You know what I like in Aperture, just initial impressions? That it's JUST TRYING TO BE A PHOTO APP. and a kickass one at that. Let's face it, Photoshop is still a photo app, but I am a pretty advanced user, and I can say that it's trying to be its own super-duper-uber-do-everything-you-can-think-of graphics app. which is great, but i have to wonder what photo profesionals think of the app, and how it's just kinda spread into all of these different areas that photographers never wanted/asked for...
it's like apple went, "hey, what if we took the concept of photoshop, and stripped away all of the non-photo-related stuff, and worked fromt he ground up for professionals," so instead of raw support being grafted on as a plug-in and via adobe bridge, apple doesn't even act like there's anything else. raw is it. if you love raw images, they want you to love aperture.
simply put, though, you cannot remove photoshop from your toolbox. it's like motion versus after effects. you can do some crazy cool fast compositing in motion, but it can't hold a candle to the complexities after effects can manage... yet.
And just what is non photo related that doesn't save a great deal of time for us when most of our (or our customers) images are going to be published?
If you are an advanced user then you must realize that saving time is above all the most important thing that any app can do. PS allows us to do work without having to leave the app. Many jobs that would have required me to go to Illustrator, and then to InDesign, can now be done directly in PS.
Is this a bad thing? Should Adobe remove all of these work saving features to make PS a "pure" photo editing app? This is one of it's most important and popular strengths.
I have more photo managment needs than most of Photoshop's advanced features, which I imagine I don't use 80% of.
I suspect that's true for many people (non-pros) and is why I'm still satisfied using Photoshop Elements. I'd probably get more out of Aperture than the full version of Photoshop although the hardware requirements are too demanding.
"You know what I like in Aperture, just initial impressions? That it's JUST TRYING TO BE A PHOTO APP. and a kickass one at that. Let's face it, Photoshop is still a photo app, but I am a pretty advanced user, and I can say that it's trying to be its own super-duper-uber-do-everything-you-can-think-of graphics app. which is great, but i have to wonder what photo profesionals think of the app, and how it's just kinda spread into all of these different areas that photographers never wanted/asked for...
it's like apple went, "hey, what if we took the concept of photoshop, and stripped away all of the non-photo-related stuff, and worked fromt he ground up for professionals," so instead of raw support being grafted on as a plug-in and via adobe bridge, apple doesn't even act like there's anything else. raw is it. if you love raw images, they want you to love aperture.
simply put, though, you cannot remove photoshop from your toolbox. it's like motion versus after effects. you can do some crazy cool fast compositing in motion, but it can't hold a candle to the complexities after effects can manage... yet."
An insightful post.
Just like Apple has done with 'Front Row'.
They have stripped down an image editor to what it should be for a photographer.
And done it right. And with Cutting edge technology. With a superb user interface and some great real-time implementations eg zoom which make the photoshop 'zoom' look crap and amateurish by comparison.
It's what Photoshop...should be. It makes Photoshop look a jack of all trades crayola box.
"But $500 seems a bit high for what it looks to be doing."
I sometimes think Adobe charging an obscene price for exactly the same product is a bit high for a program which is essentially doing the same thing as version 4.
Sniff...is there anything we need from Photoshop that is missing from Aperture?
Just asking...perhaps Melgross can come up with a list?
Lemon Bon Bon
I don't have to. If you used PS then you would know. If you don't then any list isn't going to seem correct. My list would take a hour to compose. Why don't you go to Adobe's site and look at what PS can do.
There is too much being said here with too little understanding of just what PS is.
Everything you have in this post has been present in PS for quite some time.
I don't understand why people aren't willing to do the work of making a real comparison themselves before posting.This isn't some theoretical thing that we can argue all night. These are two real programs. Open two pages in your browser, side by side and compare what these programs can do. If your monitor won't let you open two pages side by side, then you're not a candidate for either of these programs anyway.
Let's be realistic. Apple is doing a bit of promotion here. Until we see the program in a presentation at the show tomorrow, we won't know just what these features offer. And until we stand in front of a computer tomorrow for 20 minutes or so playing around with it for ourselves, we won't see the "gotcha's" that all new programs seem to have.
This isn't being presented as a PS killer. In order to be one, at the very least, it would have to work with ALL PSD files, not just single layer and flattened ones.
"But $500 seems a bit high for what it looks to be doing."
I sometimes think Adobe charging an obscene price for exactly the same product is a bit high for a program which is essentially doing the same thing as version 4.
Creating a lie vs. correcting images? What the hell does that kind of judgemental nonsense mean?
Apple =good. Adobe=bad?
This app isn't even in the same league as Adobe Expression much less PS. You'll bet that a few plug-ins will equalize the two? Obviously you have never used PS. And don't say that you're a pro and use it every day, because your comments show that you're not.
My lie comment was meant that PS allows you to edit images to represent something that isn't real. Like touch-ups on models, iTablets, and Vista screenshots .
And plug-ins is probably a bad word here. What I meant was that by adding a few things to the application, they could add the necessary architure to allow for painting tools, etc; as well as 3rd party plug-ins.
Thank you Ranger and JoGro for pointing this out correctly.
I nearly pointed out in my earlier post that Apple has a habit of pumping out really really great v1.0s. Keynote, Pages, Final Cut, Motion, DVD Studio; Keynote is now the best thing ever, Pages has great potential, Final Cut is great, Motion is still improving, Aperture is GOING to be like that. At this time next year when they deliver the Universal Binary version 2 8).
Not surprisingly, the minimal hardware specifications require a CoreImage-compatible GFX chip. Aperture imho is the stick in Apple's carrot-and-stick strategy to move Adobe towards using Core* in its products.
The recommended system specs are mind-boggling, though:
- Dual 2GHz Power Mac G5 or faster
- 2GB of RAM
- One of the following graphics cards:
* ATI Radeon X800 XT Mac Edition
* ATI Radeon 9800 XT or 9800 Pro
* NVIDIA GeForce 6800 Ultra DDL or 6800 GT DDL
* NVIDIA GeForce 7800 GT
* NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500
What if I wanted to use it on one of the brand-new Powerbooks (w/2GB RAM)?
Sure, the real-time effects won't work but I hope I can run 6 MP images through it (Photoshop processes them fine on a 1 GHz Powerbook).
I don't know why but I think I am going to really like the app. I am no pro but I like the power of Raw and at the same time the simplicity of iPhoto.
To use this you would HAVE to use PS as well. Apple even more than hinted as much. Read the article on Maccentral.
I don't think Aperture is a Photoshop killer, and I don't think Apple planned it as such. But if you think Bridge does everything Aperture claims, you're crazy. Aperture is about managing a creative process. Bridge is about managing files.
Thinking about my own experiences and what I've read about photo editing at places like National Geographic, the problems Aperture is trying to solve strike me as real and important. Real time viewing and cataloging of RAW files alone is a huge jump forward. Combine that with stacking and Apertures other organizational features, and I think we have the potential for a new killer app. A killer app that we would use alongside Photoshop.
Photoshop solves thousands of real problems itself. It is after all one of the original killer apps. But currently my RAW workflow is awkward at best. I use iView + PS CS, and I have to browse tiny thumbnails in iView, then launch PS, and then convert the file in Adobe RAW converter just to preview an image. I haven't had a chance to look at the new Bridge yet, but I'm pretty sure they haven't eliminated the need to convert RAW files before doing anything with them. Some of these issues can be alleviated by shooting RAW+JPEG, but that has its own issues.
My father-in-law is a professional sports photographer and is constantly shooting bursts of five or more shots. For people like him, stacking is a godsend. It will ease the logical dimensions of his catalog, it will ease the selection of the pick, and it will cut down on conversion time. These are all huge wins.
As you can see, I am very excited about Aperture. I just hope the performance is real. FinalCut Pro delivers on a lot of its real time claims, and it is a hit. The original iPhoto fell flat on performance and wasn't taken seriously. Lets hope Aperture is truly worthy being in the pro lineup.
"But $500 seems a bit high for what it looks to be doing."
I sometimes think Adobe charging an obscene price for exactly the same product is a bit high for a program which is essentially doing the same thing as version 4.
Lemon Bon Bon
Would you rather spend $1400 on the PC equivalent?
The problem with Apple pricing seems to stem from many of us expecting all of Apple's apps to be consumer based when the reality is Pros need tools that have a granular amount of control that isn't evident from screenshots. Photoshop doesn't look deep until you start wading through the pallettes.
I think Apple will have a winner here. The requirements won't seem so steep in a year when the Conroe Powermacs are out complete with 4mb shared L2 cache. Love the black UI and use of Core Image. Many Photographers won't use it but those that do will likely love it...and Apple.
I don't think Aperture is a Photoshop killer, and I don't think Apple planned it as such. But if you think Bridge does everything Aperture claims, you're crazy. Aperture is about managing a creative process. Bridge is about managing files.
Thinking about my own experiences and what I've read about photo editing at places like National Geographic, the problems Aperture is trying to solve strike me as real and important. Real time viewing and cataloging of RAW files alone is a huge jump forward. Combine that with stacking and Apertures other organizational features, and I think we have the potential for a new killer app. A killer app that we would use alongside Photoshop.
Photoshop solves thousands of real problems itself. It is after all one of the original killer apps. But currently my RAW workflow is awkward at best. I use iView + PS CS, and I have to browse tiny thumbnails in iView, then launch PS, and then convert the file in Adobe RAW converter just to preview an image. I haven't had a chance to look at the new Bridge yet, but I'm pretty sure they haven't eliminated the need to convert RAW files before doing anything with them. Some of these issues can be alleviated by shooting RAW+JPEG, but that has its own issues.
My father-in-law is a professional sports photographer and is constantly shooting bursts of five or more shots. For people like him, stacking is a godsend. It will ease the logical dimensions of his catalog, it will ease the selection of the pick, and it will cut down on conversion time. These are all huge wins.
As you can see, I am very excited about Aperture. I just hope the performance is real. FinalCut Pro delivers on a lot of its real time claims, and it is a hit. The original iPhoto fell flat on performance and wasn't taken seriously. Lets hope Aperture is truly worthy being in the pro lineup.
I didn't say that Bridge does everything that Aperture does. What I'm doing is countering the expectations that this a revolutionary program, when it's not. The does some things pretty well, if it works as well as claimed. But there isn't anything here that can't be added to Adobe's suite with an upgrade.
Also the claims that we're getting here that this the same as PS, or that it's just short a few features that some plug-ins will solve. Or that PS 9 is the same as ver 4, etc, are nonsense.
No one here has seen the program. Most here who are making definitive statements haven't used PS either, or at least haven't used it more than many have, which is to say, a primitive pixel editing program.
Apple is saying at this time that it is mostly a feed into PS unless you don't need to work on your images. I'm still waiting to see if that claim is valid. When I see proper CMYK support, etc. , then I'll feel better about it. I probably will get it.
And just what is non photo related that doesn't save a great deal of time for us when most of our (or our customers) images are going to be published?
If you are an advanced user then you must realize that saving time is above all the most important thing that any app can do. PS allows us to do work without having to leave the app. Many jobs that would have required me to go to Illustrator, and then to InDesign, can now be done directly in PS.
Is this a bad thing? Should Adobe remove all of these work saving features to make PS a "pure" photo editing app? This is one of it's most important and popular strengths.
okay, first, put the pitchfork and torch DOWN.
my point is this: there are many types of photoshop users, and a lot of them are not photographers. me, for instance. my forté is creating stuff out of nothing. give me photoshop, and even a blank canvas, colors, filters, brushes and a wacom tablet, and i can WORK it. i'm even more dangerous when i have a photo to start with. i've made myself and my companies a lot of money by taking a pretty sorry photos.com image, and turning it into something unique and special. i'm not bragging (much... ahem *blush*), just proud of what i can do with the app and the experience i've gained. but i'm not a photographer.
but, and this is a guess, i don't think a non-photographer would know what to do with aperture. it's that focused (some would say niche). photoshop does a lot, A LOT, but does a photographer use the vector shape tool? i'm not being facetious here (or if i were, i'd be trying a lot harder). that's a serious question. my guess is that if you're overlaying type on the photo, and compositing it with things like, for my example, the blobby vector shape, you probably aren't aperture's target. who is photoshop's target market? EVERYone. and it can be every tool to every task and every person. the phoographer, yes. and the painter. and the typographer. and the layout artist. and the video editor... etc. it's not a bad thing, but i've said this for a logn time, if it weren't for branding, photoshop could stand to have a new name, because it's just not indicative of how WIDE its scope has become. but there are a lot of photographers who couldn't care less about those extra features. they consider the painting and typography and the video editing and the file management someone else's thing, not theirs. and they might, just might be looking for something that focused.
please note, i come not to bury photoshop, but to praise it.
Photographers are finally beginning to realize that while Photoshop is the ultimate application for creativity. For their needs some specific things must be done better. OS X users now have a couple of new apps to focus on that cater moreso to the photographer. They are
OK another awesome app. However...Apple is making all our apps now. Is this good or bad?
Considering that before you had very little photography applications for the Mac I say this is a win/win. We've lost nothing you still need Photoshop for the myriad of creative options and filters it has but Aperture simply makes editing your RAW footage seamless and hopefully effortless.
I consider it the new front end in a high end digital photography workflow.
Comments
Originally posted by rok
You know what I like in Aperture, just initial impressions? That it's JUST TRYING TO BE A PHOTO APP. and a kickass one at that. Let's face it, Photoshop is still a photo app, but I am a pretty advanced user, and I can say that it's trying to be its own super-duper-uber-do-everything-you-can-think-of graphics app. which is great, but i have to wonder what photo profesionals think of the app, and how it's just kinda spread into all of these different areas that photographers never wanted/asked for...
it's like apple went, "hey, what if we took the concept of photoshop, and stripped away all of the non-photo-related stuff, and worked fromt he ground up for professionals," so instead of raw support being grafted on as a plug-in and via adobe bridge, apple doesn't even act like there's anything else. raw is it. if you love raw images, they want you to love aperture.
simply put, though, you cannot remove photoshop from your toolbox. it's like motion versus after effects. you can do some crazy cool fast compositing in motion, but it can't hold a candle to the complexities after effects can manage... yet.
And just what is non photo related that doesn't save a great deal of time for us when most of our (or our customers) images are going to be published?
If you are an advanced user then you must realize that saving time is above all the most important thing that any app can do. PS allows us to do work without having to leave the app. Many jobs that would have required me to go to Illustrator, and then to InDesign, can now be done directly in PS.
Is this a bad thing? Should Adobe remove all of these work saving features to make PS a "pure" photo editing app? This is one of it's most important and popular strengths.
Originally posted by TenoBell
I have more photo managment needs than most of Photoshop's advanced features, which I imagine I don't use 80% of.
I suspect that's true for many people (non-pros) and is why I'm still satisfied using Photoshop Elements. I'd probably get more out of Aperture than the full version of Photoshop although the hardware requirements are too demanding.
What's amaturish about that? I think it is a good feature(s).
And I think Apple has another hit on its hands.
It gives Adobe Photoshop a real kick in the nuts.
It's a grown up Photoshop. It makes Photoshop seem...unsophisticated.
Adobe's interface is a decade behind this beautiful new one!
It just seems so thoughtful and imaginative.
It makes Adobe look like the creative dinosaurs they appear to be...
Lemon Bon Bon
it's like apple went, "hey, what if we took the concept of photoshop, and stripped away all of the non-photo-related stuff, and worked fromt he ground up for professionals," so instead of raw support being grafted on as a plug-in and via adobe bridge, apple doesn't even act like there's anything else. raw is it. if you love raw images, they want you to love aperture.
simply put, though, you cannot remove photoshop from your toolbox. it's like motion versus after effects. you can do some crazy cool fast compositing in motion, but it can't hold a candle to the complexities after effects can manage... yet."
An insightful post.
Just like Apple has done with 'Front Row'.
They have stripped down an image editor to what it should be for a photographer.
And done it right. And with Cutting edge technology. With a superb user interface and some great real-time implementations eg zoom which make the photoshop 'zoom' look crap and amateurish by comparison.
It's what Photoshop...should be. It makes Photoshop look a jack of all trades crayola box.
Lemon Bon Bon
Non-destructive editing.
Output.
Mild touch up.
Real-time performance.
Hmmm...
Output Preview.
Sniff...is there anything we need from Photoshop that is missing from Aperture?
Just asking...perhaps Melgross can come up with a list?
Lemon Bon Bon
I sometimes think Adobe charging an obscene price for exactly the same product is a bit high for a program which is essentially doing the same thing as version 4.
Lemon Bon Bon
Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon
"Some of the features seem to be on the amaturish side, such as book printing, and ordering prints online. Who is that for?"
What's amaturish about that? I think it is a good feature(s).
And I think Apple has another hit on its hands.
It gives Adobe Photoshop a real kick in the nuts.
It's a grown up Photoshop. It makes Photoshop seem...unsophisticated.
Adobe's interface is a decade behind this beautiful new one!
It just seems so thoughtful and imaginative.
It makes Adobe look like the creative dinosaurs they appear to be...
Lemon Bon Bon
Those are similar (if not exactly the same as) the features in iPhoto. Fun, but not what a pro would want or need.
This is a good app for moving things around but other than that it seems on the light side.
To use this you would HAVE to use PS as well. Apple even more than hinted as much. Read the article on Maccentral.
Unless I missed it on Apple's site, it's missing CMYK, coordinated image sizing and sharpen control, etc.
It is pretty, I'll grant that.
I'll see tomorrow.
Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon
Simple useful filters.
Non-destructive editing.
Output.
Mild touch up.
Real-time performance.
Hmmm...
Output Preview.
Sniff...is there anything we need from Photoshop that is missing from Aperture?
Just asking...perhaps Melgross can come up with a list?
Lemon Bon Bon
I don't have to. If you used PS then you would know. If you don't then any list isn't going to seem correct. My list would take a hour to compose. Why don't you go to Adobe's site and look at what PS can do.
There is too much being said here with too little understanding of just what PS is.
Everything you have in this post has been present in PS for quite some time.
I don't understand why people aren't willing to do the work of making a real comparison themselves before posting.This isn't some theoretical thing that we can argue all night. These are two real programs. Open two pages in your browser, side by side and compare what these programs can do. If your monitor won't let you open two pages side by side, then you're not a candidate for either of these programs anyway.
Let's be realistic. Apple is doing a bit of promotion here. Until we see the program in a presentation at the show tomorrow, we won't know just what these features offer. And until we stand in front of a computer tomorrow for 20 minutes or so playing around with it for ourselves, we won't see the "gotcha's" that all new programs seem to have.
This isn't being presented as a PS killer. In order to be one, at the very least, it would have to work with ALL PSD files, not just single layer and flattened ones.
Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon
"But $500 seems a bit high for what it looks to be doing."
I sometimes think Adobe charging an obscene price for exactly the same product is a bit high for a program which is essentially doing the same thing as version 4.
Lemon Bon Bon
Are you just trolling?
Originally posted by melgross
Creating a lie vs. correcting images? What the hell does that kind of judgemental nonsense mean?
Apple =good. Adobe=bad?
This app isn't even in the same league as Adobe Expression much less PS. You'll bet that a few plug-ins will equalize the two? Obviously you have never used PS. And don't say that you're a pro and use it every day, because your comments show that you're not.
My lie comment was meant that PS allows you to edit images to represent something that isn't real. Like touch-ups on models, iTablets, and Vista screenshots
And plug-ins is probably a bad word here. What I meant was that by adding a few things to the application, they could add the necessary architure to allow for painting tools, etc; as well as 3rd party plug-ins.
Thank you Ranger and JoGro for pointing this out correctly.
I nearly pointed out in my earlier post that Apple has a habit of pumping out really really great v1.0s. Keynote, Pages, Final Cut, Motion, DVD Studio; Keynote is now the best thing ever, Pages has great potential, Final Cut is great, Motion is still improving, Aperture is GOING to be like that. At this time next year when they deliver the Universal Binary version 2 8).
Originally posted by Smircle
Not surprisingly, the minimal hardware specifications require a CoreImage-compatible GFX chip. Aperture imho is the stick in Apple's carrot-and-stick strategy to move Adobe towards using Core* in its products.
The recommended system specs are mind-boggling, though:
- Dual 2GHz Power Mac G5 or faster
- 2GB of RAM
- One of the following graphics cards:
* ATI Radeon X800 XT Mac Edition
* ATI Radeon 9800 XT or 9800 Pro
* NVIDIA GeForce 6800 Ultra DDL or 6800 GT DDL
* NVIDIA GeForce 7800 GT
* NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500
What if I wanted to use it on one of the brand-new Powerbooks (w/2GB RAM)?
Sure, the real-time effects won't work but I hope I can run 6 MP images through it (Photoshop processes them fine on a 1 GHz Powerbook).
I don't know why but I think I am going to really like the app. I am no pro but I like the power of Raw and at the same time the simplicity of iPhoto.
Originally posted by melgross
To use this you would HAVE to use PS as well. Apple even more than hinted as much. Read the article on Maccentral.
I don't think Aperture is a Photoshop killer, and I don't think Apple planned it as such. But if you think Bridge does everything Aperture claims, you're crazy. Aperture is about managing a creative process. Bridge is about managing files.
Thinking about my own experiences and what I've read about photo editing at places like National Geographic, the problems Aperture is trying to solve strike me as real and important. Real time viewing and cataloging of RAW files alone is a huge jump forward. Combine that with stacking and Apertures other organizational features, and I think we have the potential for a new killer app. A killer app that we would use alongside Photoshop.
Photoshop solves thousands of real problems itself. It is after all one of the original killer apps. But currently my RAW workflow is awkward at best. I use iView + PS CS, and I have to browse tiny thumbnails in iView, then launch PS, and then convert the file in Adobe RAW converter just to preview an image. I haven't had a chance to look at the new Bridge yet, but I'm pretty sure they haven't eliminated the need to convert RAW files before doing anything with them. Some of these issues can be alleviated by shooting RAW+JPEG, but that has its own issues.
My father-in-law is a professional sports photographer and is constantly shooting bursts of five or more shots. For people like him, stacking is a godsend. It will ease the logical dimensions of his catalog, it will ease the selection of the pick, and it will cut down on conversion time. These are all huge wins.
As you can see, I am very excited about Aperture. I just hope the performance is real. FinalCut Pro delivers on a lot of its real time claims, and it is a hit. The original iPhoto fell flat on performance and wasn't taken seriously. Lets hope Aperture is truly worthy being in the pro lineup.
Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon
"But $500 seems a bit high for what it looks to be doing."
I sometimes think Adobe charging an obscene price for exactly the same product is a bit high for a program which is essentially doing the same thing as version 4.
Lemon Bon Bon
Would you rather spend $1400 on the PC equivalent?
http://www.expressdigital.com/products/epsdarkroom.shtm
The problem with Apple pricing seems to stem from many of us expecting all of Apple's apps to be consumer based when the reality is Pros need tools that have a granular amount of control that isn't evident from screenshots. Photoshop doesn't look deep until you start wading through the pallettes.
I think Apple will have a winner here. The requirements won't seem so steep in a year when the Conroe Powermacs are out complete with 4mb shared L2 cache. Love the black UI and use of Core Image. Many Photographers won't use it but those that do will likely love it...and Apple.
Aperture is primarily for managing with some manipulation, Photoshop is for graphics and editing.
Aperture is primarily for the photographer and Photoshop is primarily for the graphic artist or photo editor.
You have to admit though the UI is slick.
Originally posted by Simple Ranger
I don't think Aperture is a Photoshop killer, and I don't think Apple planned it as such. But if you think Bridge does everything Aperture claims, you're crazy. Aperture is about managing a creative process. Bridge is about managing files.
Thinking about my own experiences and what I've read about photo editing at places like National Geographic, the problems Aperture is trying to solve strike me as real and important. Real time viewing and cataloging of RAW files alone is a huge jump forward. Combine that with stacking and Apertures other organizational features, and I think we have the potential for a new killer app. A killer app that we would use alongside Photoshop.
Photoshop solves thousands of real problems itself. It is after all one of the original killer apps. But currently my RAW workflow is awkward at best. I use iView + PS CS, and I have to browse tiny thumbnails in iView, then launch PS, and then convert the file in Adobe RAW converter just to preview an image. I haven't had a chance to look at the new Bridge yet, but I'm pretty sure they haven't eliminated the need to convert RAW files before doing anything with them. Some of these issues can be alleviated by shooting RAW+JPEG, but that has its own issues.
My father-in-law is a professional sports photographer and is constantly shooting bursts of five or more shots. For people like him, stacking is a godsend. It will ease the logical dimensions of his catalog, it will ease the selection of the pick, and it will cut down on conversion time. These are all huge wins.
As you can see, I am very excited about Aperture. I just hope the performance is real. FinalCut Pro delivers on a lot of its real time claims, and it is a hit. The original iPhoto fell flat on performance and wasn't taken seriously. Lets hope Aperture is truly worthy being in the pro lineup.
I didn't say that Bridge does everything that Aperture does. What I'm doing is countering the expectations that this a revolutionary program, when it's not. The does some things pretty well, if it works as well as claimed. But there isn't anything here that can't be added to Adobe's suite with an upgrade.
Also the claims that we're getting here that this the same as PS, or that it's just short a few features that some plug-ins will solve. Or that PS 9 is the same as ver 4, etc, are nonsense.
No one here has seen the program. Most here who are making definitive statements haven't used PS either, or at least haven't used it more than many have, which is to say, a primitive pixel editing program.
Apple is saying at this time that it is mostly a feed into PS unless you don't need to work on your images. I'm still waiting to see if that claim is valid. When I see proper CMYK support, etc. , then I'll feel better about it. I probably will get it.
Originally posted by melgross
And just what is non photo related that doesn't save a great deal of time for us when most of our (or our customers) images are going to be published?
If you are an advanced user then you must realize that saving time is above all the most important thing that any app can do. PS allows us to do work without having to leave the app. Many jobs that would have required me to go to Illustrator, and then to InDesign, can now be done directly in PS.
Is this a bad thing? Should Adobe remove all of these work saving features to make PS a "pure" photo editing app? This is one of it's most important and popular strengths.
okay, first, put the pitchfork and torch DOWN.
my point is this: there are many types of photoshop users, and a lot of them are not photographers. me, for instance. my forté is creating stuff out of nothing. give me photoshop, and even a blank canvas, colors, filters, brushes and a wacom tablet, and i can WORK it. i'm even more dangerous when i have a photo to start with. i've made myself and my companies a lot of money by taking a pretty sorry photos.com image, and turning it into something unique and special. i'm not bragging (much... ahem *blush*), just proud of what i can do with the app and the experience i've gained. but i'm not a photographer.
but, and this is a guess, i don't think a non-photographer would know what to do with aperture. it's that focused (some would say niche). photoshop does a lot, A LOT, but does a photographer use the vector shape tool? i'm not being facetious here (or if i were, i'd be trying a lot harder). that's a serious question. my guess is that if you're overlaying type on the photo, and compositing it with things like, for my example, the blobby vector shape, you probably aren't aperture's target. who is photoshop's target market? EVERYone. and it can be every tool to every task and every person. the phoographer, yes. and the painter. and the typographer. and the layout artist. and the video editor... etc. it's not a bad thing, but i've said this for a logn time, if it weren't for branding, photoshop could stand to have a new name, because it's just not indicative of how WIDE its scope has become. but there are a lot of photographers who couldn't care less about those extra features. they consider the painting and typography and the video editing and the file management someone else's thing, not theirs. and they might, just might be looking for something that focused.
please note, i come not to bury photoshop, but to praise it.
www.apple.com/aperture
www.lightcrafts.com Lightzone
Do they wish to replace Photoshop? No. They wish to give photographers top billing which is a refreshing change.
Originally posted by Aquatic
OK another awesome app. However...Apple is making all our apps now. Is this good or bad?
Considering that before you had very little photography applications for the Mac I say this is a win/win. We've lost nothing you still need Photoshop for the myriad of creative options and filters it has but Aperture simply makes editing your RAW footage seamless and hopefully effortless.
I consider it the new front end in a high end digital photography workflow.