I own one copy of live picure, but I never used it. It was a bundle with an Umax pro grade scanner.
Yeah. When it came out, it was supposed to replace hi-end machines that cost $20,000. So they thought it was cheap at the price. But it never really caught on, because it didn't do as much as PS. It couldn't. Not with the non-destructive concept taken all the way. It's too limiting.
As cpu's got faster, and the need for the program became less of a factor, the price started to come down. In the end, it started to come with equipment, as you see. And PS wasn't nearly as ensconced as it is today.
I'm pleased that I decided to wait until January until I got (no maybe) my Quad. It might be best to see if Apple updates this as fast as they did FCP when it first came out. Sigh, this is going back to what I was saying when I got back from the show. Not enough tools. Some of them seemed too simple, and it slowed down or hesitated with a dual 2.5 (or 2.7).
The quality problems weren't known. We didn't have a way to check that.
I hope they fix this fast, or it will die on the vine.
p.s. It would be interesting if those who were promoting and defending this program so strongly before they ever had a chance to see it from those of us who had, would come back and discuss the issues that have arisen now that it's out.
I'm pleased that I decided to wait until January until I got (no maybe) my Quad. It might be best to see if Apple updates this as fast as they did FCP when it first came out. Sigh, this is going back to what I was saying when I got back from the show. Not enough tools. Some of them seemed too simple, and it slowed down or hesitated with a dual 2.5 (or 2.7).
The quality problems weren't known. We didn't have a way to check that.
I hope they fix this fast, or it will die on the vine.
p.s. It would be interesting if those who were promoting and defending this program so strongly before they ever had a chance to see it from those of us who had, would come back and discuss the issues that have arisen now that it's out.
That Ars Technica review was laughable. Not useless, just laughable.
He starts out by saying "it's not a Photoshop competitor" then quickly ignores *all* workflow features and concentrates only on filters.
WTF?
His sample images are so full of defects (blurry, blown highlights, etc.), it's hard to tell what Aperture can or cannot do with a decent image. (The thing about Aperture that Photoshop fan-boys don't get is that it's a tool for making good images great--it's not a tool for taking crappy images and rescuing them. I don't see the point in saving crappy images, but apparently from this and other forums, a lot of Photoshop users do. Ever look at the Retouching forum on dpreview.com? It's full of terrible images that need to be rescued. Generally, 90% of those images could simply be taken again, lessons learned about depth of field, lighting, composition, etc. But no, some geeks just like playing with Photoshop. They're not into photography; they're into retouching.)
That being said (I'm off my high horse now ), if Aperture's raw conversion doesn't match Adobe's in terms of quality then it will quickly die on the vine. If there truly are problems (and it sounds like there are), then Apple will need to fix them.
Hopefully 10.4.4's rumored raw fixes will fix a lot of this (since it's not Aperture that has the conversion tools themselves). Even if it doesn't, I'd give Apple 6 months to fix things and/or make public statements/acknowledgements.
DVD Studio Pro 1.x had many problems and yet it was still well worth having. By the time DVDSP 3 came out, it was a world beater for the price.
I'm expecting Apple to work the same magic on Aperture. But only time will tell. Yet it's clear Apple has invested a lot of money in Aperture; I'd be very surprised if they didn't attack these problems head-on.
As mentioned previously, I haven't bought Aperture yet because it doesn't support my Pentax camera. But I have used it in the local Apple Store and it is way, way, WAY impressive!
But without quality raw conversions, workflow means nothing.
I'm guessing that what Apple did is this: they came out with a software program where the innovation (the workflow) was fully fleshed out, but the technical details (raw conversion) weren't.
You have to make compromises in a 1.0 version. You just have to.
If they did the opposite--spent all their time on perfect raw conversions--then there wouldn't be many workflow innovations and people would say, "You're charging $500 for what Adobe gives away (ACR)." And they'd be right.
So, IMHO, Apple had no choice but to innovate on the workflow and fix the raw conversions as time goes by.
That Ars Technica review was laughable. Not useless, just laughable.
He starts out by saying "it's not a Photoshop competitor" then quickly ignores *all* workflow features and concentrates only on filters.
WTF?
His sample images are so full of defects (blurry, blown highlights, etc.), it's hard to tell what Aperture can or cannot do with a decent image. (The thing about Aperture that Photoshop fan-boys don't get is that it's a tool for making good images great--it's not a tool for taking crappy images and rescuing them. I don't see the point in saving crappy images, but apparently from this and other forums, a lot of Photoshop users do. Ever look at the Retouching forum on dpreview.com? It's full of terrible images that need to be rescued. Generally, 90% of those images could simply be taken again, lessons learned about depth of field, lighting, composition, etc. But no, some geeks just like playing with Photoshop. They're not into photography; they're into retouching.)
That being said (I'm off my high horse now ), if Aperture's raw conversion doesn't match Adobe's in terms of quality then it will quickly die on the vine. If there truly are problems (and it sounds like there are), then Apple will need to fix them.
Hopefully 10.4.4's rumored raw fixes will fix a lot of this (since it's not Aperture that has the conversion tools themselves). Even if it doesn't, I'd give Apple 6 months to fix things and/or make public statements/acknowledgements.
DVD Studio Pro 1.x had many problems and yet it was still well worth having. By the time DVDSP 3 came out, it was a world beater for the price.
I'm expecting Apple to work the same magic on Aperture. But only time will tell. Yet it's clear Apple has invested a lot of money in Aperture; I'd be very surprised if they didn't attack these problems head-on.
As mentioned previously, I haven't bought Aperture yet because it doesn't support my Pentax camera. But I have used it in the local Apple Store and it is way, way, WAY impressive!
But without quality raw conversions, workflow means nothing.
Sadly, I'm reading more articles that are not happy with the program than are. I've a feeling that Apple rushed this out the door. There are legitimate issues here. The review wasn't a crock. He's showing highly enlarged sections of photo's to illustrate the problems. That's standard.
I posted this there a short while ago. I think it's relevant;
"While I'm disappointed with the results of the review, as a long time pro Mac user, I can't argue with the conclusions. I have only sat down with the program at the show.
But the best part of the way Apple has done this is also the worst.
If the quality improves each time the converters that are part of the OS is improved, then yea for that. But, as was pointed out earlier, if that changes corrections already made based upon those earlier converters, then nea to the idea.
The other point raised is also valid. Is the noise seen from Apple's converters caused by the conversion process, or is the smoother result due to something that Adobe's is doing instead? What I did notice is that the Apple converters seemed to get more detail out of the shadow areas on the photos shown in the review. The noise also results when attempting to do the same thing in PS manualy, so perhaps it is that Apple is trying to preserve all of the detail, while Adobe is letting it go.
Perhaps he should take Canon's program and convert it there. Canon's program does a very good job, and has some of the features of Aperture. Then compare the result with the others. Try a couple of independent programs as well, and then do another article.
It's possible that all of these programs are somewhat different.
It's like a problem we have in one of my other areas of interest. Hi end audio.
Tubes give a highly inaccurate sound. But some swear by it. Why? Because the way it is inaccurate can be very pleasant. It makes bad quality sources sound "nice". But it also brings the quality of good source material down to that same "nice" level. So, is that better than solid state which makes bad source material sound just as bad as it is, when it allows good source material to sound better?
So Dave, please do as I suggest, and get back to us. This would be even more useful to know than a review of this single program."
If the quality improves each time the converters that are part of the OS is improved, then yea for that. But, as was pointed out earlier, if that changes corrections already made based upon those earlier converters, then nea to the idea.
This is true of any converter, even Adobe's ACR. When you replace the 3.0 plug-in with the 3.1 plug-in, you may get different results. And if--God forbid--you use the Auto checkboxes in ACR, things could change wildly between versions. It's happened to me. Unlike other "auto" buttons in Photoshop, the "auto" checkboxes in ACR are live--they're not a one-time deal like the Auto Levels button.
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
The other point raised is also valid. Is the noise seen from Apple's converters caused by the conversion process, or is the smoother result due to something that Adobe's is doing instead? What I did notice is that the Apple converters seemed to get more detail out of the shadow areas on the photos shown in the review. The noise also results when attempting to do the same thing in PS manualy, so perhaps it is that Apple is trying to preserve all of the detail, while Adobe is letting it go.
...
It's possible that all of these programs are somewhat different.
Excellent point, melgross. People "compare" different raw converters all the time, but they're usually comparing the converters' default settings. That tells you almost nothing about the potential quality of a conversion (other than what people prefer as a default).
I think it will be months before we have a good handle on how Apple's raw converters work, and things will likely improve with each 10.4 point release.
I'm guessing that what Apple did is this: they came out with a software program where the innovation (the workflow) was fully fleshed out, but the technical details (raw conversion) weren't.
You have to make compromises in a 1.0 version. You just have to.
If they did the opposite--spent all their time on perfect raw conversions--then there wouldn't be many workflow innovations and people would say, "You're charging $500 for what Adobe gives away (ACR)." And they'd be right.
So, IMHO, Apple had no choice but to innovate on the workflow and fix the raw conversions as time goes by.
I guess we'll see.
I don't know. I'm sure that it sounds lame, even to you.
This is a major step for Apple. The people in the industry I've spoken to after this was announced were shocked that Apple would attempt this. They HAD to put their best foot foward.
It's hard to believe that Apple couldn't have put more software engineers on the job if they had to.
Somehow, they screwed up. Not just with RAW, but with CMYK (remember I mentioned that in the beginning) as well. Convert CMYK to RGB? Horrors!!! CMYK originals are NEVER converted to RGB.
The primitive tools are also a problem. NO curves??? Levels are nice for some limited usage, but no curves??? No threshold on unsharp mask??? Impossible!
These things have got to be rectified quickly, or it will die on the vine, even if RAW is improved, and they must add proper support for DNG which they had better do, because more companies than Hassleblad and Leica are going to standardise on it.
This is true of any converter, even Adobe's ACR. When you replace the 3.0 plug-in with the 3.1 plug-in, you may get different results. And if--God forbid--you use the Auto checkboxes in ACR, things could change wildly between versions. It's happened to me. Unlike other "auto" buttons in Photoshop, the "auto" checkboxes in ACR are live--they're not a one-time deal like the Auto Levels button.
Excellent point, melgross. People "compare" different raw converters all the time, but they're usually comparing the converters' default settings. That tells you almost nothing about the potential quality of a conversion (other than what people prefer as a default).
I think it will be months before we have a good handle on how Apple's raw converters work, and things will likely improve with each 10.4 point release.
The one thing that Adobe does with the file (and the other programs do as well) is to make the correction permanent once the file is moved out of RAW. This doesn't happen with Aperture. There is nowhere for the file to go. The converter IS the program. If you stay within Aperture as has been suggested here as being what 90% of photographers will do, then it's a problem.
I don't know. I'm sure that it sounds lame, even to you.
This is a major step for Apple. The people in the industry I've spoken to after this was announced were shocked that Apple would attempt this. They HAD to put their best foot foward.
It's hard to believe that Apple couldn't have put more software engineers on the job if they had to.
Somehow, they screwed up. Not just with RAW, but with CMYK (remember I mentioned that in the beginning) as well. Convert CMYK to RGB? Horrors!!! CMYK originals are NEVER converted to RGB.
The primitive tools are also a problem. NO curves??? Levels are nice for some limited usage, but no curves??? No threshold on unsharp mask??? Impossible!
These things have got to be rectified quickly, or it will die on the vine, even if RAW is improved, and they must add proper support for DNG which they had better do, because more companies than Hassleblad and Leica are going to standardise on it.
No it doesn't sound lame to me.
All the FUD you're spreading was spread the same way when DVDSP and FCP 1.0 came out. Look where they are now. Apple doesn't give in easily.
Throwing more engineers at a problem doesn't solve it faster. It's the old "you can't deliver a baby with 2 women and 4.5 months" issue.
No curves? No threshold on unsharp mask? These were only added to ACR in the last 6 months. If people scream Apple will add them. It doesn't make the product worthless, though. Lots of people still use PS CS1 and ACR 2.x, right?
Apple's DNG implementation is not complete. It only supports those cameras in which it supports raw conversion directly. Yes, that's pretty stupid. But again, raw conversion comes with the operating system, and new features will be in 10.4.4, 10.4.5, etc.
If you put your expectations in check--FCP 1.0 was not FCP 4.5, after all--then you'll find Aperture is ground breaking.
Bringing these issues up with Apple is great--they need to hear what people think is important so they can prioritize changes--but it hardly means Aperture is going to die on the vine.
The one thing that Adobe does with the file (and the other programs do as well) is to make the correction permanent once the file is moved out of RAW. This doesn't happen with Aperture. There is nowhere for the file to go. The converter IS the program. If you stay within Aperture as has been suggested here as being what 90% of photographers will do, then it's a problem.
This is no different from ACR.
If you export from ACR to PSD, tweak it, print it, and show it to the customer, and then decide the exposure or white point need to change, you need to go back to ACR and generate it again. If you've upgraded ACR, you may very well get a different PSD.
I agree that this can be an issue (as I said, I ran across it myself), but ACR and Aperture act exactly the same way in this regard.
[Edit]
Personally, I think the raw converters themselves need version control, and the user should be able to choose which version of the converter gets used for each image and/or be able to upgrade all or selected images to a new raw converter version.
All the FUD you're spreading was spread the same way when DVDSP and FCP 1.0 came out. Look where they are now. Apple doesn't give in easily.
Throwing more engineers at a problem doesn't solve it faster. It's the old "you can't deliver a baby with 2 women and 4.5 months" issue.
No curves? No threshold on unsharp mask? These were only added to ACR in the last 6 months. If people scream Apple will add them. It doesn't make the product worthless, though. Lots of people still use PS CS1 and ACR 2.x, right?
Apple's DNG implementation is not complete. It only supports those cameras in which it supports raw conversion directly. Yes, that's pretty stupid. But again, raw conversion comes with the operating system, and new features will be in 10.4.4, 10.4.5, etc.
If you put your expectations in check--FCP 1.0 was not FCP 4.5, after all--then you'll find Aperture is ground breaking.
Bringing these issues up with Apple is great--they need to hear what people think is important so they can prioritize changes--but it hardly means Aperture is going to die on the vine.
Please don't start with that again. I'm certainly not spreading FUD.
I bought FCP when it first came out. Version 1.0. I now have version 5. Has it gotten better/ Well, gee, of course. But FCP was never ripped the way this is being ripped. The reviews for FCP were uniformly excellent. It had few bugs, and no show-stoppers. There were missing features. Apple responded rapidly, and the program improved at an amazing pace.
But Aperture has far more problems than FCP ever had. And it's getting ripped for them. The missing features I mentioned aren't something that can be added if people ask for them. They are absolutely essential in a professional enviornment. Few real pros will accept a program that doesn't have them. I could mention a bunch more, but these are really essential. Who cares about ACR?
These programs are modular in nature. That's the way most software is done these days. If you don't have time to do something because you have to get it out on time, you can assign an engineer to work on that one function. Adobe does that wirth PS. It isn't limitless, but more people does help.
Some features can wait. That's natural. I'll expect Aperture to get better, and add more features as time goes by.
But there are certain minimum requirements that a program intended for pro's, at a $500 dollar price, that had to be included from the get go.
How can you do a proper correction without curves? That is the most important tool for correction. Unsharp mask without threshhold? That's why the sharpening looks so bad. It's a very important control.
Don't make me out as a bad guy here! These things have to be fixed, pronto!
Read around the web, you'll see the disappointment, and even anger. At least I'm calm about it.
If you export from ACR to PSD, tweak it, print it, and show it to the customer, and then decide the exposure or white point need to change, you need to go back to ACR and generate it again. If you've upgraded ACR, you may very well get a different PSD.
I agree that this can be an issue (as I said, I ran across it myself), but ACR and Aperture act exactly the same way in this regard.
[Edit]
Personally, I think the raw converters themselves need version control, and the user should be able to choose which version of the converter gets used for each image and/or be able to upgrade all or selected images to a new raw converter version.
[/edit]
See, again, I don't care about ACR. I care about Aperture. I WANT it to do well. I don't want people to turn away from it before it has a chance to get off the ground.
I'm very concerned, because as someone who was doing this work long before PS was invented, I know what pros want. Many of my customers used PS. I gave training courses in it. Apple has to realize that some things can't be done their way. It makes me wonder if Jobs had a heavy hand in making these decisions, because it seems very much like his handiwork.
But there are certain minimum requirements that a program intended for pro's, at a $500 dollar price, that had to be included from the get go.
How can you do a proper correction without curves? That is the most important tool for correction. Unsharp mask without threshhold? That's why the sharpening looks so bad. It's a very important control.
Don't make me out as a bad guy here! These things have to be fixed, pronto!
Read around the web, you'll see the disappointment, and even anger. At least I'm calm about it.
The things that you describe as so essential are all very, very recent innovations.
Curves and sophisticated sharpening were only added to ACR in version 3.0: mere months ago. Photographers have been using ACR without these tools for several years (since PS 7 and ACR 1).
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
The missing features I mentioned aren't something that can be added if people ask for them.
If Adobe added them to ACR 3.0, what makes them so hard to add to Aperture? I don't understand your argument.
Are they useful tools? Yes.
Are they essential, and any product without them in the next 30 days will quickly die? Hardly.
Curves and sophisticated sharpening were only added to ACR in version 3.0: mere months ago. Photographers have been using ACR without these tools for several years (since PS 7 and ACR 1).
If Adobe added them to ACR 3.0, what makes them so hard to add to Aperture? I don't understand your argument.
Are they useful tools? Yes.
Are they essential, and any product without them in the next 30 days will quickly die? Hardly.
Have you seen the movie "Chicken Little"?
Why do you keep mentioning ACR? That's not the only program out there. And just because it was very much behind the times has nothing to do with anything.
What do you mean by very recent? Are you a PS user?
Adobe just invented the DNG format in response to the confusing, and fleeting nature of RAW. That's true.
But curves, and threshold as a part of unsharp mask, have been around almost forever. These are by no means new. I don't ever remember PS without them. All pro programs over the years have had them.
I have in front of me, my old "The Official Adobe Photoshop Handbook", 1991, Bantom Books, ISBN 0-553-34876-0. Just in case you want to check. I keep a lot of material for my historical interest. This was written for version one, but "covers" version two as well.
In it are both "new" controls from version one. Unsharp mask, with threshhold, and Curves, then called Arbitrary Map.
Both were out before then. My old Crossfield system, from England, for those interested, had both, years before PS was out.
But curves, and threshold as a part of unsharp mask, have been around almost forever. These are by no means new. I don't ever remember PS without them. All pro programs over the years have had them.
I have in front of me, my old "The Official Adobe Photoshop Handbook", 1991, Bantom Books, ISBN 0-553-34876-0. Just in case you want to check. I keep a lot of material for my historical interest. This was written for version one, but "covers" version two as well.
In it are both "new" controls from version one. Unsharp mask, with threshhold, and Curves, then called Arbitrary Map.
I thought you were one of the people who agreed that Aperture was a complement to Photoshop and not a replacement. Must've misremembered.
I thought you were one of the people who agreed that Aperture was a complement to Photoshop and not a replacement. Must've misremembered.
I do. But you are avoiding the point.
A program must stand on its own. I have nothing against that. In fact, I insist upon it!
I can see bringing files into Aperture, making adjustments to the RAW image, and exporting out to PS for further work.
But the adjustments to the RAW file must be there, and they must work better than the adjustments in PS. If not, then what point do they serve?
I can also see myself using it for those images that only need some corrections. But if the corrections don't work, how do I use them?
Is the program only good as a database and sorting program then?
It must be more. Don't think that other companies in the field aren't trying this right now in their programming departments. Other programs will adopt features from this, and add what Apple left out, or didn't do well.
In order for this to succeed, Apple has to stay ahead. I'm rooting for them, but I'm not going to pretend that it doesn't have serious flaws. We don't help Apple if we don't let them know, loud and clear, that something isn't right.
Comments
Originally posted by Powerdoc
I own one copy of live picure, but I never used it. It was a bundle with an Umax pro grade scanner.
Yeah. When it came out, it was supposed to replace hi-end machines that cost $20,000. So they thought it was cheap at the price. But it never really caught on, because it didn't do as much as PS. It couldn't. Not with the non-destructive concept taken all the way. It's too limiting.
As cpu's got faster, and the need for the program became less of a factor, the price started to come down. In the end, it started to come with equipment, as you see. And PS wasn't nearly as ensconced as it is today.
http://arstechnica.com/reviews/apps/aperture.ars
Originally posted by Nautical
Ars just published a review of Aperture, and their conclusions are unsettling.
http://arstechnica.com/reviews/apps/aperture.ars
Dang, you just beat me to it!
http://discussions.apple.com/thread....57791&tstart=0
I'm pleased that I decided to wait until January until I got (no maybe) my Quad. It might be best to see if Apple updates this as fast as they did FCP when it first came out. Sigh, this is going back to what I was saying when I got back from the show. Not enough tools. Some of them seemed too simple, and it slowed down or hesitated with a dual 2.5 (or 2.7).
The quality problems weren't known. We didn't have a way to check that.
I hope they fix this fast, or it will die on the vine.
p.s. It would be interesting if those who were promoting and defending this program so strongly before they ever had a chance to see it from those of us who had, would come back and discuss the issues that have arisen now that it's out.
Originally posted by melgross
Take it for what its worth, but the concensis unfortunately seems to be moving in this direction.
http://discussions.apple.com/thread....57791&tstart=0
I'm pleased that I decided to wait until January until I got (no maybe) my Quad. It might be best to see if Apple updates this as fast as they did FCP when it first came out. Sigh, this is going back to what I was saying when I got back from the show. Not enough tools. Some of them seemed too simple, and it slowed down or hesitated with a dual 2.5 (or 2.7).
The quality problems weren't known. We didn't have a way to check that.
I hope they fix this fast, or it will die on the vine.
p.s. It would be interesting if those who were promoting and defending this program so strongly before they ever had a chance to see it from those of us who had, would come back and discuss the issues that have arisen now that it's out.
That Ars Technica review was laughable. Not useless, just laughable.
He starts out by saying "it's not a Photoshop competitor" then quickly ignores *all* workflow features and concentrates only on filters.
WTF?
His sample images are so full of defects (blurry, blown highlights, etc.), it's hard to tell what Aperture can or cannot do with a decent image. (The thing about Aperture that Photoshop fan-boys don't get is that it's a tool for making good images great--it's not a tool for taking crappy images and rescuing them. I don't see the point in saving crappy images, but apparently from this and other forums, a lot of Photoshop users do. Ever look at the Retouching forum on dpreview.com? It's full of terrible images that need to be rescued. Generally, 90% of those images could simply be taken again, lessons learned about depth of field, lighting, composition, etc. But no, some geeks just like playing with Photoshop. They're not into photography; they're into retouching.)
That being said (I'm off my high horse now
Hopefully 10.4.4's rumored raw fixes will fix a lot of this (since it's not Aperture that has the conversion tools themselves). Even if it doesn't, I'd give Apple 6 months to fix things and/or make public statements/acknowledgements.
DVD Studio Pro 1.x had many problems and yet it was still well worth having. By the time DVDSP 3 came out, it was a world beater for the price.
I'm expecting Apple to work the same magic on Aperture. But only time will tell. Yet it's clear Apple has invested a lot of money in Aperture; I'd be very surprised if they didn't attack these problems head-on.
As mentioned previously, I haven't bought Aperture yet because it doesn't support my Pentax camera. But I have used it in the local Apple Store and it is way, way, WAY impressive!
But without quality raw conversions, workflow means nothing.
You have to make compromises in a 1.0 version. You just have to.
If they did the opposite--spent all their time on perfect raw conversions--then there wouldn't be many workflow innovations and people would say, "You're charging $500 for what Adobe gives away (ACR)." And they'd be right.
So, IMHO, Apple had no choice but to innovate on the workflow and fix the raw conversions as time goes by.
I guess we'll see.
Originally posted by bikertwin
That Ars Technica review was laughable. Not useless, just laughable.
He starts out by saying "it's not a Photoshop competitor" then quickly ignores *all* workflow features and concentrates only on filters.
WTF?
His sample images are so full of defects (blurry, blown highlights, etc.), it's hard to tell what Aperture can or cannot do with a decent image. (The thing about Aperture that Photoshop fan-boys don't get is that it's a tool for making good images great--it's not a tool for taking crappy images and rescuing them. I don't see the point in saving crappy images, but apparently from this and other forums, a lot of Photoshop users do. Ever look at the Retouching forum on dpreview.com? It's full of terrible images that need to be rescued. Generally, 90% of those images could simply be taken again, lessons learned about depth of field, lighting, composition, etc. But no, some geeks just like playing with Photoshop. They're not into photography; they're into retouching.)
That being said (I'm off my high horse now
Hopefully 10.4.4's rumored raw fixes will fix a lot of this (since it's not Aperture that has the conversion tools themselves). Even if it doesn't, I'd give Apple 6 months to fix things and/or make public statements/acknowledgements.
DVD Studio Pro 1.x had many problems and yet it was still well worth having. By the time DVDSP 3 came out, it was a world beater for the price.
I'm expecting Apple to work the same magic on Aperture. But only time will tell. Yet it's clear Apple has invested a lot of money in Aperture; I'd be very surprised if they didn't attack these problems head-on.
As mentioned previously, I haven't bought Aperture yet because it doesn't support my Pentax camera. But I have used it in the local Apple Store and it is way, way, WAY impressive!
But without quality raw conversions, workflow means nothing.
Sadly, I'm reading more articles that are not happy with the program than are. I've a feeling that Apple rushed this out the door. There are legitimate issues here. The review wasn't a crock. He's showing highly enlarged sections of photo's to illustrate the problems. That's standard.
I posted this there a short while ago. I think it's relevant;
"While I'm disappointed with the results of the review, as a long time pro Mac user, I can't argue with the conclusions. I have only sat down with the program at the show.
But the best part of the way Apple has done this is also the worst.
If the quality improves each time the converters that are part of the OS is improved, then yea for that. But, as was pointed out earlier, if that changes corrections already made based upon those earlier converters, then nea to the idea.
The other point raised is also valid. Is the noise seen from Apple's converters caused by the conversion process, or is the smoother result due to something that Adobe's is doing instead? What I did notice is that the Apple converters seemed to get more detail out of the shadow areas on the photos shown in the review. The noise also results when attempting to do the same thing in PS manualy, so perhaps it is that Apple is trying to preserve all of the detail, while Adobe is letting it go.
Perhaps he should take Canon's program and convert it there. Canon's program does a very good job, and has some of the features of Aperture. Then compare the result with the others. Try a couple of independent programs as well, and then do another article.
It's possible that all of these programs are somewhat different.
It's like a problem we have in one of my other areas of interest. Hi end audio.
Tubes give a highly inaccurate sound. But some swear by it. Why? Because the way it is inaccurate can be very pleasant. It makes bad quality sources sound "nice". But it also brings the quality of good source material down to that same "nice" level. So, is that better than solid state which makes bad source material sound just as bad as it is, when it allows good source material to sound better?
So Dave, please do as I suggest, and get back to us. This would be even more useful to know than a review of this single program."
Originally posted by melgross
If the quality improves each time the converters that are part of the OS is improved, then yea for that. But, as was pointed out earlier, if that changes corrections already made based upon those earlier converters, then nea to the idea.
This is true of any converter, even Adobe's ACR. When you replace the 3.0 plug-in with the 3.1 plug-in, you may get different results. And if--God forbid--you use the Auto checkboxes in ACR, things could change wildly between versions. It's happened to me. Unlike other "auto" buttons in Photoshop, the "auto" checkboxes in ACR are live--they're not a one-time deal like the Auto Levels button.
Originally posted by melgross
The other point raised is also valid. Is the noise seen from Apple's converters caused by the conversion process, or is the smoother result due to something that Adobe's is doing instead? What I did notice is that the Apple converters seemed to get more detail out of the shadow areas on the photos shown in the review. The noise also results when attempting to do the same thing in PS manualy, so perhaps it is that Apple is trying to preserve all of the detail, while Adobe is letting it go.
...
It's possible that all of these programs are somewhat different.
Excellent point, melgross. People "compare" different raw converters all the time, but they're usually comparing the converters' default settings. That tells you almost nothing about the potential quality of a conversion (other than what people prefer as a default).
I think it will be months before we have a good handle on how Apple's raw converters work, and things will likely improve with each 10.4 point release.
Originally posted by bikertwin
I'm guessing that what Apple did is this: they came out with a software program where the innovation (the workflow) was fully fleshed out, but the technical details (raw conversion) weren't.
You have to make compromises in a 1.0 version. You just have to.
If they did the opposite--spent all their time on perfect raw conversions--then there wouldn't be many workflow innovations and people would say, "You're charging $500 for what Adobe gives away (ACR)." And they'd be right.
So, IMHO, Apple had no choice but to innovate on the workflow and fix the raw conversions as time goes by.
I guess we'll see.
I don't know. I'm sure that it sounds lame, even to you.
This is a major step for Apple. The people in the industry I've spoken to after this was announced were shocked that Apple would attempt this. They HAD to put their best foot foward.
It's hard to believe that Apple couldn't have put more software engineers on the job if they had to.
Somehow, they screwed up. Not just with RAW, but with CMYK (remember I mentioned that in the beginning) as well. Convert CMYK to RGB? Horrors!!! CMYK originals are NEVER converted to RGB.
The primitive tools are also a problem. NO curves??? Levels are nice for some limited usage, but no curves??? No threshold on unsharp mask??? Impossible!
These things have got to be rectified quickly, or it will die on the vine, even if RAW is improved, and they must add proper support for DNG which they had better do, because more companies than Hassleblad and Leica are going to standardise on it.
Originally posted by bikertwin
This is true of any converter, even Adobe's ACR. When you replace the 3.0 plug-in with the 3.1 plug-in, you may get different results. And if--God forbid--you use the Auto checkboxes in ACR, things could change wildly between versions. It's happened to me. Unlike other "auto" buttons in Photoshop, the "auto" checkboxes in ACR are live--they're not a one-time deal like the Auto Levels button.
Excellent point, melgross. People "compare" different raw converters all the time, but they're usually comparing the converters' default settings. That tells you almost nothing about the potential quality of a conversion (other than what people prefer as a default).
I think it will be months before we have a good handle on how Apple's raw converters work, and things will likely improve with each 10.4 point release.
The one thing that Adobe does with the file (and the other programs do as well) is to make the correction permanent once the file is moved out of RAW. This doesn't happen with Aperture. There is nowhere for the file to go. The converter IS the program. If you stay within Aperture as has been suggested here as being what 90% of photographers will do, then it's a problem.
Originally posted by melgross
I don't know. I'm sure that it sounds lame, even to you.
This is a major step for Apple. The people in the industry I've spoken to after this was announced were shocked that Apple would attempt this. They HAD to put their best foot foward.
It's hard to believe that Apple couldn't have put more software engineers on the job if they had to.
Somehow, they screwed up. Not just with RAW, but with CMYK (remember I mentioned that in the beginning) as well. Convert CMYK to RGB? Horrors!!! CMYK originals are NEVER converted to RGB.
The primitive tools are also a problem. NO curves??? Levels are nice for some limited usage, but no curves??? No threshold on unsharp mask??? Impossible!
These things have got to be rectified quickly, or it will die on the vine, even if RAW is improved, and they must add proper support for DNG which they had better do, because more companies than Hassleblad and Leica are going to standardise on it.
No it doesn't sound lame to me.
All the FUD you're spreading was spread the same way when DVDSP and FCP 1.0 came out. Look where they are now. Apple doesn't give in easily.
Throwing more engineers at a problem doesn't solve it faster. It's the old "you can't deliver a baby with 2 women and 4.5 months" issue.
No curves? No threshold on unsharp mask? These were only added to ACR in the last 6 months. If people scream Apple will add them. It doesn't make the product worthless, though. Lots of people still use PS CS1 and ACR 2.x, right?
Apple's DNG implementation is not complete. It only supports those cameras in which it supports raw conversion directly. Yes, that's pretty stupid. But again, raw conversion comes with the operating system, and new features will be in 10.4.4, 10.4.5, etc.
If you put your expectations in check--FCP 1.0 was not FCP 4.5, after all--then you'll find Aperture is ground breaking.
Bringing these issues up with Apple is great--they need to hear what people think is important so they can prioritize changes--but it hardly means Aperture is going to die on the vine.
Originally posted by melgross
The one thing that Adobe does with the file (and the other programs do as well) is to make the correction permanent once the file is moved out of RAW. This doesn't happen with Aperture. There is nowhere for the file to go. The converter IS the program. If you stay within Aperture as has been suggested here as being what 90% of photographers will do, then it's a problem.
This is no different from ACR.
If you export from ACR to PSD, tweak it, print it, and show it to the customer, and then decide the exposure or white point need to change, you need to go back to ACR and generate it again. If you've upgraded ACR, you may very well get a different PSD.
I agree that this can be an issue (as I said, I ran across it myself), but ACR and Aperture act exactly the same way in this regard.
[Edit]
Personally, I think the raw converters themselves need version control, and the user should be able to choose which version of the converter gets used for each image and/or be able to upgrade all or selected images to a new raw converter version.
[/edit]
Originally posted by bikertwin
No it doesn't sound lame to me.
All the FUD you're spreading was spread the same way when DVDSP and FCP 1.0 came out. Look where they are now. Apple doesn't give in easily.
Throwing more engineers at a problem doesn't solve it faster. It's the old "you can't deliver a baby with 2 women and 4.5 months" issue.
No curves? No threshold on unsharp mask? These were only added to ACR in the last 6 months. If people scream Apple will add them. It doesn't make the product worthless, though. Lots of people still use PS CS1 and ACR 2.x, right?
Apple's DNG implementation is not complete. It only supports those cameras in which it supports raw conversion directly. Yes, that's pretty stupid. But again, raw conversion comes with the operating system, and new features will be in 10.4.4, 10.4.5, etc.
If you put your expectations in check--FCP 1.0 was not FCP 4.5, after all--then you'll find Aperture is ground breaking.
Bringing these issues up with Apple is great--they need to hear what people think is important so they can prioritize changes--but it hardly means Aperture is going to die on the vine.
Please don't start with that again. I'm certainly not spreading FUD.
I bought FCP when it first came out. Version 1.0. I now have version 5. Has it gotten better/ Well, gee, of course. But FCP was never ripped the way this is being ripped. The reviews for FCP were uniformly excellent. It had few bugs, and no show-stoppers. There were missing features. Apple responded rapidly, and the program improved at an amazing pace.
But Aperture has far more problems than FCP ever had. And it's getting ripped for them. The missing features I mentioned aren't something that can be added if people ask for them. They are absolutely essential in a professional enviornment. Few real pros will accept a program that doesn't have them. I could mention a bunch more, but these are really essential. Who cares about ACR?
These programs are modular in nature. That's the way most software is done these days. If you don't have time to do something because you have to get it out on time, you can assign an engineer to work on that one function. Adobe does that wirth PS. It isn't limitless, but more people does help.
Some features can wait. That's natural. I'll expect Aperture to get better, and add more features as time goes by.
But there are certain minimum requirements that a program intended for pro's, at a $500 dollar price, that had to be included from the get go.
How can you do a proper correction without curves? That is the most important tool for correction. Unsharp mask without threshhold? That's why the sharpening looks so bad. It's a very important control.
Don't make me out as a bad guy here! These things have to be fixed, pronto!
Read around the web, you'll see the disappointment, and even anger. At least I'm calm about it.
Originally posted by bikertwin
This is no different from ACR.
If you export from ACR to PSD, tweak it, print it, and show it to the customer, and then decide the exposure or white point need to change, you need to go back to ACR and generate it again. If you've upgraded ACR, you may very well get a different PSD.
I agree that this can be an issue (as I said, I ran across it myself), but ACR and Aperture act exactly the same way in this regard.
[Edit]
Personally, I think the raw converters themselves need version control, and the user should be able to choose which version of the converter gets used for each image and/or be able to upgrade all or selected images to a new raw converter version.
[/edit]
See, again, I don't care about ACR. I care about Aperture. I WANT it to do well. I don't want people to turn away from it before it has a chance to get off the ground.
I'm very concerned, because as someone who was doing this work long before PS was invented, I know what pros want. Many of my customers used PS. I gave training courses in it. Apple has to realize that some things can't be done their way. It makes me wonder if Jobs had a heavy hand in making these decisions, because it seems very much like his handiwork.
Originally posted by melgross
But there are certain minimum requirements that a program intended for pro's, at a $500 dollar price, that had to be included from the get go.
How can you do a proper correction without curves? That is the most important tool for correction. Unsharp mask without threshhold? That's why the sharpening looks so bad. It's a very important control.
Don't make me out as a bad guy here! These things have to be fixed, pronto!
Read around the web, you'll see the disappointment, and even anger. At least I'm calm about it.
The things that you describe as so essential are all very, very recent innovations.
DNG is barely a year old:
http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/pres...DNGQUOTES.html
Curves and sophisticated sharpening were only added to ACR in version 3.0: mere months ago. Photographers have been using ACR without these tools for several years (since PS 7 and ACR 1).
Originally posted by melgross
The missing features I mentioned aren't something that can be added if people ask for them.
If Adobe added them to ACR 3.0, what makes them so hard to add to Aperture? I don't understand your argument.
Are they useful tools? Yes.
Are they essential, and any product without them in the next 30 days will quickly die? Hardly.
Have you seen the movie "Chicken Little"?
Originally posted by bikertwin
The things that you describe as so essential are all very, very recent innovations.
DNG is barely a year old:
http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/pres...DNGQUOTES.html
Curves and sophisticated sharpening were only added to ACR in version 3.0: mere months ago. Photographers have been using ACR without these tools for several years (since PS 7 and ACR 1).
If Adobe added them to ACR 3.0, what makes them so hard to add to Aperture? I don't understand your argument.
Are they useful tools? Yes.
Are they essential, and any product without them in the next 30 days will quickly die? Hardly.
Have you seen the movie "Chicken Little"?
Why do you keep mentioning ACR? That's not the only program out there. And just because it was very much behind the times has nothing to do with anything.
What do you mean by very recent? Are you a PS user?
Adobe just invented the DNG format in response to the confusing, and fleeting nature of RAW. That's true.
But curves, and threshold as a part of unsharp mask, have been around almost forever. These are by no means new. I don't ever remember PS without them. All pro programs over the years have had them.
I have in front of me, my old "The Official Adobe Photoshop Handbook", 1991, Bantom Books, ISBN 0-553-34876-0. Just in case you want to check. I keep a lot of material for my historical interest. This was written for version one, but "covers" version two as well.
In it are both "new" controls from version one. Unsharp mask, with threshhold, and Curves, then called Arbitrary Map.
Both were out before then. My old Crossfield system, from England, for those interested, had both, years before PS was out.
Originally posted by melgross
Why do you keep mentioning ACR? ...
But curves, and threshold as a part of unsharp mask, have been around almost forever. These are by no means new. I don't ever remember PS without them. All pro programs over the years have had them.
I have in front of me, my old "The Official Adobe Photoshop Handbook", 1991, Bantom Books, ISBN 0-553-34876-0. Just in case you want to check. I keep a lot of material for my historical interest. This was written for version one, but "covers" version two as well.
In it are both "new" controls from version one. Unsharp mask, with threshhold, and Curves, then called Arbitrary Map.
I thought you were one of the people who agreed that Aperture was a complement to Photoshop and not a replacement. Must've misremembered.
Originally posted by bikertwin
I thought you were one of the people who agreed that Aperture was a complement to Photoshop and not a replacement. Must've misremembered.
I do. But you are avoiding the point.
A program must stand on its own. I have nothing against that. In fact, I insist upon it!
I can see bringing files into Aperture, making adjustments to the RAW image, and exporting out to PS for further work.
But the adjustments to the RAW file must be there, and they must work better than the adjustments in PS. If not, then what point do they serve?
I can also see myself using it for those images that only need some corrections. But if the corrections don't work, how do I use them?
Is the program only good as a database and sorting program then?
It must be more. Don't think that other companies in the field aren't trying this right now in their programming departments. Other programs will adopt features from this, and add what Apple left out, or didn't do well.
In order for this to succeed, Apple has to stay ahead. I'm rooting for them, but I'm not going to pretend that it doesn't have serious flaws. We don't help Apple if we don't let them know, loud and clear, that something isn't right.
No one here wants this to succeed more than I do.
Originally posted by melgross
But the adjustments to the RAW file must be there, and they must work better than the adjustments in PS.
You mean, ACR, right?
http://discussions.apple.com/thread....58240&tstart=0