I don't like the sound of your images being stuck in a large database file. If Aperture fails to launch for whatever reason you have lots all your photographs until you can fix it. This is bad design.
I don't like the sound of your images being stuck in a large database file. If Aperture fails to launch for whatever reason you have lots all your photographs until you can fix it. This is bad design.
Same thing happens if the file system gets corrupted. What's the difference? There is none.
All the posts on this board are in a huge database. So is user login information. Your credit card data. Bank accounts. Databases are where you store lots of data. It's very efficient.
This board (hopefully!) has a backup, as does your credit card company and bank. Hopefully, you have a backup, too.
Same thing happens if the file system gets corrupted. What's the difference? There is none.
All the posts on this board are in a huge database. So is user login information. Your credit card data. Bank accounts. Databases are where you store lots of data. It's very efficient.
This board (hopefully!) has a backup, as does your credit card company and bank. Hopefully, you have a backup, too.
I think your missing the point. If iPhoto crashes on start-up and I can't get into it to perform a backup I can browse all my photos in the Finder and edit in photoshop. If I want to search in Spotlight for an image Aperture files won't show up. If I want to grab one image that's in Aperture I have to open it first.
I understand there's less chance of corruption if you don't have access to these files but I would prefer to have it - as you do in iLife.
Edit: Also what if my Mac goes down and I have to access my photographs for a client who doesn't have a Mac - I have to find someone with a computer which will run Aperture to get the files. Obviously these are worst case scenarios but they don't sound too good to me.
I think I'll just do what I do at the moment - Import once onto my external drive and then again into Aperture instead of iPhoto.
I think your missing the point. If iPhoto crashes on start-up and I can't get into it to perform a backup I can browse all my photos in the Finder and edit in photoshop. If I want to search in Spotlight for an image Aperture files won't show up. If I want to grab one image that's in Aperture I have to open it first.
I never access my iPhoto/iTunes data from the Finder. It's not designed that way. It's like copying text from a Word document by opening it in TextEdit. Why would you do that?
In Aperture, this is even more important. Think about it. What if Aperture did leave your files "out in the open" so that you could get to them via the Finder. In the Finder, you'd never see the changes that you made in Aperture (since it's non-destructive), so what's the point of having access via the Finder?
In terms of backup...
Quote:
Originally posted by MacCrazy
I think I'll just do what I do at the moment - Import once onto my external drive and then again into Aperture instead of iPhoto.
That's a good way of doing it. Nothing wrong with that. You could also use Aperture's Vaults. That's what they're designed for.
With new applications and new paradigms, you have to change the way you think about data and workflow. Aperture is a huge world-view change. I think you'll end up liking it.
I never access my iPhoto/iTunes data from the Finder. It's not designed that way. It's like copying text from a Word document by opening it in TextEdit. Why would you do that?
I search for a song and then open it -= it automatically opens iTunes and plays it - much easier than opening iTunes and finding it as Spotlight is so fast.
When I use photoshop I often use the Browse... feature and then browse my iPhoto library that way although I often right-click in iPhoto but it's got so damn slow recently i try to avoid using it.
I do see what you're saying and the non-destructive element makes sense of why it's a database.
Although saying all this I've got serious financial worries especially when I have to think of all the Christmas presents I have to buy, Aperture is looking less and less likely.
Yeah, but I think Spotlight is working with iTunes to play the song without reimporting it into the iTunes library every time. If it didn't, that would be very stupid of Spotlight.
If Spotlight does not already do it the same way with Aperture images, I would imagine that Apple would add this in an upcomming OSX update. I can't imagine that they would only allow searches from within Aperture.
Although saying all this I've got serious financial worries especially when I have to think of all the Christmas presents I have to buy, Aperture is looking less and less likely.
Now that's the best reason I've heard so far for not buying Aperture. I know how that goes.
Yeah, but I think Spotlight is working with iTunes to play the song without reimporting it into the iTunes library every time. If it didn't, that would be very stupid of Spotlight.
If Spotlight does not already do it the same way with Aperture images, I would imagine that Apple would add this in an upcomming OSX update. I can't imagine that they would only allow searches from within Aperture.
RIght, so using Spotlight is not the same thing as using the Finder. Spotlight ends up using the "native" application to open the files.
[Edit]
Yes, the Finder opens files in their "native" applications, but only at the most basic level. For example, browsing for a JPEG file in the Finder, if you double-click the file it will open in Preview. If you double-click the same file in Spotlight, it opens in iPhoto.
Actually, it would be nice if Spotlight provided more information than the Finder, i.e. it communicated with the native app better. For example, using a keyword search in Spotlight returns a bunch of iPhoto photos, but it doesn't say which album they came from.
That being said, I typically only use Spotlight to find "lost" things. If I know I'm looking for a photo or an e-mail or a song, I'll use Mail or iPhoto or iTunes--it reduces the background clutter quite a bit.
That being said again (!), you guys made me realize there are some cool things about Spotlight I didn't know.
[/Edit]
It'll be interesting to see how Spotlight works with Aperture. If you have 3 versions of a single raw file, and you do a Spotlight search for a metadata tag that the raw file has, which image will it bring up--the original, one of the 3 versions, or all 4 of them?
The problem is that Aperture has a database, not individual songs when in the Finder. Maybe the database will be accessible from spotlight - I'm sure Apple have thought of something.
The problem is that Aperture has a database, not individual songs when in the Finder. Maybe the database will be accessible from spotlight - I'm sure Apple have thought of something.
Apparently it's a package within a package and not a true database:
No more safari crashing for me, since I installed aperture.
Aperture is an huge software dispite it's only a version 1. It's not as big as photoshop, but for the number of display options it's a king.
It's rather fast on my quad G5. Raw files from my 20 D are opening rather quickly. It's seems that the bigger you display your files, the more time it recquieres for doing the adjustements.
It's rather fast on my quad G5. Raw files from my 20 D are opening rather quickly. It's seems that the bigger you display your files, the more time it recquieres for doing the adjustements.
That's because it doesn't actually make any changes to the file itself. All it does is to make the change to the virtual file e.g. the image that is displayed. The more pixels displayed, the more work the machine has to do, therefore the longer it takes. It then stores that mathematical formula (the adjustment) away. When you export the file, it applies the formula to the file, where it becomes permanent.
This is the way several programs in the early '90's used to work when cpu's were very slow. Photoshop does that as well, but in a different way.
That's because it doesn't actually make any changes to the file itself. All it does is to make the change to the virtual file e.g. the image that is displayed. The more pixels displayed, the more work the machine has to do, therefore the longer it takes. It then stores that mathematical formula (the adjustment) away. When you export the file, it applies the formula to the file, where it becomes permanent.
This is the way several programs in the early '90's used to work when cpu's were very slow. Photoshop does that as well, but in a different way.
What programs?
With the exclusion of Adjustment Layers, Photoshop does and always has worked the exact opposite way?immediately applying all filters. I.e., changing the data but not storing the changes made.
Yes, that was one. The big one. I beta'd it for them. It satarter out as a $4,000 program. I still have it around somewhere. I remember the times Kai came to my place to demo it. There was another, but I can't remember the name. It started with a "C". Adobe bought it, and used it as the basis of its non-destructive layering.
Yes, that was one. The big one. I bete's it for them. It satarter out as a $4,000 program. I still have it around somewhere. I remember the times Kai came to my place to demo it. There was another, but I can't remember the name. It started with a "C". Adobe bought it, and used it as the basis of its non-destructive layering.
I own one copy of live picure, but I never used it. It was a bundle with an Umax pro grade scanner.
Comments
http://www.macintouch.com/aperture02.html#nov30
Originally posted by melgross
An early review.
http://www.macintouch.com/aperture02.html#nov30
I don't like the sound of your images being stuck in a large database file. If Aperture fails to launch for whatever reason you have lots all your photographs until you can fix it. This is bad design.
Originally posted by MacCrazy
I don't like the sound of your images being stuck in a large database file. If Aperture fails to launch for whatever reason you have lots all your photographs until you can fix it. This is bad design.
Same thing happens if the file system gets corrupted. What's the difference? There is none.
All the posts on this board are in a huge database. So is user login information. Your credit card data. Bank accounts. Databases are where you store lots of data. It's very efficient.
This board (hopefully!) has a backup, as does your credit card company and bank. Hopefully, you have a backup, too.
Originally posted by bikertwin
Same thing happens if the file system gets corrupted. What's the difference? There is none.
All the posts on this board are in a huge database. So is user login information. Your credit card data. Bank accounts. Databases are where you store lots of data. It's very efficient.
This board (hopefully!) has a backup, as does your credit card company and bank. Hopefully, you have a backup, too.
I think your missing the point. If iPhoto crashes on start-up and I can't get into it to perform a backup I can browse all my photos in the Finder and edit in photoshop. If I want to search in Spotlight for an image Aperture files won't show up. If I want to grab one image that's in Aperture I have to open it first.
I understand there's less chance of corruption if you don't have access to these files but I would prefer to have it - as you do in iLife.
Edit: Also what if my Mac goes down and I have to access my photographs for a client who doesn't have a Mac - I have to find someone with a computer which will run Aperture to get the files. Obviously these are worst case scenarios but they don't sound too good to me.
I think I'll just do what I do at the moment - Import once onto my external drive and then again into Aperture instead of iPhoto.
Originally posted by MacCrazy
I think your missing the point. If iPhoto crashes on start-up and I can't get into it to perform a backup I can browse all my photos in the Finder and edit in photoshop. If I want to search in Spotlight for an image Aperture files won't show up. If I want to grab one image that's in Aperture I have to open it first.
I never access my iPhoto/iTunes data from the Finder. It's not designed that way. It's like copying text from a Word document by opening it in TextEdit. Why would you do that?
In Aperture, this is even more important. Think about it. What if Aperture did leave your files "out in the open" so that you could get to them via the Finder. In the Finder, you'd never see the changes that you made in Aperture (since it's non-destructive), so what's the point of having access via the Finder?
In terms of backup...
Originally posted by MacCrazy
I think I'll just do what I do at the moment - Import once onto my external drive and then again into Aperture instead of iPhoto.
That's a good way of doing it. Nothing wrong with that. You could also use Aperture's Vaults. That's what they're designed for.
With new applications and new paradigms, you have to change the way you think about data and workflow. Aperture is a huge world-view change. I think you'll end up liking it.
Originally posted by bikertwin
I never access my iPhoto/iTunes data from the Finder. It's not designed that way. It's like copying text from a Word document by opening it in TextEdit. Why would you do that?
I search for a song and then open it -= it automatically opens iTunes and plays it - much easier than opening iTunes and finding it as Spotlight is so fast.
When I use photoshop I often use the Browse... feature and then browse my iPhoto library that way although I often right-click in iPhoto but it's got so damn slow recently i try to avoid using it.
I do see what you're saying and the non-destructive element makes sense of why it's a database.
Although saying all this I've got serious financial worries especially when I have to think of all the Christmas presents I have to buy, Aperture is looking less and less likely.
If Spotlight does not already do it the same way with Aperture images, I would imagine that Apple would add this in an upcomming OSX update. I can't imagine that they would only allow searches from within Aperture.
Originally posted by MacCrazy
Although saying all this I've got serious financial worries especially when I have to think of all the Christmas presents I have to buy, Aperture is looking less and less likely.
Now that's the best reason I've heard so far for not buying Aperture.
Originally posted by WhiteRabbit
Yeah, but I think Spotlight is working with iTunes to play the song without reimporting it into the iTunes library every time. If it didn't, that would be very stupid of Spotlight.
If Spotlight does not already do it the same way with Aperture images, I would imagine that Apple would add this in an upcomming OSX update. I can't imagine that they would only allow searches from within Aperture.
RIght, so using Spotlight is not the same thing as using the Finder. Spotlight ends up using the "native" application to open the files.
[Edit]
Yes, the Finder opens files in their "native" applications, but only at the most basic level. For example, browsing for a JPEG file in the Finder, if you double-click the file it will open in Preview. If you double-click the same file in Spotlight, it opens in iPhoto.
Actually, it would be nice if Spotlight provided more information than the Finder, i.e. it communicated with the native app better. For example, using a keyword search in Spotlight returns a bunch of iPhoto photos, but it doesn't say which album they came from.
That being said, I typically only use Spotlight to find "lost" things. If I know I'm looking for a photo or an e-mail or a song, I'll use Mail or iPhoto or iTunes--it reduces the background clutter quite a bit.
That being said again (!), you guys made me realize there are some cool things about Spotlight I didn't know.
[/Edit]
It'll be interesting to see how Spotlight works with Aperture. If you have 3 versions of a single raw file, and you do a Spotlight search for a metadata tag that the raw file has, which image will it bring up--the original, one of the 3 versions, or all 4 of them?
Originally posted by MacCrazy
The problem is that Aperture has a database, not individual songs when in the Finder. Maybe the database will be accessible from spotlight - I'm sure Apple have thought of something.
Apparently it's a package within a package and not a true database:
http://www.studio2f.com/misc/2005/12...mpressions.php
http://www.peachpit.com/bookstore/pr...321422759&rl=1
It seems like the case after installing apeture.
It is so bad that safari won't stay open for more than one page load.
Thanks.
Aperture is an huge software dispite it's only a version 1. It's not as big as photoshop, but for the number of display options it's a king.
It's rather fast on my quad G5. Raw files from my 20 D are opening rather quickly. It's seems that the bigger you display your files, the more time it recquieres for doing the adjustements.
I need a lot of time, learning this software.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
It's rather fast on my quad G5. Raw files from my 20 D are opening rather quickly. It's seems that the bigger you display your files, the more time it recquieres for doing the adjustements.
That's because it doesn't actually make any changes to the file itself. All it does is to make the change to the virtual file e.g. the image that is displayed. The more pixels displayed, the more work the machine has to do, therefore the longer it takes. It then stores that mathematical formula (the adjustment) away. When you export the file, it applies the formula to the file, where it becomes permanent.
This is the way several programs in the early '90's used to work when cpu's were very slow. Photoshop does that as well, but in a different way.
http://search.info.apple.com/?q=kf8%...50&gup=5-1-1-1
Look here first for answers.
Originally posted by melgross
That's because it doesn't actually make any changes to the file itself. All it does is to make the change to the virtual file e.g. the image that is displayed. The more pixels displayed, the more work the machine has to do, therefore the longer it takes. It then stores that mathematical formula (the adjustment) away. When you export the file, it applies the formula to the file, where it becomes permanent.
This is the way several programs in the early '90's used to work when cpu's were very slow. Photoshop does that as well, but in a different way.
What programs?
With the exclusion of Adjustment Layers, Photoshop does and always has worked the exact opposite way?immediately applying all filters. I.e., changing the data but not storing the changes made.
Originally posted by gregmightdothat
What programs?
I believe LivePicture did this.
Originally posted by Chucker
I believe LivePicture did this.
Yes, that was one. The big one. I beta'd it for them. It satarter out as a $4,000 program. I still have it around somewhere. I remember the times Kai came to my place to demo it. There was another, but I can't remember the name. It started with a "C". Adobe bought it, and used it as the basis of its non-destructive layering.
Originally posted by melgross
Yes, that was one. The big one. I bete's it for them. It satarter out as a $4,000 program. I still have it around somewhere. I remember the times Kai came to my place to demo it. There was another, but I can't remember the name. It started with a "C". Adobe bought it, and used it as the basis of its non-destructive layering.
I own one copy of live picure, but I never used it. It was a bundle with an Umax pro grade scanner.