I don't see the need for heated comparison of Photoshop and Aperture. They don't really serve the same purpose.
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.
That's one of the things I'm saying. I'm also saying that there isn't anything here that, if it proves popular, can't be added to the Adobe suite next year.
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.
Ok, now you're getting my point.
To tell the truth, if you would just rather paint from scratch, and do some more basic work with photo's, Paint is an even better tool to use, and it accepts all of the plug-ins from PS.
Blah, Blah, Blah. I know so much and I'm going to tell you how much I think I know. Are you professional photographer?If you are, use the program, find out what it does, then let us know if "it's iPhoto on steroids" or if it fills a need in a professional photographer's workflow.
If you take a look at these Apps, you will realize that this area is ripe for the taking.
This is a great move, no software in this area is really *great and it shouldn't piss off Adobe since they don't compete in this area (yet)
It is just for processing RAW files before you take it into Photoshop. Photoshop can process files, but you are only doing one at a time, and has no real workflow. One big thing it could be missing is capturing straight from the camera - does anyone know if it does this or not?
Blah, Blah, Blah. I know so much and I'm going to tell you how much I think I know. Are you professional photographer?If you are, use the program, find out what it does, then let us know if "it's iPhoto on steroids" or if it fills a need in a professional photographer's workflow.
You should read some posts so that you would know.
This is a great move, no software in this area is really *great and it shouldn't piss off Adobe since they don't compete in this area (yet)
It is just for processing RAW files before you take it into Photoshop. Photoshop can process files, but you are only doing one at a time, and has no real workflow. One big thing it could be missing is capturing straight from the camera - does anyone know if it does this or not?
See, this is the thing I'm talking about. I already said that Adobe's last update to RAW does batch files. It's also been mentioned on many sites.
No, it's not as sophisticated as this appears to be. But it works well.
Apple also has to be as diligent as Adobe is in updating its lists of supported cameras. It isn't just a matter of saying "we support RAW". Apple has to make deals with some companies who's file format is encrypted, like Nikon. It's the little things that will make this work.
Since Apple is saying that this doesn't compete with PS I feel relieved. I hope it has success. But I have to see it tomorrow first.
Why can't everything wait until tomorrow night when those of us who will be there can report back, instead of working in a vacuum?
Unless I missed it on Apple's site, it's missing CMYK, coordinated image sizing and sharpen control, etc.
You missed it. I suggest watching the tour movies ( all of them ). All the image manipulation takes place in RAW, but you can apply a color sync profile to the image and then continue to manipulate it. That includes printer profiles.
You can take an operation and apply it to multiple photos ( although its not clear how wide spread that is ) in much the same way that excel can cut and paste styles.
I also think that this will shine in combination with Automator, but that remains to be seen.
It is clear to me that Apple have looked at the end to end workflow of a PHOTOGRAPHER and created an app to support that process, from capture through to delivery.
I watched the tours, and in every one I saw features that I _wished_ that iPhoto had. Im only a bad amateur, and I can see aperture improving my photography workflow.
There is no comparison to be had with photoshop. Photoshop is a creation app, not a workflow app, and the two will complement each other very nicely.
^ I suppose it is a precarious line for Apple to walk. The Macintosh platform needs cutting edge apps, but Apple doesn't want to alinenate 3rd party developers.
So far though, Apple's apps have helped keep the Macintosh platform healthy and ecourages 3rd party developers to build execellent and complementary apps.
See, this is the thing I'm talking about. I already said that Adobe's last update to RAW does batch files. It's also been mentioned on many sites.
Yes, Adobe does batch support, but, there are some serious problems with that. The problem with batching is that you can't see the result on the file until it is processed. No pro photographer (or aspiring pro, or anyone who takes photos seriously) is going to want to apply the same adjustment to a group of photos. Flashes do not fire at the exact same intensity every time, and each photo needs minor adjustments. With Aperture, you can apply the same adjustment across a group of pictures, and see the result before processing, and go into each one and tweak it. After you have adjusted all the photos, you hit a button, and they are all processed.
I am not a pro yet, but I do the photo shoots for my companies catalogues - and a day session will produce 1500 photos. Photoshop really has no solution for this situation. And the other solutions are pretty weak.
This really couldn't be any further from a photoshop competitor. No type tools, no layers, masking, filters, - it is purely a digital darkroom and organizer. Aperture is to Photoshop, what Photoshop is to InDesign or Quark.
I also just when through the project management movie, and it's great to see the extensive cataloguing and organization features. What I think is most exciting about this, is I think a few of these features will make their way into the Finder in Leopard. I certainly hope anyway.
As melgross mentioned, there are a few key details which need to be addressed in this program, and being version 1.0 we will see how well it does. But I am certainly looking forward to it. I want to see first hand the speed before I buy.
While it isn't a competitor just now, I think that is Apple well planned decision. Quite impressive for 1.0, but still gingerly avoiding pissing Adobe off too much. Future versions may be a different story depending on how the politics play out. If Adobe drops Macs, Apple will be ready. If Aperture sells well enough, they may go ahead and make the leap anyway. Sure I love Photoshop, but Adobe isn't the creative company it once was. Chizen ain't Warnock.
While it isn't a competitor just now, I think that is Apple well planned decision. Quite impressive for 1.0, but still gingerly avoiding pissing Adobe off too much. Future versions may be a different story depending on how the politics play out. If Adobe drops Macs, Apple will be ready. If Aperture sells well enough, they may go ahead and make the leap anyway. Sure I love Photoshop, but Adobe isn't the creative company it once was. Chizen ain't Warnock.
Well, I just went through all the movies, and my position has changed a bit.
Those book and web layout features are a serious fuck shot across the bow of Adobe. I mean h*ly f*ck - I didn't think you could merge photoshop and inDesign together, but it seems a possible direction for this app. Or another App that plugs into this.
Adobe is in a strange position though, they can't really pull Mac support, because it is too big a part of their business, and Apple is coming up with these serious kick ass pro applications which are only going to bring more creative pros (adobes target audience) to the mac platform.
You missed it. I suggest watching the tour movies ( all of them ). All the image manipulation takes place in RAW, but you can apply a color sync profile to the image and then continue to manipulate it. That includes printer profiles.
You can take an operation and apply it to multiple photos ( although its not clear how wide spread that is ) in much the same way that excel can cut and paste styles.
I also think that this will shine in combination with Automator, but that remains to be seen.
It is clear to me that Apple have looked at the end to end workflow of a PHOTOGRAPHER and created an app to support that process, from capture through to delivery.
I watched the tours, and in every one I saw features that I _wished_ that iPhoto had. Im only a bad amateur, and I can see aperture improving my photography workflow.
There is no comparison to be had with photoshop. Photoshop is a creation app, not a workflow app, and the two will complement each other very nicely.
I've just watched them. Interesting, but a lot of questions remain to be answered.
The CMYK (which it does have) is primitive, but might be ok in some enviornments.
I still don't get the printing part though. I suppose that for a wedding photog or someone similar, it might have some use. The layout function which is nicer than the one in iPhoto would need to be output in a standard file that can be read by an imposition program for it to be of commercial use. it's also very basic, which shouldn't be surprising as it isn't a page layout app.It doesn't say one way or the other.
The best part of the program is the project management.
Good lord people. Go to Apples site. Watch the Quick tours and the profiles.
There are some fairly high profile professional photographers going on and on about how this thing uses old school techniques but have brought it into the new school of digital photography. They gloat how it is so intuitive to how they work.
Sure there is some marketing here. But do a little review time here.
This app just may end up displaying more of the slick goodies of OS X than any app before it. While it is certainly a much different app than Photoshop, it really shows how outdated the UI and unwieldly ease of use is with Photoshop.
Face it, Adobe could do so much more with the Mac version of Photoshop. But they can't because Windows is a$$. Apple can now further display this a$$iness with Aperture.
Yes, Adobe does batch support, but, there are some serious problems with that. The problem with batching is that you can't see the result on the file until it is processed. No pro photographer (or aspiring pro, or anyone who takes photos seriously) is going to want to apply the same adjustment to a group of photos. Flashes do not fire at the exact same intensity every time, and each photo needs minor adjustments. With Aperture, you can apply the same adjustment across a group of pictures, and see the result before processing, and go into each one and tweak it. After you have adjusted all the photos, you hit a button, and they are all processed.
I am not a pro yet, but I do the photo shoots for my companies catalogues - and a day session will produce 1500 photos. Photoshop really has no solution for this situation. And the other solutions are pretty weak.
This really couldn't be any further from a photoshop competitor. No type tools, no layers, masking, filters, - it is purely a digital darkroom and organizer. Aperture is to Photoshop, what Photoshop is to InDesign or Quark.
I also just when through the project management movie, and it's great to see the extensive cataloguing and organization features. What I think is most exciting about this, is I think a few of these features will make their way into the Finder in Leopard. I certainly hope anyway.
As melgross mentioned, there are a few key details which need to be addressed in this program, and being version 1.0 we will see how well it does. But I am certainly looking forward to it. I want to see first hand the speed before I buy.
Actually, a pro studio has flash units that are very stable and repeatable. These multi thousand dollar units can pop off thousands of shots and the ones I've worked with will be off by less than a tenth of a stop, with undetectable variations in color temp. I don't know about problems from studio usage in a hi quality setting. And I work with Leaf backs.
Outdoor settings can go either way.
Nevertheless, these photo's are imported into PS as 16 (per channel) bit images. They still have all of the info they had as RAW files. Until we bring them down to 8 bits at the very end of the process there isn't a problem. Remember that work done in PS is also non-destructive when done on layers, as most pro's prefer.
Well, I just went through all the movies, and my position has changed a bit.
Those book and web layout features are a serious fuck shot across the bow of Adobe. I mean h*ly f*ck - I didn't think you could merge photoshop and inDesign together, but it seems a possible direction for this app. Or another App that plugs into this.
Adobe is in a strange position though, they can't really pull Mac support, because it is too big a part of their business, and Apple is coming up with these serious kick ass pro applications which are only going to bring more creative pros (adobes target audience) to the mac platform.
It is a possible direction. I just don't think that Apple can afford to take it.
PS is in version 9 and InDesign is in version 3. Then they would need an Illustrator as well, which is in version 12.
Even though i always give Apple's people a lot of credit (I use FCP Studio), this is an awful big bone to chew through.
In order for Apple to be successful the have to be THERE. They can't edge their way up over five years or so because they won't be able to sell it against an ever improving CSx suite.
If they keep this program as an auxiliary to the Suite, then it's an interesting adjunct.
I don't think Apple is looking at designing apps to replace Adobes Creative suite. I think they are instead just highlighting how lame the Adobe suite is compared to what it could be if they would cater more to the Mac and more specifically OS X and quit dumbing things down to stay in the Windows market. (And first and foremost of course, there appears to be a need for this app.)
In fact with each new version and their ever increasing expansion of features, Adobe apps et al have more in common with the Windows mentality than that of the Mac.
Apple is leading the way in apps for their OS. That's really what this mostly is about. A display of beauty, power, simplicity, etc. Adobe could take notice of that if nothing else.
First - this is not even close to Photoshop. It's better for photography but has no graphic design features whatsoever. It's a perfect app for the digital photography who wants to work in RAW and have a single-app workflow for editing ALREADY GOOD images. We're not talking about dad took the bad night shot that needs some work to look ok. This is for PROFESSIONALS who take really good shots the first time and need an app to help them pick the best shots, organize their images and prepare them for production.
Second - Even though many of Apple's pro apps have a consumer version and a "middle" version - i.e. GarageBand/Logic Express/Logic Pro - others do not - i.e. iDVD/DVD Studio Pro. My bet is that there will be no in between app for iPhoto and Aperture. iPhoto is meant for the consumer. Aperture is meant for the serious hobbyist as well as the pro. The edu price is only $249 - about the same price as Adobe Creative Suite license for edu as well. If you're into photography, this is the app to have. If you're into photography and graphic design, Photoshop is the only choice. The inclusion of photo books, publishing to .Mac, etc. is very appealing to an amateur/hobbyist who wants to work with RAW. Not only that, but Aperture looks like a much easier workflow than Photoshop-Bridge-Canon software/etc.
I think its ease of use, sweet-looking design, and simple, all-in-one workflow will make it a very successful app both for professionals and hobbyists/enthusiasts. iPhoto will still have its place but this app will be getting some serious attention from me...
IF IT WOULD RUN ON THE FREAKING 12" POWERBOOK! But it doesn't because the app requires a 128 MB video card which Apple kindly neglected to include on the 12" PRO LAPTOP. So much for the PowerBook line being COMPLETELY professional, I guess. It's a shame, too, because the 12" is SO portable and its ability to hook up to 20" and 23" Cinema Displays would make it perfect for photographers. Take the 12" on the road to load your images into Aperture at the end of the shoot so they are there and on the memory card for safekeeping. Hook the 12" up to your 23" Cinema Display when you get back to the studio and edit with Aperture. Instead... you have to have a 15", 17", PowerMac or iMac (a consumer model, if Apple needs to be reminded!) in order to run the thing. No offense, but I'm a small/weak guy and the 15" is too heavy. When I go to Africa for my photo shoot, I want the 12" with me, nothing larger. But I won't be able to run the application that I want in order to edit my pictures using an all-in-one workflow.
First - this is not even close to Photoshop. It's better for photography but has no graphic design features whatsoever. It's a perfect app for the digital photography who wants to work in RAW and have a single-app workflow for editing ALREADY GOOD images. We're not talking about dad took the bad night shot that needs some work to look ok. This is for PROFESSIONALS who take really good shots the first time and need an app to help them pick the best shots, organize their images and prepare them for production.
Second - Even though many of Apple's pro apps have a consumer version and a "middle" version - i.e. GarageBand/Logic Express/Logic Pro - others do not - i.e. iDVD/DVD Studio Pro. My bet is that there will be no in between app for iPhoto and Aperture. iPhoto is meant for the consumer. Aperture is meant for the serious hobbyist as well as the pro. The edu price is only $249 - about the same price as Adobe Creative Suite license for edu as well. If you're into photography, this is the app to have. If you're into photography and graphic design, Photoshop is the only choice. The inclusion of photo books, publishing to .Mac, etc. is very appealing to an amateur/hobbyist who wants to work with RAW. Not only that, but Aperture looks like a much easier workflow than Photoshop-Bridge-Canon software/etc.
I think its ease of use, sweet-looking design, and simple, all-in-one workflow will make it a very successful app both for professionals and hobbyists/enthusiasts. iPhoto will still have its place but this app will be getting some serious attention from me...
IF IT WOULD RUN ON THE FREAKING 12" POWERBOOK! But it doesn't because the app requires a 128 MB video card which Apple kindly neglected to include on the 12" PRO LAPTOP. So much for the PowerBook line being COMPLETELY professional, I guess. It's a shame, too, because the 12" is SO portable and its ability to hook up to 20" and 23" Cinema Displays would make it perfect for photographers. Take the 12" on the road to load your images into Aperture at the end of the shoot so they are there and on the memory card for safekeeping. Hook the 12" up to your 23" Cinema Display when you get back to the studio and edit with Aperture. Instead... you have to have a 15", 17", PowerMac or iMac (a consumer model, if Apple needs to be reminded!) in order to run the thing. No offense, but I'm a small/weak guy and the 15" is too heavy. When I go to Africa for my photo shoot, I want the 12" with me, nothing larger. But I won't be able to run the application that I want in order to edit my pictures using an all-in-one workflow.
Thanks Apple. Again.
I'll try to remember to ask about that at the show tomorrow.
THANK YOU! I was hoping you'd still be awake and checking this thread!
PLEASE ask about it at the show tomorrow. It seems COMPLETELY insane to me that Apple still has the PowerBook 12" for sale if it won't even run their latest pro app while a new iMac will!
But it doesn't because the app requires a 128 MB video card which Apple kindly neglected to include on the 12" PRO LAPTOP.
There's no mention of GPU memory requirements under the Minimum System Requirements on the Tech Specs page. Is it because the 12" PB isn't listed that you say Aperture requires 128MB? Looks like my rev. B iMac G5 qualifies, barely.
Comments
Originally posted by TenoBell
I don't see the need for heated comparison of Photoshop and Aperture. They don't really serve the same purpose.
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.
That's one of the things I'm saying. I'm also saying that there isn't anything here that, if it proves popular, can't be added to the Adobe suite next year.
Originally posted by rok
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.
Ok, now you're getting my point.
To tell the truth, if you would just rather paint from scratch, and do some more basic work with photo's, Paint is an even better tool to use, and it accepts all of the plug-ins from PS.
Originally posted by nagromme
Not a Photoshop competitor. Something different. Good!
Now... how about a Core Image-accelerated Photoshop?
I haven't read all the posts yet, so sorry if someone mentioned it, but this is really competing against Capture One : http://www.phaseone.com/Content/Soft...OSoftware.aspx
and Bibble : http://www.bibblelabs.com/
If you take a look at these Apps, you will realize that this area is ripe for the taking.
This is a great move, no software in this area is really *great and it shouldn't piss off Adobe since they don't compete in this area (yet)
It is just for processing RAW files before you take it into Photoshop. Photoshop can process files, but you are only doing one at a time, and has no real workflow. One big thing it could be missing is capturing straight from the camera - does anyone know if it does this or not?
Originally posted by fahlman
Blah, Blah, Blah. I know so much and I'm going to tell you how much I think I know. Are you professional photographer?If you are, use the program, find out what it does, then let us know if "it's iPhoto on steroids" or if it fills a need in a professional photographer's workflow.
You should read some posts so that you would know.
Originally posted by the cool gut
I haven't read all the posts yet, so sorry if someone mentioned it, but this is really competing against Capture One : http://www.phaseone.com/Content/Soft...OSoftware.aspx
or Bibble - or something like that.
This is a great move, no software in this area is really *great and it shouldn't piss off Adobe since they don't compete in this area (yet)
It is just for processing RAW files before you take it into Photoshop. Photoshop can process files, but you are only doing one at a time, and has no real workflow. One big thing it could be missing is capturing straight from the camera - does anyone know if it does this or not?
See, this is the thing I'm talking about. I already said that Adobe's last update to RAW does batch files. It's also been mentioned on many sites.
No, it's not as sophisticated as this appears to be. But it works well.
Apple also has to be as diligent as Adobe is in updating its lists of supported cameras. It isn't just a matter of saying "we support RAW". Apple has to make deals with some companies who's file format is encrypted, like Nikon. It's the little things that will make this work.
Since Apple is saying that this doesn't compete with PS I feel relieved. I hope it has success. But I have to see it tomorrow first.
Why can't everything wait until tomorrow night when those of us who will be there can report back, instead of working in a vacuum?
Originally posted by melgross
Unless I missed it on Apple's site, it's missing CMYK, coordinated image sizing and sharpen control, etc.
You missed it. I suggest watching the tour movies ( all of them ). All the image manipulation takes place in RAW, but you can apply a color sync profile to the image and then continue to manipulate it. That includes printer profiles.
You can take an operation and apply it to multiple photos ( although its not clear how wide spread that is ) in much the same way that excel can cut and paste styles.
I also think that this will shine in combination with Automator, but that remains to be seen.
It is clear to me that Apple have looked at the end to end workflow of a PHOTOGRAPHER and created an app to support that process, from capture through to delivery.
I watched the tours, and in every one I saw features that I _wished_ that iPhoto had. Im only a bad amateur, and I can see aperture improving my photography workflow.
There is no comparison to be had with photoshop. Photoshop is a creation app, not a workflow app, and the two will complement each other very nicely.
So far though, Apple's apps have helped keep the Macintosh platform healthy and ecourages 3rd party developers to build execellent and complementary apps.
Originally posted by melgross
See, this is the thing I'm talking about. I already said that Adobe's last update to RAW does batch files. It's also been mentioned on many sites.
Yes, Adobe does batch support, but, there are some serious problems with that. The problem with batching is that you can't see the result on the file until it is processed. No pro photographer (or aspiring pro, or anyone who takes photos seriously) is going to want to apply the same adjustment to a group of photos. Flashes do not fire at the exact same intensity every time, and each photo needs minor adjustments. With Aperture, you can apply the same adjustment across a group of pictures, and see the result before processing, and go into each one and tweak it. After you have adjusted all the photos, you hit a button, and they are all processed.
I am not a pro yet, but I do the photo shoots for my companies catalogues - and a day session will produce 1500 photos. Photoshop really has no solution for this situation. And the other solutions are pretty weak.
This really couldn't be any further from a photoshop competitor. No type tools, no layers, masking, filters, - it is purely a digital darkroom and organizer. Aperture is to Photoshop, what Photoshop is to InDesign or Quark.
I also just when through the project management movie, and it's great to see the extensive cataloguing and organization features. What I think is most exciting about this, is I think a few of these features will make their way into the Finder in Leopard. I certainly hope anyway.
As melgross mentioned, there are a few key details which need to be addressed in this program, and being version 1.0 we will see how well it does. But I am certainly looking forward to it. I want to see first hand the speed before I buy.
Originally posted by murk
While it isn't a competitor just now, I think that is Apple well planned decision. Quite impressive for 1.0, but still gingerly avoiding pissing Adobe off too much. Future versions may be a different story depending on how the politics play out. If Adobe drops Macs, Apple will be ready. If Aperture sells well enough, they may go ahead and make the leap anyway. Sure I love Photoshop, but Adobe isn't the creative company it once was. Chizen ain't Warnock.
Well, I just went through all the movies, and my position has changed a bit.
Those book and web layout features are a serious fuck shot across the bow of Adobe. I mean h*ly f*ck - I didn't think you could merge photoshop and inDesign together, but it seems a possible direction for this app. Or another App that plugs into this.
Adobe is in a strange position though, they can't really pull Mac support, because it is too big a part of their business, and Apple is coming up with these serious kick ass pro applications which are only going to bring more creative pros (adobes target audience) to the mac platform.
Originally posted by mmmpie
You missed it. I suggest watching the tour movies ( all of them ). All the image manipulation takes place in RAW, but you can apply a color sync profile to the image and then continue to manipulate it. That includes printer profiles.
You can take an operation and apply it to multiple photos ( although its not clear how wide spread that is ) in much the same way that excel can cut and paste styles.
I also think that this will shine in combination with Automator, but that remains to be seen.
It is clear to me that Apple have looked at the end to end workflow of a PHOTOGRAPHER and created an app to support that process, from capture through to delivery.
I watched the tours, and in every one I saw features that I _wished_ that iPhoto had. Im only a bad amateur, and I can see aperture improving my photography workflow.
There is no comparison to be had with photoshop. Photoshop is a creation app, not a workflow app, and the two will complement each other very nicely.
I've just watched them. Interesting, but a lot of questions remain to be answered.
The CMYK (which it does have) is primitive, but might be ok in some enviornments.
I still don't get the printing part though. I suppose that for a wedding photog or someone similar, it might have some use. The layout function which is nicer than the one in iPhoto would need to be output in a standard file that can be read by an imposition program for it to be of commercial use. it's also very basic, which shouldn't be surprising as it isn't a page layout app.It doesn't say one way or the other.
The best part of the program is the project management.
Again, I'll see tomorrow.
There are some fairly high profile professional photographers going on and on about how this thing uses old school techniques but have brought it into the new school of digital photography. They gloat how it is so intuitive to how they work.
Sure there is some marketing here. But do a little review time here.
This app just may end up displaying more of the slick goodies of OS X than any app before it. While it is certainly a much different app than Photoshop, it really shows how outdated the UI and unwieldly ease of use is with Photoshop.
Face it, Adobe could do so much more with the Mac version of Photoshop. But they can't because Windows is a$$. Apple can now further display this a$$iness with Aperture.
Originally posted by the cool gut
Yes, Adobe does batch support, but, there are some serious problems with that. The problem with batching is that you can't see the result on the file until it is processed. No pro photographer (or aspiring pro, or anyone who takes photos seriously) is going to want to apply the same adjustment to a group of photos. Flashes do not fire at the exact same intensity every time, and each photo needs minor adjustments. With Aperture, you can apply the same adjustment across a group of pictures, and see the result before processing, and go into each one and tweak it. After you have adjusted all the photos, you hit a button, and they are all processed.
I am not a pro yet, but I do the photo shoots for my companies catalogues - and a day session will produce 1500 photos. Photoshop really has no solution for this situation. And the other solutions are pretty weak.
This really couldn't be any further from a photoshop competitor. No type tools, no layers, masking, filters, - it is purely a digital darkroom and organizer. Aperture is to Photoshop, what Photoshop is to InDesign or Quark.
I also just when through the project management movie, and it's great to see the extensive cataloguing and organization features. What I think is most exciting about this, is I think a few of these features will make their way into the Finder in Leopard. I certainly hope anyway.
As melgross mentioned, there are a few key details which need to be addressed in this program, and being version 1.0 we will see how well it does. But I am certainly looking forward to it. I want to see first hand the speed before I buy.
Actually, a pro studio has flash units that are very stable and repeatable. These multi thousand dollar units can pop off thousands of shots and the ones I've worked with will be off by less than a tenth of a stop, with undetectable variations in color temp. I don't know about problems from studio usage in a hi quality setting. And I work with Leaf backs.
Outdoor settings can go either way.
Nevertheless, these photo's are imported into PS as 16 (per channel) bit images. They still have all of the info they had as RAW files. Until we bring them down to 8 bits at the very end of the process there isn't a problem. Remember that work done in PS is also non-destructive when done on layers, as most pro's prefer.
Originally posted by the cool gut
Well, I just went through all the movies, and my position has changed a bit.
Those book and web layout features are a serious fuck shot across the bow of Adobe. I mean h*ly f*ck - I didn't think you could merge photoshop and inDesign together, but it seems a possible direction for this app. Or another App that plugs into this.
Adobe is in a strange position though, they can't really pull Mac support, because it is too big a part of their business, and Apple is coming up with these serious kick ass pro applications which are only going to bring more creative pros (adobes target audience) to the mac platform.
It is a possible direction. I just don't think that Apple can afford to take it.
PS is in version 9 and InDesign is in version 3. Then they would need an Illustrator as well, which is in version 12.
Even though i always give Apple's people a lot of credit (I use FCP Studio), this is an awful big bone to chew through.
In order for Apple to be successful the have to be THERE. They can't edge their way up over five years or so because they won't be able to sell it against an ever improving CSx suite.
If they keep this program as an auxiliary to the Suite, then it's an interesting adjunct.
In fact with each new version and their ever increasing expansion of features, Adobe apps et al have more in common with the Windows mentality than that of the Mac.
Apple is leading the way in apps for their OS. That's really what this mostly is about. A display of beauty, power, simplicity, etc. Adobe could take notice of that if nothing else.
First - this is not even close to Photoshop. It's better for photography but has no graphic design features whatsoever. It's a perfect app for the digital photography who wants to work in RAW and have a single-app workflow for editing ALREADY GOOD images. We're not talking about dad took the bad night shot that needs some work to look ok. This is for PROFESSIONALS who take really good shots the first time and need an app to help them pick the best shots, organize their images and prepare them for production.
Second - Even though many of Apple's pro apps have a consumer version and a "middle" version - i.e. GarageBand/Logic Express/Logic Pro - others do not - i.e. iDVD/DVD Studio Pro. My bet is that there will be no in between app for iPhoto and Aperture. iPhoto is meant for the consumer. Aperture is meant for the serious hobbyist as well as the pro. The edu price is only $249 - about the same price as Adobe Creative Suite license for edu as well. If you're into photography, this is the app to have. If you're into photography and graphic design, Photoshop is the only choice. The inclusion of photo books, publishing to .Mac, etc. is very appealing to an amateur/hobbyist who wants to work with RAW. Not only that, but Aperture looks like a much easier workflow than Photoshop-Bridge-Canon software/etc.
I think its ease of use, sweet-looking design, and simple, all-in-one workflow will make it a very successful app both for professionals and hobbyists/enthusiasts. iPhoto will still have its place but this app will be getting some serious attention from me...
IF IT WOULD RUN ON THE FREAKING 12" POWERBOOK! But it doesn't because the app requires a 128 MB video card which Apple kindly neglected to include on the 12" PRO LAPTOP. So much for the PowerBook line being COMPLETELY professional, I guess. It's a shame, too, because the 12" is SO portable and its ability to hook up to 20" and 23" Cinema Displays would make it perfect for photographers. Take the 12" on the road to load your images into Aperture at the end of the shoot so they are there and on the memory card for safekeeping. Hook the 12" up to your 23" Cinema Display when you get back to the studio and edit with Aperture. Instead... you have to have a 15", 17", PowerMac or iMac (a consumer model, if Apple needs to be reminded!) in order to run the thing. No offense, but I'm a small/weak guy and the 15" is too heavy. When I go to Africa for my photo shoot, I want the 12" with me, nothing larger. But I won't be able to run the application that I want in order to edit my pictures using an all-in-one workflow.
Thanks Apple. Again.
Originally posted by adamrao
I watched the Quick Tours. TWICE.
First - this is not even close to Photoshop. It's better for photography but has no graphic design features whatsoever. It's a perfect app for the digital photography who wants to work in RAW and have a single-app workflow for editing ALREADY GOOD images. We're not talking about dad took the bad night shot that needs some work to look ok. This is for PROFESSIONALS who take really good shots the first time and need an app to help them pick the best shots, organize their images and prepare them for production.
Second - Even though many of Apple's pro apps have a consumer version and a "middle" version - i.e. GarageBand/Logic Express/Logic Pro - others do not - i.e. iDVD/DVD Studio Pro. My bet is that there will be no in between app for iPhoto and Aperture. iPhoto is meant for the consumer. Aperture is meant for the serious hobbyist as well as the pro. The edu price is only $249 - about the same price as Adobe Creative Suite license for edu as well. If you're into photography, this is the app to have. If you're into photography and graphic design, Photoshop is the only choice. The inclusion of photo books, publishing to .Mac, etc. is very appealing to an amateur/hobbyist who wants to work with RAW. Not only that, but Aperture looks like a much easier workflow than Photoshop-Bridge-Canon software/etc.
I think its ease of use, sweet-looking design, and simple, all-in-one workflow will make it a very successful app both for professionals and hobbyists/enthusiasts. iPhoto will still have its place but this app will be getting some serious attention from me...
IF IT WOULD RUN ON THE FREAKING 12" POWERBOOK! But it doesn't because the app requires a 128 MB video card which Apple kindly neglected to include on the 12" PRO LAPTOP. So much for the PowerBook line being COMPLETELY professional, I guess. It's a shame, too, because the 12" is SO portable and its ability to hook up to 20" and 23" Cinema Displays would make it perfect for photographers. Take the 12" on the road to load your images into Aperture at the end of the shoot so they are there and on the memory card for safekeeping. Hook the 12" up to your 23" Cinema Display when you get back to the studio and edit with Aperture. Instead... you have to have a 15", 17", PowerMac or iMac (a consumer model, if Apple needs to be reminded!) in order to run the thing. No offense, but I'm a small/weak guy and the 15" is too heavy. When I go to Africa for my photo shoot, I want the 12" with me, nothing larger. But I won't be able to run the application that I want in order to edit my pictures using an all-in-one workflow.
Thanks Apple. Again.
I'll try to remember to ask about that at the show tomorrow.
PLEASE ask about it at the show tomorrow. It seems COMPLETELY insane to me that Apple still has the PowerBook 12" for sale if it won't even run their latest pro app while a new iMac will!
Originally posted by adamrao
But it doesn't because the app requires a 128 MB video card which Apple kindly neglected to include on the 12" PRO LAPTOP.
There's no mention of GPU memory requirements under the Minimum System Requirements on the Tech Specs page. Is it because the 12" PB isn't listed that you say Aperture requires 128MB? Looks like my rev. B iMac G5 qualifies, barely.