Also workload is a factor: the 6-figure guy probably NEEDS way more power than the little guy
Little guy takes 500 shots at a wedding:
Big shot takes 1200 shots at a pro football game
Little guy has a week or two to get the photos done and proof sheets made
Depending on when the paper/magazine goes to press or when teh web site is updated, the big guy may only have a couple of hours or maybe just a few minutes.
To whome much is given, much is expected.
I'm a student and I had a weekend to get 700 prints edited and printed. I would have loved Aperture to speed it up!
They seemed to be far more interested in pulling the high end photogs in than the little guy.
At $500 per copy, I think the little guy is going to have a hard time buying it anyway to tweak their photos, especially when you can get Photoshop Elements 3.0 for around $80.
Great first post, welcome to the forum! I agree and for people like me who are in education it's even cheaper - only £220 - which I suppose isn't that much less than the US full price!
Also, remember that it doesn't really handle PS files well. Only flattened ones. You would have to go back to the original layered file in PS, then re-import it into Aperture again if you would want to make a change.
I think that Adobe should put more effort into supporting Macs (don't get me wrong, they do a great job). In my opinion Adobe should build their next creative suite for Mac around the Core* technologies.
Now, this would make it harder for Adobe to supply a version of. say photoshop, that has the _ exact same_ functionality on Macs as on other platforms, but my reasoning is this:
While Apple are releasing some software that can be seen as competing products to Adobes (Final Cut. Motion), Aperture might cost Adobe sales of photoshop express. On the other hand Apple does not target Adobes grassroots technology in the same way that Microsoft does. As an example, while Apple chose to adopt PDF as a core technology with widespread support in Mac OS X, MS has chosed to release a competing technology (Metro), because they see the potential gain of owning such a standard.
Aperture and Photoshop will complement eachother very nicely, and increased sales of Aperture might yield increased sales of Photoshop (and/or the whole CS) to Adobe. If Adobe built their next CS around Core Image and Core Data and they worked close with Apple, the two products could interact in truly amazing ways. One that comes to mind, as has been suggested above, the ability to perform some editing in Aperture, fire it over to Photoshop, and then have the effect be applied automatically when you return to Aperture, in the same lossless way without having to make a copy of the image at all.
Too many big companies today are too narrow sighted to see the real benefits of establishing and maintaining real partnerships with products that complement eachother, instead of competing.
At $500 per copy, I think the little guy is going to have a hard time buying it anyway to tweak their photos, especially when you can get Photoshop Elements 3.0 for around $80.
The differance is that PSE is GARBAGE, the GUI is that of a pro tool dumbed down to the level of what adobe thinks consumers are, dumb unintelegent retards.
PSE is an insult to my intelegence. What I really expected when getting the demo of PSE was like photoshop express...same gui, just less features.
</rant>
$500 to manage your etier collection in the way this iwill isnt bad -- just look at how expencive friggen lenses can be! Many small time photographers I know get PS because they need it, but for what they do, this could easily do the job, and to be quite honest, this could do away with the need to upgrade photoshop every release, honestly, what sort of pixel level editing does a photogropher (PHOTOGRAPHER!=DESIGNER) need that isnt in PS7? or even 6?
At $500 per copy, I think the little guy is going to have a hard time buying it anyway to tweak their photos, especially when you can get Photoshop Elements 3.0 for around $80.
The differance is that PSE is GARBAGE, the GUI is that of a pro tool dumbed down to the level of what adobe thinks consumers are, dumb unintelegent retards.
PSE is an insult to my intelegence. What I really expected when getting the demo of PSE was like photoshop express...same gui, just less features.
</rant>
$500 to manage your etier collection in the way this iwill isnt bad -- just look at how expencive friggen lenses can be! Many small time photographers I know get PS because they need it, but for what they do, this could easily do the job, and to be quite honest, this could do away with the need to upgrade photoshop every release, honestly, what sort of pixel level editing does a photogropher (PHOTOGRAPHER!=DESIGNER) need that isnt in PS7? or even 6?
I'm a student and I had a weekend to get 700 prints edited and printed. I would have loved Aperture to speed it up!
My comment was specific to hardware -- the precieved "need" for dual proc dual core may be accurate for a high level pro, but rookies can do with less hardware wise, just like in video with FCP, if all you are doing is 30 second SD commercials, you dont need as much as the guy doing long form HD/film telecien.
I knowwhat it is like to want/need more power in college, right now I have a 1400MHZ windows box with 384 meg of ram and a mac mini 1.2 / 512.
But hey, I graduate in May and then PM+23inch display here I come
I think that Adobe should put more effort into supporting Macs (don't get me wrong, they do a great job). In my opinion Adobe should build their next creative suite for Mac around the Core* technologies.
Now, this would make it harder for Adobe to supply a version of. say photoshop, that has the _ exact same_ functionality on Macs as on other platforms, but my reasoning is this:
While Apple are releasing some software that can be seen as competing products to Adobes (Final Cut. Motion), Aperture might cost Adobe sales of photoshop express. On the other hand Apple does not target Adobes grassroots technology in the same way that Microsoft does. As an example, while Apple chose to adopt PDF as a core technology with widespread support in Mac OS X, MS has chosed to release a competing technology (Metro), because they see the potential gain of owning such a standard.
Aperture and Photoshop will complement eachother very nicely, and increased sales of Aperture might yield increased sales of Photoshop (and/or the whole CS) to Adobe. If Adobe built their next CS around Core Image and Core Data and they worked close with Apple, the two products could interact in truly amazing ways. One that comes to mind, as has been suggested above, the ability to perform some editing in Aperture, fire it over to Photoshop, and then have the effect be applied automatically when you return to Aperture, in the same lossless way without having to make a copy of the image at all.
Too many big companies today are too narrow sighted to see the real benefits of establishing and maintaining real partnerships with products that complement eachother, instead of competing.
I agree that it would be wonderful if Adobe did that. But they won't.
Customers want their apps to be the same as the app on the other platform in that it must have the same features. With Apple garnering only 27% of PS's sales, that will never happen.
I've dealt directly with Adobe over the years, both as a lab owner, and as a beta tester since 1990. I can tell you that many of Adobe's programmers and even management are very much pro Apple.
But business necessities come first. When PS and other programs from Adobe were first ported over to Windows, it was done with regret. Few in Adobe wanted that to happen.
Realistically though, Apple was rapidly fading from the scene. Even in its strongholds its numbers were going down. Adobe had to protect themselves as a company, or they felt that they too might be in severe trouble.
Despite Adobe's astonishment, their products were received with enthusiasm from the PC community. This has happened every time that prominent Mac programs were ported over to Windows (surprise, surprise!!!)
This didn't help Apple. But Adobe is not to be blamed for Apple's problems.
As PS and other programs increased their PC marketshare to 50% and beyond, Adobe found that it could no longer make two completely different versions of their product. In the '90's as Apple came up with new software technologies, Adobe could not support them as they would have previously. Otherwise their PC customers would rightly have complained (it isn't just us, you know).
So unless, somehow, Apple manages to claw its way up to over 50% (well over 50%), we will not see Adobe, or any other cross platform company significantly increase support for Apple only technologies, if those technologies give new features to the product. If they increase the performance of the product that's different. Adobe was the first large company to support the PPC chip (except for Wordperfect), and the first to support Altivec.
That is the point of Core Image Core Data is to increase performance to some ways and inrease productivity in other ways.
I can see the point on one hand Windows users complaining that PS for Mac has features that PS for Windows doesn't. It should be simple enough for Adobe to explain that OS x has features that Windows doesn't.
MS is certainly on a path of directly competing with Adobe. While Apple has been cooperating with Adobe. Adobe should be more amicable to cooperate with Apple.
That is the point of Core Image Core Data is to increase performance to some ways and inrease productivity in other ways.
I can see the point on one hand Windows users complaining that PS for Mac has features that PS for Windows doesn't. It should be simple enough for Adobe to explain that OS x has features that Windows doesn't.
MS is certainly on a path of directly competing with Adobe. While Apple has been cooperating with Adobe. Adobe should be more amicable to cooperate with Apple.
But Microsoft has the market share - and that's what counts. I would love Adobe to take advantage of the Mac features but it would make Windows users irate. Also Adobe currently has less features on the Mac - lots of Acrobat tools are Windows only.
That is the point of Core Image Core Data is to increase performance to some ways and inrease productivity in other ways.
I can see the point on one hand Windows users complaining that PS for Mac has features that PS for Windows doesn't. It should be simple enough for Adobe to explain that OS x has features that Windows doesn't.
MS is certainly on a path of directly competing with Adobe. While Apple has been cooperating with Adobe. Adobe should be more amicable to cooperate with Apple.
Both Apple and MS cooperate with and compete with Adobe.
They are in the middle of two companies who want to control their OS's destinies. They both feel that they are best served in that by moving into Adobe's territory.
What I found to be both interesting and distressing was when Adobe and MS developed the OpenType standard. Apple was nowhere to be seen.
It shows how alliances change depending upon need. Quite a while ago it was Apple and MS that developed the Trutype technology to compete with Adobe's Type 1 technology. The idea being to force Adobe to open its standard to everyone, and thus to increase the number of companies developing type in that format as well as bringing the price down.
As Opentype is mostly based on TruType, it was surprising and confusing that Apple wasen't involved.
Also, remember that FCP and Aperture are assults against Adobe, so the issue isn't clear.
It has features in Acrobat that are not included on the Mac version - as I said.
Unfortunately, this is what happens when you have a smaller marketshare.
When I asked Adobe about that a few years ago, the responded with; "Mac users don't need these aspects of the program." Or for that matter, the extra program.
But I am willing to make a bet that if Apple had 60% of their business, we WOULD have it.
Comments
Originally posted by a_greer
Also workload is a factor: the 6-figure guy probably NEEDS way more power than the little guy
Little guy takes 500 shots at a wedding:
Big shot takes 1200 shots at a pro football game
Little guy has a week or two to get the photos done and proof sheets made
Depending on when the paper/magazine goes to press or when teh web site is updated, the big guy may only have a couple of hours or maybe just a few minutes.
To whome much is given, much is expected.
I'm a student and I had a weekend to get 700 prints edited and printed. I would have loved Aperture to speed it up!
Originally posted by melgross
They seemed to be far more interested in pulling the high end photogs in than the little guy.
At $500 per copy, I think the little guy is going to have a hard time buying it anyway to tweak their photos, especially when you can get Photoshop Elements 3.0 for around $80.
Originally posted by MacCrazy
Great first post, welcome to the forum! I agree and for people like me who are in education it's even cheaper - only £220 - which I suppose isn't that much less than the US full price!
50 bucks
Originally posted by Ensign Pulver
Farewell.
Goodbye my dear, and good luck.
Originally posted by melgross
Also, remember that it doesn't really handle PS files well. Only flattened ones. You would have to go back to the original layered file in PS, then re-import it into Aperture again if you would want to make a change.
I think that Adobe should put more effort into supporting Macs (don't get me wrong, they do a great job). In my opinion Adobe should build their next creative suite for Mac around the Core* technologies.
Now, this would make it harder for Adobe to supply a version of. say photoshop, that has the _ exact same_ functionality on Macs as on other platforms, but my reasoning is this:
While Apple are releasing some software that can be seen as competing products to Adobes (Final Cut. Motion), Aperture might cost Adobe sales of photoshop express. On the other hand Apple does not target Adobes grassroots technology in the same way that Microsoft does. As an example, while Apple chose to adopt PDF as a core technology with widespread support in Mac OS X, MS has chosed to release a competing technology (Metro), because they see the potential gain of owning such a standard.
Aperture and Photoshop will complement eachother very nicely, and increased sales of Aperture might yield increased sales of Photoshop (and/or the whole CS) to Adobe. If Adobe built their next CS around Core Image and Core Data and they worked close with Apple, the two products could interact in truly amazing ways. One that comes to mind, as has been suggested above, the ability to perform some editing in Aperture, fire it over to Photoshop, and then have the effect be applied automatically when you return to Aperture, in the same lossless way without having to make a copy of the image at all.
Too many big companies today are too narrow sighted to see the real benefits of establishing and maintaining real partnerships with products that complement eachother, instead of competing.
Originally posted by kwsanders
At $500 per copy, I think the little guy is going to have a hard time buying it anyway to tweak their photos, especially when you can get Photoshop Elements 3.0 for around $80.
The differance is that PSE is GARBAGE, the GUI is that of a pro tool dumbed down to the level of what adobe thinks consumers are, dumb unintelegent retards.
PSE is an insult to my intelegence. What I really expected when getting the demo of PSE was like photoshop express...same gui, just less features.
</rant>
$500 to manage your etier collection in the way this iwill isnt bad -- just look at how expencive friggen lenses can be! Many small time photographers I know get PS because they need it, but for what they do, this could easily do the job, and to be quite honest, this could do away with the need to upgrade photoshop every release, honestly, what sort of pixel level editing does a photogropher (PHOTOGRAPHER!=DESIGNER) need that isnt in PS7? or even 6?
Originally posted by kwsanders
At $500 per copy, I think the little guy is going to have a hard time buying it anyway to tweak their photos, especially when you can get Photoshop Elements 3.0 for around $80.
The differance is that PSE is GARBAGE, the GUI is that of a pro tool dumbed down to the level of what adobe thinks consumers are, dumb unintelegent retards.
PSE is an insult to my intelegence. What I really expected when getting the demo of PSE was like photoshop express...same gui, just less features.
</rant>
$500 to manage your etier collection in the way this iwill isnt bad -- just look at how expencive friggen lenses can be! Many small time photographers I know get PS because they need it, but for what they do, this could easily do the job, and to be quite honest, this could do away with the need to upgrade photoshop every release, honestly, what sort of pixel level editing does a photogropher (PHOTOGRAPHER!=DESIGNER) need that isnt in PS7? or even 6?
Originally posted by MacCrazy
I'm a student and I had a weekend to get 700 prints edited and printed. I would have loved Aperture to speed it up!
My comment was specific to hardware -- the precieved "need" for dual proc dual core may be accurate for a high level pro, but rookies can do with less hardware wise, just like in video with FCP, if all you are doing is 30 second SD commercials, you dont need as much as the guy doing long form HD/film telecien.
I knowwhat it is like to want/need more power in college, right now I have a 1400MHZ windows box with 384 meg of ram and a mac mini 1.2 / 512.
But hey, I graduate in May and then PM+23inch display here I come
So, the expectation was that the machines should be more like this.
dual core 2GHz $1,800
dual core 2.5GHz $2,300
Quad core 2.3GHz $2,800
Quad core 2.5GHz $3,300
I do agree with that.
The dual 2.0 G5 has been with us for 3 years. It's ridiculous it's even in the current line-up.
A dual core 2 gig G5 for £999 would have been a killer product.
They had the chance to really do something different with the Pro' line up. But they screwed it up a little.
A couple of single Dual Coress and a couple of Quad Core beasts would have been bettere. It's a thought.
And why Apple don't do monitor bundle pricing to drive sales fo the Power Mac? I don't know...
Lemon Bon Bon
Originally posted by BoeManE
I think that Adobe should put more effort into supporting Macs (don't get me wrong, they do a great job). In my opinion Adobe should build their next creative suite for Mac around the Core* technologies.
Now, this would make it harder for Adobe to supply a version of. say photoshop, that has the _ exact same_ functionality on Macs as on other platforms, but my reasoning is this:
While Apple are releasing some software that can be seen as competing products to Adobes (Final Cut. Motion), Aperture might cost Adobe sales of photoshop express. On the other hand Apple does not target Adobes grassroots technology in the same way that Microsoft does. As an example, while Apple chose to adopt PDF as a core technology with widespread support in Mac OS X, MS has chosed to release a competing technology (Metro), because they see the potential gain of owning such a standard.
Aperture and Photoshop will complement eachother very nicely, and increased sales of Aperture might yield increased sales of Photoshop (and/or the whole CS) to Adobe. If Adobe built their next CS around Core Image and Core Data and they worked close with Apple, the two products could interact in truly amazing ways. One that comes to mind, as has been suggested above, the ability to perform some editing in Aperture, fire it over to Photoshop, and then have the effect be applied automatically when you return to Aperture, in the same lossless way without having to make a copy of the image at all.
Too many big companies today are too narrow sighted to see the real benefits of establishing and maintaining real partnerships with products that complement eachother, instead of competing.
I agree that it would be wonderful if Adobe did that. But they won't.
Customers want their apps to be the same as the app on the other platform in that it must have the same features. With Apple garnering only 27% of PS's sales, that will never happen.
I've dealt directly with Adobe over the years, both as a lab owner, and as a beta tester since 1990. I can tell you that many of Adobe's programmers and even management are very much pro Apple.
But business necessities come first. When PS and other programs from Adobe were first ported over to Windows, it was done with regret. Few in Adobe wanted that to happen.
Realistically though, Apple was rapidly fading from the scene. Even in its strongholds its numbers were going down. Adobe had to protect themselves as a company, or they felt that they too might be in severe trouble.
Despite Adobe's astonishment, their products were received with enthusiasm from the PC community. This has happened every time that prominent Mac programs were ported over to Windows (surprise, surprise!!!)
This didn't help Apple. But Adobe is not to be blamed for Apple's problems.
As PS and other programs increased their PC marketshare to 50% and beyond, Adobe found that it could no longer make two completely different versions of their product. In the '90's as Apple came up with new software technologies, Adobe could not support them as they would have previously. Otherwise their PC customers would rightly have complained (it isn't just us, you know).
So unless, somehow, Apple manages to claw its way up to over 50% (well over 50%), we will not see Adobe, or any other cross platform company significantly increase support for Apple only technologies, if those technologies give new features to the product. If they increase the performance of the product that's different. Adobe was the first large company to support the PPC chip (except for Wordperfect), and the first to support Altivec.
I can see the point on one hand Windows users complaining that PS for Mac has features that PS for Windows doesn't. It should be simple enough for Adobe to explain that OS x has features that Windows doesn't.
MS is certainly on a path of directly competing with Adobe. While Apple has been cooperating with Adobe. Adobe should be more amicable to cooperate with Apple.
Originally posted by TenoBell
That is the point of Core Image Core Data is to increase performance to some ways and inrease productivity in other ways.
I can see the point on one hand Windows users complaining that PS for Mac has features that PS for Windows doesn't. It should be simple enough for Adobe to explain that OS x has features that Windows doesn't.
MS is certainly on a path of directly competing with Adobe. While Apple has been cooperating with Adobe. Adobe should be more amicable to cooperate with Apple.
But Microsoft has the market share - and that's what counts. I would love Adobe to take advantage of the Mac features but it would make Windows users irate. Also Adobe currently has less features on the Mac - lots of Acrobat tools are Windows only.
Originally posted by TenoBell
That is the point of Core Image Core Data is to increase performance to some ways and inrease productivity in other ways.
I can see the point on one hand Windows users complaining that PS for Mac has features that PS for Windows doesn't. It should be simple enough for Adobe to explain that OS x has features that Windows doesn't.
MS is certainly on a path of directly competing with Adobe. While Apple has been cooperating with Adobe. Adobe should be more amicable to cooperate with Apple.
Both Apple and MS cooperate with and compete with Adobe.
They are in the middle of two companies who want to control their OS's destinies. They both feel that they are best served in that by moving into Adobe's territory.
What I found to be both interesting and distressing was when Adobe and MS developed the OpenType standard. Apple was nowhere to be seen.
It shows how alliances change depending upon need. Quite a while ago it was Apple and MS that developed the Trutype technology to compete with Adobe's Type 1 technology. The idea being to force Adobe to open its standard to everyone, and thus to increase the number of companies developing type in that format as well as bringing the price down.
As Opentype is mostly based on TruType, it was surprising and confusing that Apple wasen't involved.
Also, remember that FCP and Aperture are assults against Adobe, so the issue isn't clear.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Adobe doesn't have features; it has programes.
It has features in Acrobat that are not included on the Mac version - as I said.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Adobe doesn't have features; it has programes.
Ah, but their programs ARE their features. Without them, they would have nothing.
Originally posted by MacCrazy
It has features in Acrobat that are not included on the Mac version - as I said.
Unfortunately, this is what happens when you have a smaller marketshare.
When I asked Adobe about that a few years ago, the responded with; "Mac users don't need these aspects of the program." Or for that matter, the extra program.
But I am willing to make a bet that if Apple had 60% of their business, we WOULD have it.
Originally posted by melgross
Both Apple and MS cooperate with and compete with Adobe.
Case in point, Windows Paint! Why buy Photoshop when you have Paint?
Originally posted by JeffDM
Case in point, Windows Paint! Why buy Photoshop when you have Paint?
Well, uh, not what I had in mind.
MS is competing with Adobe's PDF format, though we don't know how that's going to turn out.
They also have a fairly decent image editing app out recently.
When MS took Powerpoint years ago and put it into Office, it killed what was the best presentation program around; Adobe's Persuasion.
They did what they did to Netscape. Gave an app away that was being beaten in quality and sales.
Also, remember that FCP and Aperture are assults against Adobe, so the issue isn't clear.
Both cases are a little more complicated than simply attacking Adobe.
FCP came about because of Adobe's refusal to help Apple. Also the fact that Premeire was lagging behind its full potential.
Aperture I more believe is Apple showing what good user intefaces should be, and the function of applications that use the Core API's.
I can understand if Apple says this is what I wish Adobe would do, if they don't, then we do it ourselves.
Apple is developing these apps because Adobe can't or won't.
But Adobe should.