I am no photoshop expert, and i only use photoshop maybe once a month for very besic editing.
But in my opinion PS does not have any kind of non-destructive editing. My PS workflow is most likely flawed, but take this scenario.
1. I have two images which I want to piece together
2. I add one image on one layer, and the other one the other layer
3. I add a mask to the top layer to be able to "paint" the bottom layer on top of the top layer
4. I apply a Gaussian blur to both layers because i figure I need it
5. I start painting the mask, and carefully attemt to paint it so that I only get the parts that I want from the bottom image. This is going to take a LOT of clicks with the mouse.
6. A little while later I am finished, but I figured I want to see the results without the blur anyways.
7. Now, the blur isn't int he history, because I used all the history spots to paint my mask.
As I said, my workflow is most likely flawed, but there would be a lot of PS users that doesn't use PS in an optimum manner. Having each layer have non-destructive editing, undoing the blur, or even changing the blur would have been very easy to do!
Yes, considering you don't close the document, or use up your undos.
Yes, if you close your doc, the history is gone. You can set-up quite a lot of undo's though, so that isn't a problem.
Look, I've never said that PS is perfect. No program is. Aperture certainly isn't.
But for those of us who need what PS does, it does it better than anything else.
Aperture is great for what it does, but it simply doesn't do more than 10% of what PS does.
Most things you have to do for most photo's with PS can be done nondestructively. It's more complex to do because PS is a more complex program. Just like FCP is a more complex program than iMovie. I also use iMovie for things that I don't want to wade through in FCP. It's easier, and parts are more automated, does that make it better?
It does if you don't need what FCP has to offer, otherwise no.
I am no photoshop expert, and i only use photoshop maybe once a month for very besic editing.
But in my opinion PS does not have any kind of non-destructive editing. My PS workflow is most likely flawed, but take this scenario.
1. I have two images which I want to piece together
2. I add one image on one layer, and the other one the other layer
3. I add a mask to the top layer to be able to "paint" the bottom layer on top of the top layer
4. I apply a Gaussian blur to both layers because i figure I need it
5. I start painting the mask, and carefully attemt to paint it so that I only get the parts that I want from the bottom image. This is going to take a LOT of clicks with the mouse.
6. A little while later I am finished, but I figured I want to see the results without the blur anyways.
7. Now, the blur isn't int he history, because I used all the history spots to paint my mask.
As I said, my workflow is most likely flawed, but there would be a lot of PS users that doesn't use PS in an optimum manner. Having each layer have non-destructive editing, undoing the blur, or even changing the blur would have been very easy to do!
Just increase the number of undos. Depending on the memory, you can set it pretty high. Go to prefs/general. You will see a small box labeled History States, the box might have 20 in it. Change that number to some larger number that you think will cover what you need, 25, 30, 40, whatever.
It's true that if you go to Filter Gallery, which is the special effects area, you don't use them on layers.
Filters don't apply to layers?! Are you sure you're talking about Photoshop? You know, from Adobe? ;-)
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Which filters that correspond to Aperture's cannot work through an adjustment layer?
Um, Unsharp Mask? Pretty basic.
Sorry, I'm not going to get dragged into another tit-for-tat exchange here, but I just had to reply to your post, since you show an utter lack of knowledge about the most basic Photoshop theory.
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.
That's interesting - did you by any chance find out the graphics cards being used in the dual 2.7's and the Quads?
From an article:
My Dual 1.42 G4 with 2 gigs memory and 4 big HD's is running just fine. My video card is listed in the support, and the rest of the specs go beyond the PowerBook minimum. Is there a reason Aperture won't work on my high-end G4?
I asked at the show. The answer I got was that yes it will work. The video card you use is more important than the processor. But in order for aperture to shine it needs a G5. It is highly optimized for the G5 and for multiple processors.
So that, combined with your experience makes me wonder if it was the Graphics card or the Quad processors making the difference.
Filters don't apply to layers?! Are you sure you're talking about Photoshop? You know, from Adobe? ;-)
Um, Unsharp Mask? Pretty basic.
Sorry, I'm not going to get dragged into another tit-for-tat exchange here, but I just had to reply to your post, since you show an utter lack of knowledge about the most basic Photoshop theory.
You really didn't understand which filters I was talking about, did you?
If you weren't being such a wiseguy, you would know, first of all, that sharpening is always the very last thing done. And if a photo is being used for different purposes you need to have different files for each of those purposes. You keep a file that isn't sharpened, OR sized for final output, unless you know that it will be the only usage for it.
So, often there are three files sent out. One for web use, one for placement, and one for print.
No matter what you do, you still need several files.
As Sharpen IS always the last action to be performed, it doesn't need to be on its own layer, as you are going to have to resize it anyway again first.
Resizing and sharpening is normally done to a flattened image that is ready to be sent out.
That's interesting - did you by any chance find out the graphics cards being used in the dual 2.7's and the Quads?
From an article:
My Dual 1.42 G4 with 2 gigs memory and 4 big HD's is running just fine. My video card is listed in the support, and the rest of the specs go beyond the PowerBook minimum. Is there a reason Aperture won't work on my high-end G4?
I asked at the show. The answer I got was that yes it will work. The video card you use is more important than the processor. But in order for aperture to shine it needs a G5. It is highly optimized for the G5 and for multiple processors.
So that, combined with your experience makes me wonder if it was the Graphics card or the Quad processors making the difference.
I can't say which card was in the class machines. The guys I spoke to who were demoing the Quads didn't know, and I didn't have time to try, in all that crush, to find someone else. The Quads were using the 4500, but it was pushing two 30" displays.
I think they're in a bind. They don't want to scare people off from buying it, but they admit that it really needs two fast G5's to work properly. Some of the operations like the filters need a fast video card with at least 128MB RAM, but the lightbox desktop seems to need the cpu's.
You really didn't understand which filters I was talking about, did you?
If you weren't being such a wiseguy, you would know, first of all, that sharpening is always the very last thing done. And if a photo is being used for different purposes you need to have different files for each of those purposes. You keep a file that isn't sharpened, OR sized for final output, unless you know that it will be the only usage for it.
So, often there are three files sent out. One for web use, one for placement, and one for print.
No matter what you do, you still need several files.
As Sharpen IS always the last action to be performed, it doesn't need to be on its own layer, as you are going to have to resize it anyway again first.
Resizing and sharpening is normally done to a flattened image that is ready to be sent out.
Photoshop theory. Care to tell us all about it?
Well, care to tell us which filters you're alluding to, that don't work on layers?
And the fact that sharpening is done last is irrelevant (you're good at changing the subject). The fact is (as a previous poster mentioned), sharpening--like all filters in Photoshop--is totally destructive, irreversible, and cannot be modified at a later date--unlike sharpening in Aperture, which has none of those drawbacks.
You can somewhat get around that in Photoshop by duplicating a layer and sharpening the new layer, but congratulations you've now doubled your already enormous file size (I'm not talking about web images here). And you still can't tweak the sharpening after the fact, unless you delete the layer, reduplicate it, and apply new settings (having no idea what the old settings were unless you wrote them down or tried hacking them into the layer name).
In Aperture, you can have 10 different versions of the same file, each with different (and non-destructive, reversible, and modifiable) sharpening settings (say, for different output resolutions) that take up almost no disk space.
Which would you rather have?
And please stop repeating the straw horse statement that Aperture is not a Photoshop killer. You're restating the obvious. Nobody here is saying Aperture can totally replace everything that Photoshop does. It can't; we all agree on that.
I think they're in a bind. They don't want to scare people off from buying it, but they admit that it really needs two fast G5's to work properly. Some of the operations like the filters need a fast video card with at least 128MB RAM, but the lightbox desktop seems to need the cpu's.
They are not in a bind. Apple is the only one that has the balls to push the industry along. So what if it doesn't work on anything but a fast, new Mac? They sell Macs don't they? Part of the point of creating this is to sell new Macs, and to give the platform an advantage. In the Tiger WWDC keynote, Steve actually asked Adobe to support CoreImage on the Mac. If PS is the modern modular code you suggest, that should have been easy enough. Even if that were the case, they will not do it. They have their own agenda, and giving Macs an advantage isn't on it. They try to milk what they already have, or buy something and tack it on. Example: Vanishing Points comes from Canoma. In the short term, I'm actually jazzed about seeing what happens with the Macromedia acquisition. Still, I am more interested in the future and I'm looking for the next great leap forward. I bet that comes from Apple.
If i switch the graphics card in that (64 MB) with the graphics card in my PC downstairs, GeForce 5200 (same card actualy, different RAM), which has 128 MB RAM, and I upgrade my computer's RAM from 512 to 1 GB, will Appeture work on my G5?
If i switch the graphics card in that (64 MB) with the graphics card in my PC downstairs, GeForce 5200 (same card actualy, different RAM), which has 128 MB RAM, and I upgrade my computer's RAM from 512 to 1 GB, will Appeture work on my G5?
These are the Minimum requirements:
Minimum System Requirements
One of the following Macintosh computers:
Power Mac G5 with a 1.8 gigahertz (GHz) or faster PowerPC G5 processor
17- or 20-inch iMac G5 with a 1.8 GHz or faster PowerPC G5 processor
15- or 17-inch PowerBook G4 with a 1.25 GHz or faster PowerPC G4 processor
1GB of RAM
One of the following graphics cards:
ATI Radeon x600 Pro or x600 XT
ATI Radeon X800 XT Mac Edition
ATI Radeon X850 XT
ATI Radeon 9800 XT or 9800 Pro
ATI Radeon 9700 Pro
ATI Radeon 9600, 9600 XT, 9600 Pro, or 9650
ATI Mobility Radeon 9700 or 9600
NVIDIA GeForce 6600 LE or 6600
NVIDIA GeForce 6800 Ultra DDL or 6800 GT DDL
NVIDIA GeForce 7800 GT
NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500
5GB of disk space for application, templates, and tutorial
DVD drive for installation
One thing about Apple, if you don't have the minimum requirements, the program may not even run. I tried running Motion on my old G4 which didn't have a supported graphics card, and it wouldn't run. It may not have been able to install - but I can't quite remember.
I can be more productive with - get this! - Fireworks simply because everything is nondestructive and you can choose whether you want to use layers or not. Fireworks is, in my opinion, the middle ground between Illustrator and Photoshop: it has nondestructive effects and a full set of vector tooks like Illustrator, but a bitmap grounding and tons of bitmap alteration tools as well.
But for some reason, it's a toy application in every "professional"'s eyes.
You can adjust any setting you make in a layer. That is the entire purpose of layers.
No you can't.
Apply a gaussian blur on a layer. How will you adjust that?
By making a new fresh layer and apply a new guassian blur on that.
But how do you remember what settings the filter in the first layer had?
Do you write it down or use your own codes in the naming of layers?
What if you want different crops of that photo?
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
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.
Your understanding of Core Image (I'm not talking about Apperture here) is very incomplete Play a little with Core Image Fun House and see what it can do.
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
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.
Cropping? And it isn't easier to show them the different versions at the same time?
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
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.
Again, I'm not talking about Apperture here.
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
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.
And it will probably do it like Core Image Fun House.
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
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.
Again, I'm not talking about.... Ahh, what the hell.
Well, care to tell us which filters you're alluding to, that don't work on layers?
And the fact that sharpening is done last is irrelevant (you're good at changing the subject). The fact is (as a previous poster mentioned), sharpening--like all filters in Photoshop--is totally destructive, irreversible, and cannot be modified at a later date--unlike sharpening in Aperture, which has none of those drawbacks.
You can somewhat get around that in Photoshop by duplicating a layer and sharpening the new layer, but congratulations you've now doubled your already enormous file size (I'm not talking about web images here). And you still can't tweak the sharpening after the fact, unless you delete the layer, reduplicate it, and apply new settings (having no idea what the old settings were unless you wrote them down or tried hacking them into the layer name).
In Aperture, you can have 10 different versions of the same file, each with different (and non-destructive, reversible, and modifiable) sharpening settings (say, for different output resolutions) that take up almost no disk space.
Which would you rather have?
And please stop repeating the straw horse statement that Aperture is not a Photoshop killer. You're restating the obvious. Nobody here is saying Aperture can totally replace everything that Photoshop does. It can't; we all agree on that.
But what Aperture does, it does very well.
You can't apply most of the Gallery filters as a layer. I said that earlier. Read the posts.
Sure, you can create another duplicate layer and do it there, but as we both have said about sharpness, that increases file size. It's not the same as adding it as a layer effect.
If I say something you don't like you accuse me of changing the subject. That's not correct, and it still doesn't make you right.
Creating a layer to perform a sharpening is only useful if you haven't added other pixel edited effects somewhere else, and have flattened. If you have added those effects and haven't flattened, then what to duplicate becomes a problem. you have to include all the other effects in your sharpen or you might get unexpected results (unless you want some special result).
Also, you don't guess with sharpening. It's pretty well defines as to how much sharpening is given any file for any purpose.
And stop telling me what to say. Several people here have been saying about how this a PS Killer. Tell them to stop saying that, and I will also desist.
Again, if you real all of my posts, you would see that I have said that I like Aperture, that I'm going to buy it when it becomes available in 5 weeks or so, and that I said almost exactly what you said in your last line - several times.
What we are arguing about here is not really useful because they are two very different programs, and PS does so much mre that it is difficult for Adobe to change everything at once. There is a vast amount of code in PS. Over the years they have enabled more and more items on layers. No doubt they will continue to do so. I know that blur and sharpen controls are in their sights, as is HighLight/Shadow. Other filters are also being rewritten. The beta stage for 10 should be coming my way fairly soon, and I hope to see a number of changes. You might be surprised. I know that more integration of RAW and digital negative, which all the major camera companies have already adopted will be incorporated. That was always their goal.
And more importantly it does 90% of what photographers use photoshop for - and in a more intuitive interface.
If you only need what it does, fine. PS is a production tool. It isn't meant for people who only need to do corrections and cropping. I won't argue with that.
They are not in a bind. Apple is the only one that has the balls to push the industry along. So what if it doesn't work on anything but a fast, new Mac? They sell Macs don't they? Part of the point of creating this is to sell new Macs, and to give the platform an advantage. In the Tiger WWDC keynote, Steve actually asked Adobe to support CoreImage on the Mac. If PS is the modern modular code you suggest, that should have been easy enough. Even if that were the case, they will not do it. They have their own agenda, and giving Macs an advantage isn't on it. They try to milk what they already have, or buy something and tack it on. Example: Vanishing Points comes from Canoma. In the short term, I'm actually jazzed about seeing what happens with the Macromedia acquisition. Still, I am more interested in the future and I'm looking for the next great leap forward. I bet that comes from Apple.
This has nothing to do with balls.
You haven't been reading posts by myself and others as to why it "might" not be possible for Adobe to adopt CI for PS. It has nothing to do with modular code. It has everything to do with portable documents.
Every piece of softeware "borrows" something from something else.
Comments
But in my opinion PS does not have any kind of non-destructive editing. My PS workflow is most likely flawed, but take this scenario.
1. I have two images which I want to piece together
2. I add one image on one layer, and the other one the other layer
3. I add a mask to the top layer to be able to "paint" the bottom layer on top of the top layer
4. I apply a Gaussian blur to both layers because i figure I need it
5. I start painting the mask, and carefully attemt to paint it so that I only get the parts that I want from the bottom image. This is going to take a LOT of clicks with the mouse.
6. A little while later I am finished, but I figured I want to see the results without the blur anyways.
7. Now, the blur isn't int he history, because I used all the history spots to paint my mask.
As I said, my workflow is most likely flawed, but there would be a lot of PS users that doesn't use PS in an optimum manner. Having each layer have non-destructive editing, undoing the blur, or even changing the blur would have been very easy to do!
Originally posted by the cool gut
Yes, considering you don't close the document, or use up your undos.
Yes, if you close your doc, the history is gone. You can set-up quite a lot of undo's though, so that isn't a problem.
Look, I've never said that PS is perfect. No program is. Aperture certainly isn't.
But for those of us who need what PS does, it does it better than anything else.
Aperture is great for what it does, but it simply doesn't do more than 10% of what PS does.
Most things you have to do for most photo's with PS can be done nondestructively. It's more complex to do because PS is a more complex program. Just like FCP is a more complex program than iMovie. I also use iMovie for things that I don't want to wade through in FCP. It's easier, and parts are more automated, does that make it better?
It does if you don't need what FCP has to offer, otherwise no.
That's the same situation here.
Originally posted by BoeManE
I am no photoshop expert, and i only use photoshop maybe once a month for very besic editing.
But in my opinion PS does not have any kind of non-destructive editing. My PS workflow is most likely flawed, but take this scenario.
1. I have two images which I want to piece together
2. I add one image on one layer, and the other one the other layer
3. I add a mask to the top layer to be able to "paint" the bottom layer on top of the top layer
4. I apply a Gaussian blur to both layers because i figure I need it
5. I start painting the mask, and carefully attemt to paint it so that I only get the parts that I want from the bottom image. This is going to take a LOT of clicks with the mouse.
6. A little while later I am finished, but I figured I want to see the results without the blur anyways.
7. Now, the blur isn't int he history, because I used all the history spots to paint my mask.
As I said, my workflow is most likely flawed, but there would be a lot of PS users that doesn't use PS in an optimum manner. Having each layer have non-destructive editing, undoing the blur, or even changing the blur would have been very easy to do!
Just increase the number of undos. Depending on the memory, you can set it pretty high. Go to prefs/general. You will see a small box labeled History States, the box might have 20 in it. Change that number to some larger number that you think will cover what you need, 25, 30, 40, whatever.
Originally posted by melgross
It's true that if you go to Filter Gallery, which is the special effects area, you don't use them on layers.
Filters don't apply to layers?! Are you sure you're talking about Photoshop? You know, from Adobe? ;-)
Originally posted by melgross
Which filters that correspond to Aperture's cannot work through an adjustment layer?
Um, Unsharp Mask? Pretty basic.
Sorry, I'm not going to get dragged into another tit-for-tat exchange here, but I just had to reply to your post, since you show an utter lack of knowledge about the most basic Photoshop theory.
Originally posted by melgross
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.
That's interesting - did you by any chance find out the graphics cards being used in the dual 2.7's and the Quads?
From an article:
My Dual 1.42 G4 with 2 gigs memory and 4 big HD's is running just fine. My video card is listed in the support, and the rest of the specs go beyond the PowerBook minimum. Is there a reason Aperture won't work on my high-end G4?
I asked at the show. The answer I got was that yes it will work. The video card you use is more important than the processor. But in order for aperture to shine it needs a G5. It is highly optimized for the G5 and for multiple processors.
So that, combined with your experience makes me wonder if it was the Graphics card or the Quad processors making the difference.
Originally posted by bikertwin
Filters don't apply to layers?! Are you sure you're talking about Photoshop? You know, from Adobe? ;-)
Um, Unsharp Mask? Pretty basic.
Sorry, I'm not going to get dragged into another tit-for-tat exchange here, but I just had to reply to your post, since you show an utter lack of knowledge about the most basic Photoshop theory.
You really didn't understand which filters I was talking about, did you?
If you weren't being such a wiseguy, you would know, first of all, that sharpening is always the very last thing done. And if a photo is being used for different purposes you need to have different files for each of those purposes. You keep a file that isn't sharpened, OR sized for final output, unless you know that it will be the only usage for it.
So, often there are three files sent out. One for web use, one for placement, and one for print.
No matter what you do, you still need several files.
As Sharpen IS always the last action to be performed, it doesn't need to be on its own layer, as you are going to have to resize it anyway again first.
Resizing and sharpening is normally done to a flattened image that is ready to be sent out.
Photoshop theory. Care to tell us all about it?
Originally posted by the cool gut
That's interesting - did you by any chance find out the graphics cards being used in the dual 2.7's and the Quads?
From an article:
My Dual 1.42 G4 with 2 gigs memory and 4 big HD's is running just fine. My video card is listed in the support, and the rest of the specs go beyond the PowerBook minimum. Is there a reason Aperture won't work on my high-end G4?
I asked at the show. The answer I got was that yes it will work. The video card you use is more important than the processor. But in order for aperture to shine it needs a G5. It is highly optimized for the G5 and for multiple processors.
So that, combined with your experience makes me wonder if it was the Graphics card or the Quad processors making the difference.
I can't say which card was in the class machines. The guys I spoke to who were demoing the Quads didn't know, and I didn't have time to try, in all that crush, to find someone else. The Quads were using the 4500, but it was pushing two 30" displays.
I think they're in a bind. They don't want to scare people off from buying it, but they admit that it really needs two fast G5's to work properly. Some of the operations like the filters need a fast video card with at least 128MB RAM, but the lightbox desktop seems to need the cpu's.
Originally posted by melgross
You really didn't understand which filters I was talking about, did you?
If you weren't being such a wiseguy, you would know, first of all, that sharpening is always the very last thing done. And if a photo is being used for different purposes you need to have different files for each of those purposes. You keep a file that isn't sharpened, OR sized for final output, unless you know that it will be the only usage for it.
So, often there are three files sent out. One for web use, one for placement, and one for print.
No matter what you do, you still need several files.
As Sharpen IS always the last action to be performed, it doesn't need to be on its own layer, as you are going to have to resize it anyway again first.
Resizing and sharpening is normally done to a flattened image that is ready to be sent out.
Photoshop theory. Care to tell us all about it?
Well, care to tell us which filters you're alluding to, that don't work on layers?
And the fact that sharpening is done last is irrelevant (you're good at changing the subject). The fact is (as a previous poster mentioned), sharpening--like all filters in Photoshop--is totally destructive, irreversible, and cannot be modified at a later date--unlike sharpening in Aperture, which has none of those drawbacks.
You can somewhat get around that in Photoshop by duplicating a layer and sharpening the new layer, but congratulations you've now doubled your already enormous file size (I'm not talking about web images here). And you still can't tweak the sharpening after the fact, unless you delete the layer, reduplicate it, and apply new settings (having no idea what the old settings were unless you wrote them down or tried hacking them into the layer name).
In Aperture, you can have 10 different versions of the same file, each with different (and non-destructive, reversible, and modifiable) sharpening settings (say, for different output resolutions) that take up almost no disk space.
Which would you rather have?
And please stop repeating the straw horse statement that Aperture is not a Photoshop killer. You're restating the obvious. Nobody here is saying Aperture can totally replace everything that Photoshop does. It can't; we all agree on that.
But what Aperture does, it does very well.
Originally posted by bikertwin
But what Aperture does, it does very well.
And more importantly it does 90% of what photographers use photoshop for - and in a more intuitive interface.
Originally posted by melgross
I think they're in a bind. They don't want to scare people off from buying it, but they admit that it really needs two fast G5's to work properly. Some of the operations like the filters need a fast video card with at least 128MB RAM, but the lightbox desktop seems to need the cpu's.
They are not in a bind. Apple is the only one that has the balls to push the industry along. So what if it doesn't work on anything but a fast, new Mac? They sell Macs don't they? Part of the point of creating this is to sell new Macs, and to give the platform an advantage. In the Tiger WWDC keynote, Steve actually asked Adobe to support CoreImage on the Mac. If PS is the modern modular code you suggest, that should have been easy enough. Even if that were the case, they will not do it. They have their own agenda, and giving Macs an advantage isn't on it. They try to milk what they already have, or buy something and tack it on. Example: Vanishing Points comes from Canoma. In the short term, I'm actually jazzed about seeing what happens with the Macromedia acquisition. Still, I am more interested in the future and I'm looking for the next great leap forward. I bet that comes from Apple.
I have a PowerMac G5, 1.6 ghz
If i switch the graphics card in that (64 MB) with the graphics card in my PC downstairs, GeForce 5200 (same card actualy, different RAM), which has 128 MB RAM, and I upgrade my computer's RAM from 512 to 1 GB, will Appeture work on my G5?
Originally posted by icfireball
My question is:
I have a PowerMac G5, 1.6 ghz
If i switch the graphics card in that (64 MB) with the graphics card in my PC downstairs, GeForce 5200 (same card actualy, different RAM), which has 128 MB RAM, and I upgrade my computer's RAM from 512 to 1 GB, will Appeture work on my G5?
These are the Minimum requirements:
Minimum System Requirements
One of the following Macintosh computers:
Power Mac G5 with a 1.8 gigahertz (GHz) or faster PowerPC G5 processor
17- or 20-inch iMac G5 with a 1.8 GHz or faster PowerPC G5 processor
15- or 17-inch PowerBook G4 with a 1.25 GHz or faster PowerPC G4 processor
1GB of RAM
One of the following graphics cards:
ATI Radeon x600 Pro or x600 XT
ATI Radeon X800 XT Mac Edition
ATI Radeon X850 XT
ATI Radeon 9800 XT or 9800 Pro
ATI Radeon 9700 Pro
ATI Radeon 9600, 9600 XT, 9600 Pro, or 9650
ATI Mobility Radeon 9700 or 9600
NVIDIA GeForce 6600 LE or 6600
NVIDIA GeForce 6800 Ultra DDL or 6800 GT DDL
NVIDIA GeForce 7800 GT
NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500
5GB of disk space for application, templates, and tutorial
DVD drive for installation
One thing about Apple, if you don't have the minimum requirements, the program may not even run. I tried running Motion on my old G4 which didn't have a supported graphics card, and it wouldn't run. It may not have been able to install - but I can't quite remember.
Just thought I'd put that out there.
I can be more productive with - get this! - Fireworks simply because everything is nondestructive and you can choose whether you want to use layers or not. Fireworks is, in my opinion, the middle ground between Illustrator and Photoshop: it has nondestructive effects and a full set of vector tooks like Illustrator, but a bitmap grounding and tons of bitmap alteration tools as well.
But for some reason, it's a toy application in every "professional"'s eyes.
Bringing Aperture into focus
Originally posted by melgross
You can adjust any setting you make in a layer. That is the entire purpose of layers.
No you can't.
Apply a gaussian blur on a layer. How will you adjust that?
By making a new fresh layer and apply a new guassian blur on that.
But how do you remember what settings the filter in the first layer had?
Do you write it down or use your own codes in the naming of layers?
What if you want different crops of that photo?
Originally posted by melgross
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.
Your understanding of Core Image (I'm not talking about Apperture here) is very incomplete
Originally posted by melgross
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.
Cropping? And it isn't easier to show them the different versions at the same time?
Originally posted by melgross
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.
Again, I'm not talking about Apperture here.
Originally posted by melgross
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.
And it will probably do it like Core Image Fun House.
Originally posted by melgross
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.
Again, I'm not talking about.... Ahh, what the hell.
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.
We do - non destructive editing doesn't remove the need for layers.
Originally posted by bikertwin
Well, care to tell us which filters you're alluding to, that don't work on layers?
And the fact that sharpening is done last is irrelevant (you're good at changing the subject). The fact is (as a previous poster mentioned), sharpening--like all filters in Photoshop--is totally destructive, irreversible, and cannot be modified at a later date--unlike sharpening in Aperture, which has none of those drawbacks.
You can somewhat get around that in Photoshop by duplicating a layer and sharpening the new layer, but congratulations you've now doubled your already enormous file size (I'm not talking about web images here). And you still can't tweak the sharpening after the fact, unless you delete the layer, reduplicate it, and apply new settings (having no idea what the old settings were unless you wrote them down or tried hacking them into the layer name).
In Aperture, you can have 10 different versions of the same file, each with different (and non-destructive, reversible, and modifiable) sharpening settings (say, for different output resolutions) that take up almost no disk space.
Which would you rather have?
And please stop repeating the straw horse statement that Aperture is not a Photoshop killer. You're restating the obvious. Nobody here is saying Aperture can totally replace everything that Photoshop does. It can't; we all agree on that.
But what Aperture does, it does very well.
You can't apply most of the Gallery filters as a layer. I said that earlier. Read the posts.
Sure, you can create another duplicate layer and do it there, but as we both have said about sharpness, that increases file size. It's not the same as adding it as a layer effect.
If I say something you don't like you accuse me of changing the subject. That's not correct, and it still doesn't make you right.
Creating a layer to perform a sharpening is only useful if you haven't added other pixel edited effects somewhere else, and have flattened. If you have added those effects and haven't flattened, then what to duplicate becomes a problem. you have to include all the other effects in your sharpen or you might get unexpected results (unless you want some special result).
Also, you don't guess with sharpening. It's pretty well defines as to how much sharpening is given any file for any purpose.
And stop telling me what to say. Several people here have been saying about how this a PS Killer. Tell them to stop saying that, and I will also desist.
Again, if you real all of my posts, you would see that I have said that I like Aperture, that I'm going to buy it when it becomes available in 5 weeks or so, and that I said almost exactly what you said in your last line - several times.
What we are arguing about here is not really useful because they are two very different programs, and PS does so much mre that it is difficult for Adobe to change everything at once. There is a vast amount of code in PS. Over the years they have enabled more and more items on layers. No doubt they will continue to do so. I know that blur and sharpen controls are in their sights, as is HighLight/Shadow. Other filters are also being rewritten. The beta stage for 10 should be coming my way fairly soon, and I hope to see a number of changes. You might be surprised. I know that more integration of RAW and digital negative, which all the major camera companies have already adopted will be incorporated. That was always their goal.
Originally posted by MacCrazy
And more importantly it does 90% of what photographers use photoshop for - and in a more intuitive interface.
If you only need what it does, fine. PS is a production tool. It isn't meant for people who only need to do corrections and cropping. I won't argue with that.
Originally posted by murk
They are not in a bind. Apple is the only one that has the balls to push the industry along. So what if it doesn't work on anything but a fast, new Mac? They sell Macs don't they? Part of the point of creating this is to sell new Macs, and to give the platform an advantage. In the Tiger WWDC keynote, Steve actually asked Adobe to support CoreImage on the Mac. If PS is the modern modular code you suggest, that should have been easy enough. Even if that were the case, they will not do it. They have their own agenda, and giving Macs an advantage isn't on it. They try to milk what they already have, or buy something and tack it on. Example: Vanishing Points comes from Canoma. In the short term, I'm actually jazzed about seeing what happens with the Macromedia acquisition. Still, I am more interested in the future and I'm looking for the next great leap forward. I bet that comes from Apple.
This has nothing to do with balls.
You haven't been reading posts by myself and others as to why it "might" not be possible for Adobe to adopt CI for PS. It has nothing to do with modular code. It has everything to do with portable documents.
Every piece of softeware "borrows" something from something else.
Aperture has done that as well.
It's not something to be ashamed of.