers/applications to form my own opinion on the matter.
The rest of your post is good as well, I'm just too lazy to respond...to say it is good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
He should know by now that Apple is in the "completely redesign it" game as of late. If it's really to be "Aperture X" (and they should also know by now not to use that as a placeholder name), it'll take more than "2-3 weeks" to go over new features.
The placeholders are totally publishers' things. Authors aren't involved. I've worked with publishers on audio releases for decades and that's how they've always been with the work I've been involved with. No one involved with the content of the projects I've worked on ever had anything to do with things like this. Just the promo division on the other side pushing the interest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie
This is the reason Ken Rockwell doesn't shoot raw; he feels that only camera manufacturers are able to interpreted the captured light and reproduce that image, not some computer company like Adobe or Apple. As a statement, I agree with him. Just haven't tried out all the differences in raw processing from varying camera makers and software makers/applications to form my own opinion on the matter.
The rest of your post is good as well, I'm just too lazy to respond...to say it is good.
I read Ken Rockwell every day. I don't always agree with him. He also cultivates an aura of being bombastic on his web site -- his way, I suppose, of ridiculing real technical experts for things like "pixel peeping." Nevertheless, his views can be valuable. Ken's real point has always been that it is the artist, not the artist's tools. So he sometimes says things that really are more aimed at getting you to think about why you need a particular camera or piece of software than they are at really claiming what is "best." "Best" is always relative and subjective. Ken's point is that if it does what you want it to do, then for you it is the "best."
If you ask three photographers about shooting raw, you will get at least four opinions. I do shoot raw. I think JPG is for journalists and other casual shooters. Nikon does a fine job of interpreting raw photos in its Capture NX2 software, but I am not convinced that it is any better than what we get in Aperture. In fact, I like Aperture's interpretation better. It is all subjective. You cannot truthfully say that one is more realistic than the other since there is no real standard other than your own observation and prejudices of how you want your pictures to look. I like the Nik designed interface in NX2. However, I can get Nik plugins for both Lightroom and Aperture and have the benefits of those programs as well.
Seriously, is Ken really claiming that the only accurate representation of a photo is that which you get on the camera's LED screen? I don't think so. Ken also has no problem with contradicting himself (and he will flatly tell you so). He has written in the past that Aperture does a better job of presenting Leica raw files than Leica does, for example. Of course, when he wrote that, Leica was getting some pretty heavy criticism from darned near everyone for the disappointing quality of its raw files. It was years ago and Leica has made many changes since then.
Which, I guess, is my point. Professionals buy the tools that they need in order to do their jobs. They don't buy tools just because they are the newest tools. If the new version of Aperture doesn't do what you need, such as running your Nik plugins, then wait a bit. Nik will fix their plugins, then you can buy the newest version of Aperture and all will be right with the world. And you didn't have to close shop for three months just because you insisted on having the latest version of Aperture.
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie
Guess time to market is more important than quality...
Just like televised news and most websites.
Google picked them up first.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie
This is the reason Ken Rockwell doesn't shoot raw; he feels that only camera manufacturers are able to interpreted the captured light and reproduce that image, not some computer company like Adobe or Apple. As a statement, I agree with him. Just haven't tried out all the differences in raw processing from varying camera makers and software makers/applications to form my own opinion on the matter.
The rest of your post is good as well, I'm just too lazy to respond...to say it is good.
If you shot long exposure with ND filters, you would shoot RAW or you would take really bad photo's. Ken is going off Ken's work experience and what he does. I am sure that if he strapped on a Lee Big Stopper he would have a change of heart. The blue hue can only be cured correctly and completely in RAW in post production.