It's so hilarious to read people talking about Apple threatening Adobe's PS market.
I'm not saying Apple is going to destroy Adobe, but Adobe sees it as a threat. Microsoft is after their ass too. It's the monopoly they are afraid of losing. I doubt Apple could repeat the Final Cut/Premiere coup.
I kinda hope Adobe will start innovating. I really hope they've got a team of people secretly working in parallel with the PS team building a new Photoshop. It just can't be healthy to keep tacking on code to a dinosauric codebase.
I'm looking forward to hearing the answer to this too. I have a 12" PB, and whilst I'm not a pro, I am an entusiastic amateur. From the looks of it (can't watch the vids now, must wait till I get home ), Aperture provides the tools I would want for my photo work - levels, crop/resize, sharpening, colour management, that sort of thing. I don't need all the extras that PS has to offer, but I could see myself making use of the extras that Aperture has to offer .
I just got back from the show.
I haven't read all of the latest posts after this one so I don't kniow what's been said.
I spoke to two Apple reps. I was told that Aperture DID require a 128MB board. All of the supported boards are on their site. Of course you have to read between the lines because sometimes a board in a family is supported even though it's not on the site. Often this is so because Apple has blinders on. Because of that, sometimes they only list GPU's that they themselves have offered.
It is funny, but then again, where is Premiere on the Mac? I'm not saying it is going to happen. In fact I don't think it will. I'm just saying it's not totally unprecedented.
There is no way that Premier can be compared to PS. Premier was a groundbreaking app that didn't keep up with advances in the field.
When Dv came out, Premier couldn't even import it. Radius came out with Edit which was designed for Dv and did a great job of working with it.
When Premier did import it, it required another small program for the purpose. The resulting mess was a joke.
Finally, in version 6 they got their act together. But the program still felt as though it was cobbled together. It was out of touch and out of date.
When FCP came out it was everything Premier should have been, and more. It was a true pro level editor which Premier never was intended to be.
The rest, as they say, is history.
But on the PC, Adobe made significant improvements in ver 7. It is what it should have been on the Mac. If Adobe made those improvements for us, the program would still be selling.
But they chose to remove it.
PS is just the opposite. It is, so to speak, the premier photo editing platform, and much more than that to those involved in using it every day. It won't be so easy to approach it.
People who say that is is old and outdated don't use it. They also don't seem to know that it was completely rewritten in ver 5, and large parts were rewritten again in ver 6. The program was rewritten to be modular so that Adobe could pull modules out when better code became available without affecting other parts of the program. It's an amazing work.
PS is just the opposite. It is, so to speak, the premier photo editing platform, and much more than that to those involved in using it every day. It won't be so easy to approach it.
People who say that is is old and outdated don't use it. They also don't seem to know that it was completely rewritten in ver 5, and large parts were rewritten again in ver 6. The program was rewritten to be modular so that Adobe could pull modules out when better code became available without affecting other parts of the program. It's an amazing work.
Prove it all or retract it all. Give us a link or something.
I'm not gonna stand here and believe someone that has been wrong very often on this board and that feels like giving opinions about software he doesn't even bother reading about.
I would have thought that this could replace alot of what a Photographer might use Photoshop for. There's colour correction. Comparison of photos. Blemish removal. Workflow.
Photoshop is is more image-creation in my book. ie it's more an art creation package.
For me, Aperture is more 'Photoshop' than Photoshop is.
Photoshop is more...'Art or Image' shop.
I think Aperture does for busy pro' Photographers what Front Row does for Media Computers.
It's back to basics...but with an elegance and sophistication that Photoshop can't match.
Photoshop is my favourite Mac app. But it has an ancient interface that in no way compares to the digital professionalism of Aperture. PS is still with the 90's interface Photoshop. PS is cluttered.
Yes. It does have depth. For Image creation. Photoshop can't be beat.
For a photographer? If I was working with just Photographs and wasn't into 'image creation'? One could easily eliminate it from workflow.
Creating something other than a photograph? That's Photo or 'Artshop/Image Shop's job....
Aperture definitely shows the way forward on interface design. Adobe could learn so much from real time effects...cocoa potential and in UI design from Apple.
Adobe have sat on their a** defending Tabs from the encroaching Macromedia. (Ironic...) How long have we had Core Image now? Core Video? What have Adobe done with it?
Bruce is just a s*ck up to M$. The Mac version of Photoshop should be lightyears ahead right now. Aperture shows the way. Brightly.
Lemon Bon Bon
PS is not an image creation program even though there are those who do use it for that purpose.
It is a production tool. In production work for publication there are many routes to take. The more approaches you have available to you, the easier it is to take the right one.
I noticed in the demo and after sitting down at the computer in the hands on classroom, that Aperture has lifted a number of things from PS. That is not a criticism. It happens all the time. Good ideas are recycled.
I was actually very impressed with what the program does do. I was also very impressed with the ease and smoothness with with it does it.
If you have a top of the line machine, video card, and large hi-rez monitor.
Otherwise, forget it.
All the demo's were done on Powermacs with at least dual 2.5GHz cpu's with more than a sprinkling of quads. ALL of the monitors were 30", except in the classrom, and those were 23's. And each machine had two attached (except in the class).
On those setups, every change was instantaneous. They said that it would work with slower machines, but that it did need the power.
It does color correction and gamma well. There are tools that will speed up the process of dealing with contrast, much as Adobe introduced.
The process of selection is excellent. The process of organization is excellent in the areas it handles, but it does need work.
The important area of CMYK conversion is not implemented well at all. You can choose profiles. If local printing is off, you can adjust gamma. But whole slews of corrections for CMYK are left out.
There is nothing for Hexachrome or other printing methods which have become more popular over the years. Nothing to deal with screening is available either. Or trapping.
Its print production tools are interesting but too basic for anything other than the most basic of layout work, and there is no way to retrieve the layout to input it to an imposition program.
The program is very slick, and doesn't seem to compete with PS except in basic areas of photo correction. It is like others in more ways than it is like PS.
I'll probably buy it and play around with it, but certainly, at this time it is not a production tool for the publishing shop. It seems more oriented towards the individual photog who does printing on a local machine, or who wants to send for books printed from Apple.
It's probably coming in 6 if it isn't in 5. I hope the speed and the CoreData stuff from Aperture gets pushed down into iPhoto.
We have to remember that this is very difficult to do. Apple, Adobe, and the other programs that have managed to get this working are to be praised. These companies have to deal with the camera manufacturers constantly getting samples of the equiplent and software, then updating their supported lists.
I would hope that Apple might wish to take advantage of their doing this for Aperture, but it's hard to say. I wish I thought of asking them this today. Maybe if I have time to go back.
Prove it all or retract it all. Give us a link or something.
I'm not gonna stand here and believe someone that has been wrong very often on this board and that feels like giving opinions about software he doesn't even bother reading about.
You really are an inane person.
I will never say that I'm right all the time, but to say that I've been wrong "very often" is wrong itself. Just because some of us disagree at times doesn't give you the right to be insulting when you are on the short side of the stick.
If anything, you know far less than I do. You know nothing about Photoshop, for instance.
I doubt that you can evaluate Aperture because you obviously don't work in a graphics/publishing workflow.
Often you don't have to know all the details of a program to know that the broad strokes aren't suitable for a purpose, based on years of experience in working in that area.
I will never say that I'm right all the time, but to say that I've been wrong "very often" is wrong itself. Just because some of us disagree at times doesn't give you the right to be insulting when you are on the short side of the stick.
If anything, you know far less than I do. You know nothing about Photoshop, for instance.
I doubt that you can evaluate Aperture because you obviously don't work in a graphics/publishing workflow.
Often you don't have to know all the details of a program to know that the broad strokes aren't suitable for a purpose, based on years of experience in working in that area.
Be polite, or leave.
I'll ask one more time...prove your earlier assertions. If you don't, you don't know what you're talking about.
Aperture is a photographer's production tool. And a better one. In key fundamentals....it does most of what I'd use Photoshop for. Take out the cheesy filters....add brush tools and layers...
If Adobe won't include Core Image functionality. Apple will. What have Adobe been doing for the last 18 months? Will they include it in the next 18 months or will Bruce Sales Guy Chisen give us the 'non-trivial' intel port and say, 'well...alot of work just went into the port...' (Because we should have heaved our fat code off Code Warrior into X-Code years ago?)
Fact is, if it added brush tools and layers? (Well, that can come with version 2....) Along with Automator?
I could see myself using this beautiful program rather than photoshop.
It's ironic that Aperture is more Photoshop than Photoshop is. It sings with a pure mission brief...
5, 6, 7, 8, 9. That's five upgrades since Version 4 (which I still rate...) And what innovation has Adobe given us for that £2,500?
So, because I don't see the world through Melgross eyes I'm 'trolling'.
I think the 'improvements' since version 4 have been largely cosmetic in a 'sales'/gamesmanship kind of way...and feature clutter..? The interface?
Don't get me wrong...if Photoshop was a woman? I'd shag her...
...but if Aperture is going where I think it is? I'd marry her...
Lemon Bon Bon
PS. Qualify you statements with links. Kim Kap Sol asked you to validfy your argument. You've failed to do so. So your statement is unqualified. He's not being an 'ass' for asking you do so.
I own Photoshop? It's my favourite Mac app. Do I not know what I'm talking about either?
For now, Aperture is complimentry (heh...'yeah, right...') but if it improves like Final Cut Pro improved...Photoshop could be in serious trouble come version 4 of Aperture...
I think Apple might have been dicked off with Bruce Chizen once too often...
Quark was invulnerable once. Now? Indesign is giving it a right kicking.
No program is invulnerable. Not Word. Not Quark. Not Photoshop. History shows otherwise.
Complacent monopolies...shrivel over time...from the top down....
Lemon Bon Bon
PS. Adobe couldn't compete in several media areas with Macromedia. So they bought them out. We'll see if they innovate with that. I'm guessing it will be just a bundle job with the Creative Suite. Call Xreative Suite 1 or something...
Apple have bought programs. But they have innovated with that core tech'.
PS. Qualify you statements with links. Kim Kap Sol asked you to validfy your argument. You've failed to do so. So your statement is unqualified. He's not being an 'ass' for asking you do so. [/B]
I like a good argument . But when you guys just make unprovoked stements, that's not helpful.
Comments
Originally posted by JeffDM
I'm just using iPhoto and PS Essentials, ...
Did you mean PS Elements?
Originally posted by sjk
Did you mean PS Elements?
Whoops, yes.
Originally posted by Tidelwav
It's so hilarious to read people talking about Apple threatening Adobe's PS market.
I'm not saying Apple is going to destroy Adobe, but Adobe sees it as a threat. Microsoft is after their ass too. It's the monopoly they are afraid of losing. I doubt Apple could repeat the Final Cut/Premiere coup.
Apple potential CS Competitor
Originally posted by digitaldave
I'm looking forward to hearing the answer to this too. I have a 12" PB, and whilst I'm not a pro, I am an entusiastic amateur. From the looks of it (can't watch the vids now, must wait till I get home
I just got back from the show.
I haven't read all of the latest posts after this one so I don't kniow what's been said.
I spoke to two Apple reps. I was told that Aperture DID require a 128MB board. All of the supported boards are on their site. Of course you have to read between the lines because sometimes a board in a family is supported even though it's not on the site. Often this is so because Apple has blinders on. Because of that, sometimes they only list GPU's that they themselves have offered.
Originally posted by Simple Ranger
It is funny, but then again, where is Premiere on the Mac? I'm not saying it is going to happen. In fact I don't think it will. I'm just saying it's not totally unprecedented.
There is no way that Premier can be compared to PS. Premier was a groundbreaking app that didn't keep up with advances in the field.
When Dv came out, Premier couldn't even import it. Radius came out with Edit which was designed for Dv and did a great job of working with it.
When Premier did import it, it required another small program for the purpose. The resulting mess was a joke.
Finally, in version 6 they got their act together. But the program still felt as though it was cobbled together. It was out of touch and out of date.
When FCP came out it was everything Premier should have been, and more. It was a true pro level editor which Premier never was intended to be.
The rest, as they say, is history.
But on the PC, Adobe made significant improvements in ver 7. It is what it should have been on the Mac. If Adobe made those improvements for us, the program would still be selling.
But they chose to remove it.
PS is just the opposite. It is, so to speak, the premier photo editing platform, and much more than that to those involved in using it every day. It won't be so easy to approach it.
People who say that is is old and outdated don't use it. They also don't seem to know that it was completely rewritten in ver 5, and large parts were rewritten again in ver 6. The program was rewritten to be modular so that Adobe could pull modules out when better code became available without affecting other parts of the program. It's an amazing work.
Originally posted by melgross
PS is just the opposite. It is, so to speak, the premier photo editing platform, and much more than that to those involved in using it every day. It won't be so easy to approach it.
People who say that is is old and outdated don't use it. They also don't seem to know that it was completely rewritten in ver 5, and large parts were rewritten again in ver 6. The program was rewritten to be modular so that Adobe could pull modules out when better code became available without affecting other parts of the program. It's an amazing work.
Prove it all or retract it all. Give us a link or something.
I'm not gonna stand here and believe someone that has been wrong very often on this board and that feels like giving opinions about software he doesn't even bother reading about.
Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon
I would have thought that this could replace alot of what a Photographer might use Photoshop for. There's colour correction. Comparison of photos. Blemish removal. Workflow.
Photoshop is is more image-creation in my book. ie it's more an art creation package.
For me, Aperture is more 'Photoshop' than Photoshop is.
Photoshop is more...'Art or Image' shop.
I think Aperture does for busy pro' Photographers what Front Row does for Media Computers.
It's back to basics...but with an elegance and sophistication that Photoshop can't match.
Photoshop is my favourite Mac app. But it has an ancient interface that in no way compares to the digital professionalism of Aperture. PS is still with the 90's interface Photoshop. PS is cluttered.
Yes. It does have depth. For Image creation. Photoshop can't be beat.
For a photographer? If I was working with just Photographs and wasn't into 'image creation'? One could easily eliminate it from workflow.
Creating something other than a photograph? That's Photo or 'Artshop/Image Shop's job....
Aperture definitely shows the way forward on interface design. Adobe could learn so much from real time effects...cocoa potential and in UI design from Apple.
Adobe have sat on their a** defending Tabs from the encroaching Macromedia. (Ironic...) How long have we had Core Image now? Core Video? What have Adobe done with it?
Bruce is just a s*ck up to M$. The Mac version of Photoshop should be lightyears ahead right now. Aperture shows the way. Brightly.
Lemon Bon Bon
PS is not an image creation program even though there are those who do use it for that purpose.
It is a production tool. In production work for publication there are many routes to take. The more approaches you have available to you, the easier it is to take the right one.
I noticed in the demo and after sitting down at the computer in the hands on classroom, that Aperture has lifted a number of things from PS. That is not a criticism. It happens all the time. Good ideas are recycled.
I was actually very impressed with what the program does do. I was also very impressed with the ease and smoothness with with it does it.
If you have a top of the line machine, video card, and large hi-rez monitor.
Otherwise, forget it.
All the demo's were done on Powermacs with at least dual 2.5GHz cpu's with more than a sprinkling of quads. ALL of the monitors were 30", except in the classrom, and those were 23's. And each machine had two attached (except in the class).
On those setups, every change was instantaneous. They said that it would work with slower machines, but that it did need the power.
It does color correction and gamma well. There are tools that will speed up the process of dealing with contrast, much as Adobe introduced.
The process of selection is excellent. The process of organization is excellent in the areas it handles, but it does need work.
The important area of CMYK conversion is not implemented well at all. You can choose profiles. If local printing is off, you can adjust gamma. But whole slews of corrections for CMYK are left out.
There is nothing for Hexachrome or other printing methods which have become more popular over the years. Nothing to deal with screening is available either. Or trapping.
Its print production tools are interesting but too basic for anything other than the most basic of layout work, and there is no way to retrieve the layout to input it to an imposition program.
The program is very slick, and doesn't seem to compete with PS except in basic areas of photo correction. It is like others in more ways than it is like PS.
I'll probably buy it and play around with it, but certainly, at this time it is not a production tool for the publishing shop. It seems more oriented towards the individual photog who does printing on a local machine, or who wants to send for books printed from Apple.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
It'd be appreciated if melgross could use the bathroom instead of relieving his/her bowels on this thread.
You're being an ass.
Originally posted by melgross
You're being an ass.
No I'm not...I want some proof that Photoshop was rewritten from scratch, please.
You can't just make a hand gesture and hope the Jedi mind trick works on all board members. I want some solid proof that Photoshop was rewritten.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
It's probably coming in 6 if it isn't in 5. I hope the speed and the CoreData stuff from Aperture gets pushed down into iPhoto.
We have to remember that this is very difficult to do. Apple, Adobe, and the other programs that have managed to get this working are to be praised. These companies have to deal with the camera manufacturers constantly getting samples of the equiplent and software, then updating their supported lists.
I would hope that Apple might wish to take advantage of their doing this for Aperture, but it's hard to say. I wish I thought of asking them this today. Maybe if I have time to go back.
Originally posted by sjk
Did you mean PS Elements?
I make that mistake too.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
Prove it all or retract it all. Give us a link or something.
I'm not gonna stand here and believe someone that has been wrong very often on this board and that feels like giving opinions about software he doesn't even bother reading about.
You really are an inane person.
I will never say that I'm right all the time, but to say that I've been wrong "very often" is wrong itself. Just because some of us disagree at times doesn't give you the right to be insulting when you are on the short side of the stick.
If anything, you know far less than I do. You know nothing about Photoshop, for instance.
I doubt that you can evaluate Aperture because you obviously don't work in a graphics/publishing workflow.
Often you don't have to know all the details of a program to know that the broad strokes aren't suitable for a purpose, based on years of experience in working in that area.
Be polite, or leave.
Originally posted by melgross
You really are an inane person.
I will never say that I'm right all the time, but to say that I've been wrong "very often" is wrong itself. Just because some of us disagree at times doesn't give you the right to be insulting when you are on the short side of the stick.
If anything, you know far less than I do. You know nothing about Photoshop, for instance.
I doubt that you can evaluate Aperture because you obviously don't work in a graphics/publishing workflow.
Often you don't have to know all the details of a program to know that the broad strokes aren't suitable for a purpose, based on years of experience in working in that area.
Be polite, or leave.
I'll ask one more time...prove your earlier assertions. If you don't, you don't know what you're talking about.
It is a production tool.
Photoshop is about image creation.
Aperture is a photographer's production tool. And a better one. In key fundamentals....it does most of what I'd use Photoshop for. Take out the cheesy filters....add brush tools and layers...
If Adobe won't include Core Image functionality. Apple will. What have Adobe been doing for the last 18 months? Will they include it in the next 18 months or will Bruce Sales Guy Chisen give us the 'non-trivial' intel port and say, 'well...alot of work just went into the port...' (Because we should have heaved our fat code off Code Warrior into X-Code years ago?)
Fact is, if it added brush tools and layers? (Well, that can come with version 2....) Along with Automator?
I could see myself using this beautiful program rather than photoshop.
It's ironic that Aperture is more Photoshop than Photoshop is. It sings with a pure mission brief...
5, 6, 7, 8, 9. That's five upgrades since Version 4 (which I still rate...) And what innovation has Adobe given us for that £2,500?
So, because I don't see the world through Melgross eyes I'm 'trolling'.
I think the 'improvements' since version 4 have been largely cosmetic in a 'sales'/gamesmanship kind of way...and feature clutter..? The interface?
Don't get me wrong...if Photoshop was a woman? I'd shag her...
...but if Aperture is going where I think it is? I'd marry her...
Lemon Bon Bon
PS. Qualify you statements with links. Kim Kap Sol asked you to validfy your argument. You've failed to do so. So your statement is unqualified. He's not being an 'ass' for asking you do so.
You know nothing about Photoshop, for instance.
How do you know that? Do you KNOW Kim?
I own Photoshop? It's my favourite Mac app. Do I not know what I'm talking about either?
For now, Aperture is complimentry (heh...'yeah, right...') but if it improves like Final Cut Pro improved...Photoshop could be in serious trouble come version 4 of Aperture...
I think Apple might have been dicked off with Bruce Chizen once too often...
Quark was invulnerable once. Now? Indesign is giving it a right kicking.
No program is invulnerable. Not Word. Not Quark. Not Photoshop. History shows otherwise.
Complacent monopolies...shrivel over time...from the top down....
Lemon Bon Bon
PS. Adobe couldn't compete in several media areas with Macromedia. So they bought them out. We'll see if they innovate with that. I'm guessing it will be just a bundle job with the Creative Suite. Call Xreative Suite 1 or something...
Apple have bought programs. But they have innovated with that core tech'.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
I'll ask one more time...prove your earlier assertions. If you don't, you don't know what you're talking about.
You really are a something, but I'll try to find information as I can, after all, we're only talking about 8 years ago.
This doesn't come near to explaining the complete changeover Adobe made, but it's a start. He just makes a brief reference to it.
http://www.atpm.com/4.08/page18.shtml
If I have time I'll try to find more at some point.
Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon
PS. Qualify you statements with links. Kim Kap Sol asked you to validfy your argument. You've failed to do so. So your statement is unqualified. He's not being an 'ass' for asking you do so. [/B]
I like a good argument . But when you guys just make unprovoked stements, that's not helpful.
Lemon Bon Bon
PS. "stements"? Unprovoked? You called someone an 'ass'. And speaking of provoking... You're still here, aintcha?
PPS. Maybe you'll have to accept the fact that not everybody sees things as you do.