No, absolutely not. It will give those with machinesthat don't run this well an excuse to upgrade.
Hmmm... $500 bucks for CS2/Bridge that actually runs on a PB, or $400 + another $3k (I'm being generous), to run Aperture? Gee, that's a tough call. NOT! I'll take function over elegance, and some might say stupidity, anyday, albeit at a steeper learning curve.
Pisses me off too. The intro audience doesn't seem to have been very well thought out.
No what I mean is that if you apply a series of effects to the same layer you cannot re-order them or reverse them if you applied another one afterward which you want to keep.
There are certain effects that you can apply to each type of layer. There are a number of different types of layers. You can even choose to make up your own type of layer.
Effects applied to these layers are perfectly adjustable or reversed or, well, whatever. Those of us who have used PS for a time, and who understant it, use 20 or more layers at times with no ill effects.
Someone experienced with PS knows just how to manipulate these layers. Intelligent use of PS and any of its features takes time to learn. That's because PS is a very rich program.
If somehow you find that you have drilled yourself into a hole that you can't get yourself out of in PS, it's only because you are not using the program properly.
You will find that even with Aperture, you have to understand a feature before you are successful in using it.
Hmmm... $500 bucks for CS2/Bridge that actually runs on a PB, or $400 + another $3k (I'm being generous), to run Aperture? Gee, that's a tough call. NOT! I'll take function over elegance, and some might say stupidity, anyday, albeit at a steeper learning curve.
Pisses me off too. The intro audience doesn't seem to have been very well thought out.
As Aperture can read and be used with other media that RAW, I'm interested in how it performs with JPEG files, and if it's more useable on a PowerBook with JPEG files ?
Hmmm... $500 bucks for CS2/Bridge that actually runs on a PB, or $400 + another $3k (I'm being generous), to run Aperture? Gee, that's a tough call. NOT! I'll take function over elegance, and some might say stupidity, anyday, albeit at a steeper learning curve.
Pisses me off too. The intro audience doesn't seem to have been very well thought out.
-voodoo
But... but... but it's an APPLE product! Surely that means it's the greatest thing on the planet! Buy it! Be part of the fashionable herd!
I have never seen his handle before, so I don't know what you're referring to, but unfortunately I'm encountering some of that here.
There has been some of that "Don't insult my Apple product, it's teh best".
As can be expected from an apple-related forum such as this. I think its always going to be like this, in any forum that is closely linked to a certain product or brand.
However, since Aperture has not been released yet, most of this post is based on speculation.
I am no pro photographer, but I would love to have some of Apertures features, but I would like them in an "iPhoto" or "iPhoto Express" package. Based on other applications from Apple, I think we will either see iPhoto, iPhoto Pro and Aperture, or iPhoto, Aperture Express and Aperture Pro as the future Photographic lineup from Apple.
As can be expected from an apple-related forum such as this. I think its always going to be like this, in any forum that is closely linked to a certain product or brand.
However, since Aperture has not been released yet, most of this post is based on speculation.
I am no pro photographer, but I would love to have some of Apertures features, but I would like them in an "iPhoto" or "iPhoto Express" package. Based on other applications from Apple, I think we will either see iPhoto, iPhoto Pro and Aperture, or iPhoto, Aperture Express and Aperture Pro as the future Photographic lineup from Apple.
Since, as usual, we had no warning about this, we can't guess what Apple will do.
Adobe may respond. They could beef up Bridge, they could allow RAW support within the program. Both of those solutions would work for both the Mac and Windows.
For all we know, they have been working on those very things for 10.
I won't find out until they send me my beta to test.
There are certain effects that you can apply to each type of layer. There are a number of different types of layers. You can even choose to make up your own type of layer.
Effects applied to these layers are perfectly adjustable or reversed or, well, whatever. Those of us who have used PS for a time, and who understant it, use 20 or more layers at times with no ill effects.
Someone experienced with PS knows just how to manipulate these layers. Intelligent use of PS and any of its features takes time to learn. That's because PS is a very rich program.
If somehow you find that you have drilled yourself into a hole that you can't get yourself out of in PS, it's only because you are not using the program properly.
You will find that even with Aperture, you have to understand a feature before you are successful in using it.
You can't compare non destructive editing to layers. As a betatester of several Photoshop version I can tell you that Adobe have tried to get non destructive editing into Photoshop for years, but every time they pulled it since they couldn't make it work properly. Only Adjustment layers came through.
Why would they work on non destructive editing if layers were basically the same?
Plus 20 layers is nothing compared to non destructive editing - you have to create a new layer for each and every edit you make, and you can't do two things on a layer. You have to remember (or write down) what you did on a layer if you want to redo the filter with altered settings.
A non destructive layer of - let's say - blur would let you adjust the settings later, but in Photoshop you have to create a new copy of the unedited layer and run the filter one more time. That's not very productive.
It gets even worse if you have to run another filter on top of the first one and want to redo the first filter.
And we haven't even begun talking about versions cropped differently.
You'll end up with tons of layers, and probably multiple copies of the same image. Versioning and non destructive editing is the future.
PS: this is not an Apple vs. Adobe post, an Aperture vs. Photoshop post, but a layer vs. non destructive editing.
You can't compare non destructive editing to layers. As a betatester of several Photoshop version I can tell you that Adobe have tried to get non destructive editing into Photoshop for years, but every time they pulled it since they couldn't make it work properly. Only Adjustment layers came through.
Why would they work on non destructive editing if layers were basically the same?
Plus 20 layers is nothing compared to non destructive editing - you have to create a new layer for each and every edit you make, and you can't do two things on a layer. You have to remember (or write down) what you did on a layer if you want to redo the filter with altered settings.
A non destructive layer of - let's say - blur would let you adjust the settings later, but in Photoshop you have to create a new copy of the unedited layer and run the filter one more time. That's not very productive.
It gets even worse if you have to run another filter on top of the first one and want to redo the first filter.
And we haven't even begun talking about versions cropped differently.
You'll end up with tons of layers, and probably multiple copies of the same image. Versioning and non destructive editing is the future.
PS: this is not an Apple vs. Adobe post, an Aperture vs. Photoshop post, but a layer vs. non destructive editing.
exactly, and for the record melgross I do understand PS!
You can't compare non destructive editing to layers. As a betatester of several Photoshop version I can tell you that Adobe have tried to get non destructive editing into Photoshop for years, but every time they pulled it since they couldn't make it work properly. Only Adjustment layers came through.
Why would they work on non destructive editing if layers were basically the same?
Plus 20 layers is nothing compared to non destructive editing - you have to create a new layer for each and every edit you make, and you can't do two things on a layer. You have to remember (or write down) what you did on a layer if you want to redo the filter with altered settings.
A non destructive layer of - let's say - blur would let you adjust the settings later, but in Photoshop you have to create a new copy of the unedited layer and run the filter one more time. That's not very productive.
It gets even worse if you have to run another filter on top of the first one and want to redo the first filter.
And we haven't even begun talking about versions cropped differently.
You'll end up with tons of layers, and probably multiple copies of the same image. Versioning and non destructive editing is the future.
PS: this is not an Apple vs. Adobe post, an Aperture vs. Photoshop post, but a layer vs. non destructive editing.
Your understanding of what layers does is very incomplete. Please don't bring up your beta test card. I've been testing this since version 1.
You can adjust any setting you make in a layer. That is the entire purpose of layers. Layers are deliberately designed to make the edits seperable. If you could perform different types of edits on a single layer, it would defeat the purpose of having seperate layers.
We, the users of PS, practicaly demanded this from Adobe. We got what we asked for.
The only reason that Apple can do what it does with images in Aperture is that it does very little. Photoshop does far more than Aperture does.
In order for PS to do the work it does, it must use layers. Layers are also an excellent organizational tool when attempting to try several different tryes of edits. It's very easy to group various layers together nane them and the groups, and turn them on or off to show a client the different results obtained. This way the client can make a judgement more easily.
Aperture doesn't need something as sophistigated as a layering system, because, at least at this time, Apple isn't trying to competer with PS on the level that it exists upon.
If Aperture is ever positioned as a true competitor to PS on that high level, it too will have to choose some form of edit control. It has none now.
At this point in time, Aperture can do perhaps 10% of the work that I, and my company, had to do for clients. It does that 10% very well. I won't argue that. But, so far, it's only good for the most basic needs.
I would like to try to clear something up here just a bit, though I know that even this will get arguments.
Having used Aperture at the show while sitting in on the class, I, and others there came to some conclusions while talking about it afterward. Someone else from this thread was also there and if he still is, might want to chime in as well.
Aperture was very well done. What it does it does it does in an interesting and well thought out manner. The totality of the program is unique on the Mac platform, even though there several programs on the PC that come close. But this one goes further, and does it better.
The most interesting part of the program is the way it handles files. The lightbox metaphor is nicely done. You do get a good feel of standing (well, actually sitting) over a lightbox and moving images around. It makes that very easy. Those who are just now moving over to the digital world might find this familliar and comforting
Opening RAW images directly isn't unique, even iPhoto and Preview do that, though you can't do anything with them at all in Preview. You can do this as well on the PC.
So the program, in its parts isn't unique, but it puts it all together better than any other program I've seen (and I've seen a lot).
CoreImage is the icing on the cake. This helps keep the metaphor working with its instantaneous action.
Photographers and studios that don't need more than fairly basic corrections on images will find this program to be very useful.
Now for the controversial part.
Aperture requires a lot of power from the computer to maintain that real-time metaphor. Even with the dual 2.5 or 2.7GHz G5's we used in class, there was hesitation when moving images around, as well as when doing other tasks. This wasn't present when trying the Quad 2.5GHz machines around the sides of the booth.
The Apple personal were reticent about speaking to the ability of the program to function in a manner consistent with the goals that Apple had apparently set for the program if the program was used in a PB, or other single cpu machine. Even if it met the specs.
Aperture seems happy when running on a physically large, high rez monitor. It looked great, and worked well on one 30" 2560 x 1600 monitor used by the Quad's, even thought they were using two.
It worked well enough on the 1920 x 1200 23's used in the class.
Anything smaller will have a problem. The program depends on your having a fair number of photo's lined up from which you can pull selects from. The realtime metaphor depends on your being able to see the differences between those photos in real time. Only the selects were being examined by the magnifier, even though they showed us that anything on the screen could use it.
This is the way we select images in the film world. Line up the photos. Glance at all of them, pull your selects, and examine them closely. Normally the non selects are only looked at again if one or more of the selects are not as good as you think they are upon closer examination. You might even have to start the entire sorting process again - minus the now discarded selects.
If the monitor is too small, with insufficient resolution, you are forced to use the magnifier on most of the photos. This slows the process down, and damages the metaphor. It can be done, but it isn't what Apple wants you to be doing.
I believe that Apple in announcing higher rez screens for the PB's at the same time new PM's and Aperture came out wasn't a coincidence. You NEED the new screens to use Aperture successfully on a PB.
My feeling is that Aperture can be used on a PB, but not happily.
I also think that Apple may very well have in mind the new x86 dual Yonah, and later, the dual Merom's as a target for this program in an Apple portable. These machines might very well be more than twice as powerful as the new PB's are. Aperture will function much better with a dual core chip. Interestingly, the new PB's are reported as being somewhat slower than the last series just before.
As for this being a Photoshop "killer". It's not. It isn't targeted towards those who need PS in their work. The correction controls are certainly much more advanced than those in iPhoto, but are also much closer to that program than what PS offers.
I can see myself using it for those times when I don't need to do more than organizing and basic correcting, but for anything more, PS will be the targeted app.
Apple would also have to overcome the hundreds of pieces of software intended to work with PS as plug-ins and enablers. It would also need to have a viable publishing solution.
We really need for this program to be out for at least a year to see how popular it really is, for what it will be used, and by whom.
We also need to see how Apple looks at its users. When FCP first came out, it didn't receive one single bad or even neutral review.
What it did get was statements from those reviewers about the few bugs, and about the features they wanted to see.
Apple was VERY responsive. The industry was all ajitter about how Apple kept piling on updates to FCP, fixing bugs, and adding features for free.
That was one of the more important reasons why the industry began to adopt the program in ever increasing numbers. Even today, FCP Studio is considered to be a bargain when compared to anything else out there. For $1,300, you get about $2,500 of software, and Apple doesn't raise the price every time they make an upgrade. Instead, they put programs into the package that, by themselves, cost hundreds.
If Apple looks at Aperture through the same lens, it will be successful. If they ignore it, thinking it's done, then it won't.
Plus 20 layers is nothing compared to non destructive editing - you have to create a new layer for each and every edit you make, and you can't do two things on a layer. You have to remember (or write down) what you did on a layer if you want to redo the filter with altered settings.
A non destructive layer of - let's say - blur would let you adjust the settings later, but in Photoshop you have to create a new copy of the unedited layer and run the filter one more time. That's not very productive.
You're exactly right, JLL.
Unfortunately for this discussion, melgross doesn't understand the difference between a filter and an adjustment layer in Photoshop.
Unfortunately for this discussion, melgross doesn't understand the difference between a filter and an adjustment layer in Photoshop.
I think the thing is - you can't goup them together. You are going to need layers no matter what. There is no way around it, you need layers.
BUT
You can't say that layers is an acceptable replacement for non-destructive editing.
Say you have a blue sky, and you make a layer that you can paint some clouds on. You paint with a brush, make your clouds and apply a blur. Simple. Say I now don't want the clouds to be so blurry. I have to delete the clouds and start again. If I had undestructive editing, I could just re-adjust the blur settings on the layer. Way faster.
Adobe illustrator is like this, I can apply a blur to an object, and I can change the parameters anytime. That's what Photoshop needs.
Unfortunately for this discussion, melgross doesn't understand the difference between a filter and an adjustment layer in Photoshop.
For this disscussion? What does that mean?
Most filters can be applied to layers. you chose which filter when you chose the layer.
It's true that if you go to Filter Gallery, which is the special effects area, you don't use them on layers. But they are special effects after all. If you don't like the result, you don't have to hit "OK". Even if you do, you can undo it.
I find it to be interesting that you can say what you did about filters and adjustment layers.
Which filters that correspond to Aperture's cannot work through an adjustment layer, other than perhaps something that Apple just came up with that PS might not have (though I haven't seen anything significent that they have at this time)? Or be deleted without causing harm?
Even many filters still work with the History Pallette. You can delete something there if you don't want it.
Let's say you apply a Shadow/Highlight adjustment to an image. Then you apply a curve (I'm not saying that I would do something this way).
If you like, you can delete the Shadow/Highlight without affecting the curves which you applied afterwards. Of course, you should apply the curves through a layer, so that you can re-adjust it without losing image quality.
I think the thing is - you can't goup them together. You are going to need layers no matter what. There is no way around it, you need layers.
BUT
You can't say that layers is an acceptable replacement for non-destructive editing.
Say you have a blue sky, and you make a layer that you can paint some clouds on. You paint with a brush, make your clouds and apply a blur. Simple. Say I now don't want the clouds to be so blurry. I have to delete the clouds and start again. If I had undestructive editing, I could just re-adjust the blur settings on the layer. Way faster.
Adobe illustrator is like this, I can apply a blur to an object, and I can change the parameters anytime. That's what Photoshop needs.
You can delete the blur through the history palette, as I mentioned earlier. you don't have to redraw the clouds at all. Even if you have done things afterwards to that layer, you can still delete the blur.
You can delete the blur through the history palette, as I mentioned earlier. you don't have to redraw the clouds at all. Even if you have done things afterwards to that layer, you can still delete the blur.
Yes, considering you don't close the document, or use up your undos.
Comments
Originally posted by melgross
No, absolutely not. It will give those with machinesthat don't run this well an excuse to upgrade.
Hmmm... $500 bucks for CS2/Bridge that actually runs on a PB, or $400 + another $3k (I'm being generous), to run Aperture? Gee, that's a tough call. NOT! I'll take function over elegance, and some might say stupidity, anyday, albeit at a steeper learning curve.
Pisses me off too. The intro audience doesn't seem to have been very well thought out.
-voodoo
Originally posted by MacCrazy
No what I mean is that if you apply a series of effects to the same layer you cannot re-order them or reverse them if you applied another one afterward which you want to keep.
There are certain effects that you can apply to each type of layer. There are a number of different types of layers. You can even choose to make up your own type of layer.
Effects applied to these layers are perfectly adjustable or reversed or, well, whatever. Those of us who have used PS for a time, and who understant it, use 20 or more layers at times with no ill effects.
Someone experienced with PS knows just how to manipulate these layers. Intelligent use of PS and any of its features takes time to learn. That's because PS is a very rich program.
If somehow you find that you have drilled yourself into a hole that you can't get yourself out of in PS, it's only because you are not using the program properly.
You will find that even with Aperture, you have to understand a feature before you are successful in using it.
Originally posted by Big Bad Voodoo
Hmmm... $500 bucks for CS2/Bridge that actually runs on a PB, or $400 + another $3k (I'm being generous), to run Aperture? Gee, that's a tough call. NOT! I'll take function over elegance, and some might say stupidity, anyday, albeit at a steeper learning curve.
Pisses me off too. The intro audience doesn't seem to have been very well thought out.
-voodoo
Yes, agreed.
Originally posted by Big Bad Voodoo
Hmmm... $500 bucks for CS2/Bridge that actually runs on a PB, or $400 + another $3k (I'm being generous), to run Aperture? Gee, that's a tough call. NOT! I'll take function over elegance, and some might say stupidity, anyday, albeit at a steeper learning curve.
Pisses me off too. The intro audience doesn't seem to have been very well thought out.
-voodoo
But... but... but it's an APPLE product! Surely that means it's the greatest thing on the planet! Buy it! Be part of the fashionable herd!
Originally posted by Tidelwav
But... but... but it's an APPLE product! Surely that means it's the greatest thing on the planet! Buy it! Be part of the fashionable herd!
MAN, Tidlewav, are you hijacking this thread too ? Please give it up!
Originally posted by BoeManE
MAN, Tidlewav, are you hijacking this thread too ? Please give it up!
I have never seen his handle before, so I don't know what you're referring to, but unfortunately I'm encountering some of that here.
There has been some of that "Don't insult my Apple product, it's teh best".
Originally posted by melgross
I have never seen his handle before, so I don't know what you're referring to, but unfortunately I'm encountering some of that here.
There has been some of that "Don't insult my Apple product, it's teh best".
As can be expected from an apple-related forum such as this. I think its always going to be like this, in any forum that is closely linked to a certain product or brand.
However, since Aperture has not been released yet, most of this post is based on speculation.
I am no pro photographer, but I would love to have some of Apertures features, but I would like them in an "iPhoto" or "iPhoto Express" package. Based on other applications from Apple, I think we will either see iPhoto, iPhoto Pro and Aperture, or iPhoto, Aperture Express and Aperture Pro as the future Photographic lineup from Apple.
Originally posted by BoeManE
As can be expected from an apple-related forum such as this. I think its always going to be like this, in any forum that is closely linked to a certain product or brand.
However, since Aperture has not been released yet, most of this post is based on speculation.
I am no pro photographer, but I would love to have some of Apertures features, but I would like them in an "iPhoto" or "iPhoto Express" package. Based on other applications from Apple, I think we will either see iPhoto, iPhoto Pro and Aperture, or iPhoto, Aperture Express and Aperture Pro as the future Photographic lineup from Apple.
Since, as usual, we had no warning about this, we can't guess what Apple will do.
Adobe may respond. They could beef up Bridge, they could allow RAW support within the program. Both of those solutions would work for both the Mac and Windows.
For all we know, they have been working on those very things for 10.
I won't find out until they send me my beta to test.
Originally posted by melgross
There are certain effects that you can apply to each type of layer. There are a number of different types of layers. You can even choose to make up your own type of layer.
Effects applied to these layers are perfectly adjustable or reversed or, well, whatever. Those of us who have used PS for a time, and who understant it, use 20 or more layers at times with no ill effects.
Someone experienced with PS knows just how to manipulate these layers. Intelligent use of PS and any of its features takes time to learn. That's because PS is a very rich program.
If somehow you find that you have drilled yourself into a hole that you can't get yourself out of in PS, it's only because you are not using the program properly.
You will find that even with Aperture, you have to understand a feature before you are successful in using it.
You can't compare non destructive editing to layers. As a betatester of several Photoshop version I can tell you that Adobe have tried to get non destructive editing into Photoshop for years, but every time they pulled it since they couldn't make it work properly. Only Adjustment layers came through.
Why would they work on non destructive editing if layers were basically the same?
Plus 20 layers is nothing compared to non destructive editing - you have to create a new layer for each and every edit you make, and you can't do two things on a layer. You have to remember (or write down) what you did on a layer if you want to redo the filter with altered settings.
A non destructive layer of - let's say - blur would let you adjust the settings later, but in Photoshop you have to create a new copy of the unedited layer and run the filter one more time. That's not very productive.
It gets even worse if you have to run another filter on top of the first one and want to redo the first filter.
And we haven't even begun talking about versions cropped differently.
You'll end up with tons of layers, and probably multiple copies of the same image. Versioning and non destructive editing is the future.
PS: this is not an Apple vs. Adobe post, an Aperture vs. Photoshop post, but a layer vs. non destructive editing.
Originally posted by melgross
Since, as usual, we had no warning about this, we can't guess what Apple will do.
Adobe is better in that regard?
Btw. you can always guess - that's exactly what you do if you don't know what they'll do
Originally posted by JLL
You can't compare non destructive editing to layers. As a betatester of several Photoshop version I can tell you that Adobe have tried to get non destructive editing into Photoshop for years, but every time they pulled it since they couldn't make it work properly. Only Adjustment layers came through.
Why would they work on non destructive editing if layers were basically the same?
Plus 20 layers is nothing compared to non destructive editing - you have to create a new layer for each and every edit you make, and you can't do two things on a layer. You have to remember (or write down) what you did on a layer if you want to redo the filter with altered settings.
A non destructive layer of - let's say - blur would let you adjust the settings later, but in Photoshop you have to create a new copy of the unedited layer and run the filter one more time. That's not very productive.
It gets even worse if you have to run another filter on top of the first one and want to redo the first filter.
And we haven't even begun talking about versions cropped differently.
You'll end up with tons of layers, and probably multiple copies of the same image. Versioning and non destructive editing is the future.
PS: this is not an Apple vs. Adobe post, an Aperture vs. Photoshop post, but a layer vs. non destructive editing.
exactly, and for the record melgross I do understand PS!
Originally posted by JLL
You can't compare non destructive editing to layers. As a betatester of several Photoshop version I can tell you that Adobe have tried to get non destructive editing into Photoshop for years, but every time they pulled it since they couldn't make it work properly. Only Adjustment layers came through.
Why would they work on non destructive editing if layers were basically the same?
Plus 20 layers is nothing compared to non destructive editing - you have to create a new layer for each and every edit you make, and you can't do two things on a layer. You have to remember (or write down) what you did on a layer if you want to redo the filter with altered settings.
A non destructive layer of - let's say - blur would let you adjust the settings later, but in Photoshop you have to create a new copy of the unedited layer and run the filter one more time. That's not very productive.
It gets even worse if you have to run another filter on top of the first one and want to redo the first filter.
And we haven't even begun talking about versions cropped differently.
You'll end up with tons of layers, and probably multiple copies of the same image. Versioning and non destructive editing is the future.
PS: this is not an Apple vs. Adobe post, an Aperture vs. Photoshop post, but a layer vs. non destructive editing.
Your understanding of what layers does is very incomplete. Please don't bring up your beta test card. I've been testing this since version 1.
You can adjust any setting you make in a layer. That is the entire purpose of layers. Layers are deliberately designed to make the edits seperable. If you could perform different types of edits on a single layer, it would defeat the purpose of having seperate layers.
We, the users of PS, practicaly demanded this from Adobe. We got what we asked for.
The only reason that Apple can do what it does with images in Aperture is that it does very little. Photoshop does far more than Aperture does.
In order for PS to do the work it does, it must use layers. Layers are also an excellent organizational tool when attempting to try several different tryes of edits. It's very easy to group various layers together nane them and the groups, and turn them on or off to show a client the different results obtained. This way the client can make a judgement more easily.
Aperture doesn't need something as sophistigated as a layering system, because, at least at this time, Apple isn't trying to competer with PS on the level that it exists upon.
If Aperture is ever positioned as a true competitor to PS on that high level, it too will have to choose some form of edit control. It has none now.
At this point in time, Aperture can do perhaps 10% of the work that I, and my company, had to do for clients. It does that 10% very well. I won't argue that. But, so far, it's only good for the most basic needs.
Having used Aperture at the show while sitting in on the class, I, and others there came to some conclusions while talking about it afterward. Someone else from this thread was also there and if he still is, might want to chime in as well.
Aperture was very well done. What it does it does it does in an interesting and well thought out manner. The totality of the program is unique on the Mac platform, even though there several programs on the PC that come close. But this one goes further, and does it better.
The most interesting part of the program is the way it handles files. The lightbox metaphor is nicely done. You do get a good feel of standing (well, actually sitting) over a lightbox and moving images around. It makes that very easy. Those who are just now moving over to the digital world might find this familliar and comforting
Opening RAW images directly isn't unique, even iPhoto and Preview do that, though you can't do anything with them at all in Preview. You can do this as well on the PC.
So the program, in its parts isn't unique, but it puts it all together better than any other program I've seen (and I've seen a lot).
CoreImage is the icing on the cake. This helps keep the metaphor working with its instantaneous action.
Photographers and studios that don't need more than fairly basic corrections on images will find this program to be very useful.
Now for the controversial part.
Aperture requires a lot of power from the computer to maintain that real-time metaphor. Even with the dual 2.5 or 2.7GHz G5's we used in class, there was hesitation when moving images around, as well as when doing other tasks. This wasn't present when trying the Quad 2.5GHz machines around the sides of the booth.
The Apple personal were reticent about speaking to the ability of the program to function in a manner consistent with the goals that Apple had apparently set for the program if the program was used in a PB, or other single cpu machine. Even if it met the specs.
Aperture seems happy when running on a physically large, high rez monitor. It looked great, and worked well on one 30" 2560 x 1600 monitor used by the Quad's, even thought they were using two.
It worked well enough on the 1920 x 1200 23's used in the class.
Anything smaller will have a problem. The program depends on your having a fair number of photo's lined up from which you can pull selects from. The realtime metaphor depends on your being able to see the differences between those photos in real time. Only the selects were being examined by the magnifier, even though they showed us that anything on the screen could use it.
This is the way we select images in the film world. Line up the photos. Glance at all of them, pull your selects, and examine them closely. Normally the non selects are only looked at again if one or more of the selects are not as good as you think they are upon closer examination. You might even have to start the entire sorting process again - minus the now discarded selects.
If the monitor is too small, with insufficient resolution, you are forced to use the magnifier on most of the photos. This slows the process down, and damages the metaphor. It can be done, but it isn't what Apple wants you to be doing.
I believe that Apple in announcing higher rez screens for the PB's at the same time new PM's and Aperture came out wasn't a coincidence. You NEED the new screens to use Aperture successfully on a PB.
My feeling is that Aperture can be used on a PB, but not happily.
I also think that Apple may very well have in mind the new x86 dual Yonah, and later, the dual Merom's as a target for this program in an Apple portable. These machines might very well be more than twice as powerful as the new PB's are. Aperture will function much better with a dual core chip. Interestingly, the new PB's are reported as being somewhat slower than the last series just before.
As for this being a Photoshop "killer". It's not. It isn't targeted towards those who need PS in their work. The correction controls are certainly much more advanced than those in iPhoto, but are also much closer to that program than what PS offers.
I can see myself using it for those times when I don't need to do more than organizing and basic correcting, but for anything more, PS will be the targeted app.
Apple would also have to overcome the hundreds of pieces of software intended to work with PS as plug-ins and enablers. It would also need to have a viable publishing solution.
We really need for this program to be out for at least a year to see how popular it really is, for what it will be used, and by whom.
We also need to see how Apple looks at its users. When FCP first came out, it didn't receive one single bad or even neutral review.
What it did get was statements from those reviewers about the few bugs, and about the features they wanted to see.
Apple was VERY responsive. The industry was all ajitter about how Apple kept piling on updates to FCP, fixing bugs, and adding features for free.
That was one of the more important reasons why the industry began to adopt the program in ever increasing numbers. Even today, FCP Studio is considered to be a bargain when compared to anything else out there. For $1,300, you get about $2,500 of software, and Apple doesn't raise the price every time they make an upgrade. Instead, they put programs into the package that, by themselves, cost hundreds.
If Apple looks at Aperture through the same lens, it will be successful. If they ignore it, thinking it's done, then it won't.
Originally posted by JLL
Plus 20 layers is nothing compared to non destructive editing - you have to create a new layer for each and every edit you make, and you can't do two things on a layer. You have to remember (or write down) what you did on a layer if you want to redo the filter with altered settings.
A non destructive layer of - let's say - blur would let you adjust the settings later, but in Photoshop you have to create a new copy of the unedited layer and run the filter one more time. That's not very productive.
You're exactly right, JLL.
Unfortunately for this discussion, melgross doesn't understand the difference between a filter and an adjustment layer in Photoshop.
Originally posted by bikertwin
You're exactly right, JLL.
Unfortunately for this discussion, melgross doesn't understand the difference between a filter and an adjustment layer in Photoshop.
I think the thing is - you can't goup them together. You are going to need layers no matter what. There is no way around it, you need layers.
BUT
You can't say that layers is an acceptable replacement for non-destructive editing.
Say you have a blue sky, and you make a layer that you can paint some clouds on. You paint with a brush, make your clouds and apply a blur. Simple. Say I now don't want the clouds to be so blurry. I have to delete the clouds and start again. If I had undestructive editing, I could just re-adjust the blur settings on the layer. Way faster.
Adobe illustrator is like this, I can apply a blur to an object, and I can change the parameters anytime. That's what Photoshop needs.
Originally posted by bikertwin
You're exactly right, JLL.
Unfortunately for this discussion, melgross doesn't understand the difference between a filter and an adjustment layer in Photoshop.
For this disscussion? What does that mean?
Most filters can be applied to layers. you chose which filter when you chose the layer.
It's true that if you go to Filter Gallery, which is the special effects area, you don't use them on layers. But they are special effects after all. If you don't like the result, you don't have to hit "OK". Even if you do, you can undo it.
I find it to be interesting that you can say what you did about filters and adjustment layers.
Which filters that correspond to Aperture's cannot work through an adjustment layer, other than perhaps something that Apple just came up with that PS might not have (though I haven't seen anything significent that they have at this time)? Or be deleted without causing harm?
Even many filters still work with the History Pallette. You can delete something there if you don't want it.
Let's say you apply a Shadow/Highlight adjustment to an image. Then you apply a curve (I'm not saying that I would do something this way).
If you like, you can delete the Shadow/Highlight without affecting the curves which you applied afterwards. Of course, you should apply the curves through a layer, so that you can re-adjust it without losing image quality.
Can you explain exactly what you mean?
Originally posted by the cool gut
I think the thing is - you can't goup them together. You are going to need layers no matter what. There is no way around it, you need layers.
BUT
You can't say that layers is an acceptable replacement for non-destructive editing.
Say you have a blue sky, and you make a layer that you can paint some clouds on. You paint with a brush, make your clouds and apply a blur. Simple. Say I now don't want the clouds to be so blurry. I have to delete the clouds and start again. If I had undestructive editing, I could just re-adjust the blur settings on the layer. Way faster.
Adobe illustrator is like this, I can apply a blur to an object, and I can change the parameters anytime. That's what Photoshop needs.
You can delete the blur through the history palette, as I mentioned earlier. you don't have to redraw the clouds at all. Even if you have done things afterwards to that layer, you can still delete the blur.
Originally posted by melgross
You can delete the blur through the history palette, as I mentioned earlier. you don't have to redraw the clouds at all. Even if you have done things afterwards to that layer, you can still delete the blur.
Yes, considering you don't close the document, or use up your undos.