Is it really the case that wedding and event photographers shooting digital shouldn't be expected to have at least a dual G5 at this point? $4000 (for computer plus monitor) doesn't strike me as a lot for the technology at the core of a studio's image production operations. I don't think the intent is to capture to the computer in the field. If I were a wedding photographer, I'd think I'd be shooting on multiple cards and backing up to an Epson P-4000 or other HDD based file vault while on location and would then transfer to the computer back in the studio.
True, whilst I am not a photographer, I have been in events where they are and they usually carry many, many lenses, and even a couple differant bodies as well as extra cards and batteries...a laptop on site would almost requier a second man, do most photographers (outside of those doing major spreads for huge publications) have on site assistance?
True, whilst I am not a photographer, I have been in events where they are and they usually carry many, many lenses, and even a couple differant bodies as well as extra cards and batteries...a laptop on site would almost requier a second man, do most photographers (outside of those doing major spreads for huge publications) have on site assistance?
I can only speak from my experience in the business with my customers. These guys may have several lenses, but not many many.They buy 20D's or even Rebels, or Nikon equiv. I've had to pull them kicking and screaming into the digital world in the first place. Most of them have small iMacs or an iBook. Many have the cameras but not the computers. They bring their memory cards to us to do the work. These guys don't make much money. There are more successful ones as well but most are just doing this for a living. No different than most people. They don't want to know much about the computer. For a lot of them, it's an unwelcome, but necessary evil.
You can't imagine how many had told me that they would be retired before digital becomes mainstream, only to come and ask for advice about it a year or two later.
It's not a put down, it's just a reality of the business. Younger guys are more willing to invest than the older ones who look upon the whole thing with suspicion.
They also don't understand why they have to upgrade their equipment. They never had to before. A new lens maybe, or a new body or flash when they get too old, but that's it. This idea of spending money on a regular basis has them shook up.
I've had several guys buy an all in one camera for $1,000 and complain that the pics weren't as good as from film. They think they should be because it costs more than their film camera with a lens or two. The pricing model has gotten them confused.
What I've found is that the photogs who were interested in the computer anyway are the one's who change the most, but the ones who aren't find it difficult. Remember that most people have older PC's. So while a photog might HAVE a computer, (s)he might not enjoy using it the way we do, and so isn't thrilled when told that this is the way to go.
I don't mean to be depressing, but we are not representative of most people. We get joy out of it. Most people slog through with virus's, trojan horses, spyware, etc. so when they do get started they are not always "with it".
I'm sure that this will change as time goes on and these guys retire. But many of these guys are in their 40's. They start out tentatively, with inexpensive equipment. I suggest they get a Mac, but they want to stick with their PC It's a struggle.
Now, don't flame me! This is what I see in the business. We've had many hundreds of customers. Thousands over 28 years. Most photog's don't like something new. I've actually had guys sweat when we told them that their favorite film had just been discontinued.
So, what I'm saying is that few of these guys are going out and buying PM's with high end boards and 23" monitors. Some will.
melgross and TenoBell - please do something about your egregious apostrophes. The plural of photographer is simply "photographers" and camera is simply "cameras".
Why does everyone on planet Earth suddenly put apostrophes into every other word? You might as well insert an asterisk or question mark. One cow, two cows. Got it?
Back on topic: Aperture rocks.
It is not a PS competitor. Anyone complaining about the price or system requirements is not in the target market. Pros will eat this program up.
The guys at the show were clearly uncomfortable when I asked about performance with older machines and PB's. That was when I asked about the 128MB RAM for the card.
What strikes me as strange is that the group who would benefit most from this program are going to have the machines least capabile of using it (wedding and event people), while those needing it the least (commercial and fashion studiios) will have the machines able to use it best.
The only thing I can think of is that we will have to grow into it over the next couple of years as machines speed up.
Motion on my PowerBook G4 is fine - I'm expecting this to be too. I'm going to take a series of RAW photos over the next few days and burn onto a CD for testing a PowerBook system at the Apple store. That's the only way of really knowing.
What I've found is that the photogs who were interested in the computer anyway are the one's who change the most, but the ones who aren't find it difficult. Remember that most people have older PC's. So while a photog might HAVE a computer, (s)he might not enjoy using it the way we do, and so isn't thrilled when told that this is the way to go.
But isn't this exactly who Apple is targeting? Professionals who don't want to bother with PC incompatibilities and drivers and the complexity of a Photoshop-based raw workflow?
Tell 'em to buy the low-end dual core Mac for $1999 and a Dell 24-inch monitor for under a grand on sale. Easy, and not too expensive for a professional.
There's no worry about converting raw images before use. And Aperture will let them use a loupe and a light table, and group photos into stacks...
But isn't this exactly who Apple is targeting? Professionals who don't want to bother with PC incompatibilities and drivers and the complexity of a Photoshop-based raw workflow?
Tell 'em to buy the low-end dual core Mac for $1999 and a Dell 24-inch monitor for under a grand on sale. Easy, and not too expensive for a professional.
There's no worry about converting raw images before use. And Aperture will let them use a loupe and a light table, and group photos into stacks...
It's just like the old days with film.
I've never used film (well a little at college) and love the look of this integrated solution - I usually catalogue in iPhoto and edit in photoshop but the integrated tools like pretty good - I just hope changes made in photshop can be added to the stacks etc. automatically - I know Aperture does support PSD. I can't wait to buy this program - now to find the money!
I can only speak from my experience in the business with my customers. These guys may have several lenses, but not many many.They buy 20D's or even Rebels, or Nikon equiv. I've had to pull them kicking and screaming into the digital world in the first place. Most of them have small iMacs or an iBook. Many have the cameras but not the computers. They bring their memory cards to us to do the work. These guys don't make much money. There are more successful ones as well but most are just doing this for a living. No different than most people. They don't want to know much about the computer. For a lot of them, it's an unwelcome, but necessary evil.
You can't imagine how many had told me that they would be retired before digital becomes mainstream, only to come and ask for advice about it a year or two later.
It's not a put down, it's just a reality of the business. Younger guys are more willing to invest than the older ones who look upon the whole thing with suspicion.
They also don't understand why they have to upgrade their equipment. They never had to before. A new lens maybe, or a new body or flash when they get too old, but that's it. This idea of spending money on a regular basis has them shook up.
I've had several guys buy an all in one camera for $1,000 and complain that the pics weren't as good as from film. They think they should be because it costs more than their film camera with a lens or two. The pricing model has gotten them confused.
What I've found is that the photogs who were interested in the computer anyway are the one's who change the most, but the ones who aren't find it difficult. Remember that most people have older PC's. So while a photog might HAVE a computer, (s)he might not enjoy using it the way we do, and so isn't thrilled when told that this is the way to go.
I don't mean to be depressing, but we are not representative of most people. We get joy out of it. Most people slog through with virus's, trojan horses, spyware, etc. so when they do get started they are not always "with it".
I'm sure that this will change as time goes on and these guys retire. But many of these guys are in their 40's. They start out tentatively, with inexpensive equipment. I suggest they get a Mac, but they want to stick with their PC It's a struggle.
Now, don't flame me! This is what I see in the business. We've had many hundreds of customers. Thousands over 28 years. Most photog's don't like something new. I've actually had guys sweat when we told them that their favorite film had just been discontinued.
So, what I'm saying is that few of these guys are going out and buying PM's with high end boards and 23" monitors. Some will.
So I think I see why you are so defensive about any threat to Photoshop. A true revolution might cost you customers.
I bet CoreData is the beginning of a 'versioning' system. I bet that 10.5 will bring some radical new way to use the computer.
Programs that use CoreData will allow a single file to contain all it's versioning info. No amount of changes will be permanent and people will be able to flip flop between versions very easily and track all the changes they've made.
PS...Another program that supposedly will use CoreData is Sandvox.
Core Data is a persistent-data layer. It allows developers to use the same code to write data out to an xml file, binary file, or SQLite database. And while Core Data does provide undo management, Core Data offers no functionality for persisting undo stacks across user sessions. The versioning engine in Aperture is in addition to its use of Core Data not because of it.
I do like this train of thought though. It will be interesting to see how Apple will refactor Aperture's versioning functionality for re-use across the line-up.
melgross and TenoBell - please do something about your egregious apostrophes. The plural of photographer is simply "photographers" and camera is simply "cameras".
Why does everyone on planet Earth suddenly put apostrophes into every other word? You might as well insert an asterisk or question mark. One cow, two cows. Got it?
Back on topic: Aperture rocks.
It is not a PS competitor. Anyone complaining about the price or system requirements is not in the target market. Pros will eat this program up.
If you can actually find something useful in the post to comment upon, that would be good.
If I complained about all of the grammatical errors, spelling errors, and punctuation errors in posts, I would have no space left to say anything else.
Perhaps then, you should filter everyone's posts through your spell checker before you read them.
As a long as a post is coherent there's no need to criticise grammar.
Getting back to Aperture it looks sooooo cool! I think this is basically iPhoto on steroids as originally rumoured. I love the zoom feature, stacks, different versions etc. I can't wait to buy it!
Motion on my PowerBook G4 is fine - I'm expecting this to be too. I'm going to take a series of RAW photos over the next few days and burn onto a CD for testing a PowerBook system at the Apple store. That's the only way of really knowing.
Motion won't install if your cpu is less than an 867MHz G4. Above that it will work. 1.25GHz is ok, but not great. If you read the reviews of Motion, such as the one in DV magazine, which is one often read by pros, you will see that:
"CPU requirements are very steep." I can second that.
It seems from Apple's demo's that the requirements for Aperture are at least as high, as they are recommending at least a 1.25GHz cpu in a PB, and that it won't run (as Apple's reps told me) if your graphics board doesn't have 128MB RAM.
Why does everyone on planet Earth suddenly put apostrophes into every other word? You might as well insert an asterisk or question mark. One cow, two cows. Got it?
Motion won't install if your cpu is less than an 867MHz G4. Above that it will work. 1.25GHz is ok, but not great. If you read the reviews of Motion, such as the one in DV magazine, which is one often read by pros, you will see that:
"CPU requirements are very steep." I can second that.
It seems from Apple's demo's that the requirements for Aperture are at least as high, as they are recommending at least a 1.25GHz cpu in a PB, and that it won't run (as Apple's reps told me) if your graphics board doesn't have 128MB RAM.
128 MB VRAM is steep but I think considering three of Apple's lines can run this program it's not that bad. Yeah it would be great if they would let iBook users have a go but the performance would probably be so that they don't want users having a bad user experience. Of course it could just be to drive new hardware sales! This program, unlike Motion, is designed for photo editing and therefore should be less processor intensive than video?
One thing I want to know is does this program have dual binaries.
But isn't this exactly who Apple is targeting? Professionals who don't want to bother with PC incompatibilities and drivers and the complexity of a Photoshop-based raw workflow?
Tell 'em to buy the low-end dual core Mac for $1999 and a Dell 24-inch monitor for under a grand on sale. Easy, and not too expensive for a professional.
There's no worry about converting raw images before use. And Aperture will let them use a loupe and a light table, and group photos into stacks...
It's just like the old days with film.
It is. But that's why I can't understand why they are showing it ONLY on the new Quad Macs with dual 30" monitors, with most likely Nvidia Quadro boards that are a $1,650 upgrade. Someone else here who also went to the show and sat in the class as I did said that it seemed a bit slow on the dual cpu units with single 23" monitors we used there.
Apple could have also demoe'd it on a 20" iMac, and a 1.67GHz PM.
Don't you agree?
They seemed to be far more interested in pulling the high end photogs in than the little guy.
Each machine used for the demo was a $3,300 unit with, no doubt, several Gigs of RAM, a top of the line board, and two $2,500 monitors. What would be the cost? I get $11,150, not including tax or shipping. This includes 2GB RAM and the cost of the program itself.
Do you think that this was intended to appeal to guys who likely don't earn more than three or four times that, because most don't.
So I think I see why you are so defensive about any threat to Photoshop. A true revolution might cost you customers.
I'm not defensive, I'm realistic. How long have you been in the business?
If you read all the posts you would understand my position.
If you read my profile, you would know that I'm retired, I gain nothing from my posts in any financial sense.
Last year, my partner and I sold off most of the lab, and then closed the rest. I had had enough. I'll be 56 in Nov. and wanted to get out of the daily grind that was becoming increasingly more of a hassle. I now advise, consult, lecture, teach, and can do it on my own schedule instead of worrying about deadlines.
If anything, Aperture will give me another area to investigate. I already said that I would purchase it.
Then there are a number of ways to view this history...I dunno which would be best but the one that pops into my mind is a little history 'slider' that lets you go back and forth on the changes with the 'bookmarks' as guides to where you should put the slider to see the state of the file at that very time.
I could imagine that sort of file history mechanism integrated with something like Onlife's application history.
One thing I want to know is does this program have dual binaries.
Highly doubtful Apple will ship any software products as universal binaries to non-developers before the first non-DTK Intel-based systems are available.
Of course it could just be to drive new hardware sales! This program, unlike Motion, is designed for photo editing and therefore should be less processor intensive than video?
One thing I want to know is does this program have dual binaries. [/B]
Don't put it past them.
You would think that it would need less oomph. But if you saw the way they were demoing and using it in the class room you might not think that. Everything was being done in real time, though the demo's were faster than the class, which had small, but noticeable delays. You would drag a photo, and it would take a fraction of a second before it followed your cursor. Something like when you resize a window in OS X on a slower machine. The quads didn't have this effect.
I don't think that there is any question that Apple has a universal binary for this. Whether the x86 part is ready yet is anyones guess.
I've never used film (well a little at college) and love the look of this integrated solution - I usually cataliPhoton iPhoto and photoshopphotoshopmade in photshop can be added to the stacks etc. automatically -photshopAperture does support PSD. I can't wait to buy this program - now to find the money!
I don't see how Aperture could know what sort of edits you have done while in Photoshop (it can tell that it is modified, but not in what way) so it wouldn't be able to apply them to multiple images. You would have to bring the whole stack into Photoshop and then do some sort of group apply there.
Another thing I just thought of: Using Photoshop from Aperture would ruin the process of CoreData, since Aperture does not know the mechanism by CoreDataotoshop is editing the picture, Aperture must make a copy of the image so as not to ruin the master.
Comments
Originally posted by Osakans
Is it really the case that wedding and event photographers shooting digital shouldn't be expected to have at least a dual G5 at this point? $4000 (for computer plus monitor) doesn't strike me as a lot for the technology at the core of a studio's image production operations. I don't think the intent is to capture to the computer in the field. If I were a wedding photographer, I'd think I'd be shooting on multiple cards and backing up to an Epson P-4000 or other HDD based file vault while on location and would then transfer to the computer back in the studio.
True, whilst I am not a photographer, I have been in events where they are and they usually carry many, many lenses, and even a couple differant bodies as well as extra cards and batteries...a laptop on site would almost requier a second man, do most photographers (outside of those doing major spreads for huge publications) have on site assistance?
Originally posted by a_greer
True, whilst I am not a photographer, I have been in events where they are and they usually carry many, many lenses, and even a couple differant bodies as well as extra cards and batteries...a laptop on site would almost requier a second man, do most photographers (outside of those doing major spreads for huge publications) have on site assistance?
I can only speak from my experience in the business with my customers. These guys may have several lenses, but not many many.They buy 20D's or even Rebels, or Nikon equiv. I've had to pull them kicking and screaming into the digital world in the first place. Most of them have small iMacs or an iBook. Many have the cameras but not the computers. They bring their memory cards to us to do the work. These guys don't make much money. There are more successful ones as well but most are just doing this for a living. No different than most people. They don't want to know much about the computer. For a lot of them, it's an unwelcome, but necessary evil.
You can't imagine how many had told me that they would be retired before digital becomes mainstream, only to come and ask for advice about it a year or two later.
It's not a put down, it's just a reality of the business. Younger guys are more willing to invest than the older ones who look upon the whole thing with suspicion.
They also don't understand why they have to upgrade their equipment. They never had to before. A new lens maybe, or a new body or flash when they get too old, but that's it. This idea of spending money on a regular basis has them shook up.
I've had several guys buy an all in one camera for $1,000 and complain that the pics weren't as good as from film. They think they should be because it costs more than their film camera with a lens or two. The pricing model has gotten them confused.
What I've found is that the photogs who were interested in the computer anyway are the one's who change the most, but the ones who aren't find it difficult. Remember that most people have older PC's. So while a photog might HAVE a computer, (s)he might not enjoy using it the way we do, and so isn't thrilled when told that this is the way to go.
I don't mean to be depressing, but we are not representative of most people. We get joy out of it. Most people slog through with virus's, trojan horses, spyware, etc. so when they do get started they are not always "with it".
I'm sure that this will change as time goes on and these guys retire. But many of these guys are in their 40's. They start out tentatively, with inexpensive equipment. I suggest they get a Mac, but they want to stick with their PC It's a struggle.
Now, don't flame me! This is what I see in the business. We've had many hundreds of customers. Thousands over 28 years. Most photog's don't like something new. I've actually had guys sweat when we told them that their favorite film had just been discontinued.
So, what I'm saying is that few of these guys are going out and buying PM's with high end boards and 23" monitors. Some will.
Why does everyone on planet Earth suddenly put apostrophes into every other word? You might as well insert an asterisk or question mark. One cow, two cows. Got it?
Back on topic: Aperture rocks.
It is not a PS competitor. Anyone complaining about the price or system requirements is not in the target market. Pros will eat this program up.
Originally posted by melgross
The guys at the show were clearly uncomfortable when I asked about performance with older machines and PB's. That was when I asked about the 128MB RAM for the card.
What strikes me as strange is that the group who would benefit most from this program are going to have the machines least capabile of using it (wedding and event people), while those needing it the least (commercial and fashion studiios) will have the machines able to use it best.
The only thing I can think of is that we will have to grow into it over the next couple of years as machines speed up.
Motion on my PowerBook G4 is fine - I'm expecting this to be too. I'm going to take a series of RAW photos over the next few days and burn onto a CD for testing a PowerBook system at the Apple store. That's the only way of really knowing.
Originally posted by Ensign Pulver
Anyone complaining about the price or system requirements is not in the target market. Pros will eat this program up.
Not sure I totally agree with you - lots of pros have PowerBooks. Butr I do agree this program looks immense.
Originally posted by melgross
What I've found is that the photogs who were interested in the computer anyway are the one's who change the most, but the ones who aren't find it difficult. Remember that most people have older PC's. So while a photog might HAVE a computer, (s)he might not enjoy using it the way we do, and so isn't thrilled when told that this is the way to go.
But isn't this exactly who Apple is targeting? Professionals who don't want to bother with PC incompatibilities and drivers and the complexity of a Photoshop-based raw workflow?
Tell 'em to buy the low-end dual core Mac for $1999 and a Dell 24-inch monitor for under a grand on sale. Easy, and not too expensive for a professional.
There's no worry about converting raw images before use. And Aperture will let them use a loupe and a light table, and group photos into stacks...
It's just like the old days with film.
Originally posted by bikertwin
But isn't this exactly who Apple is targeting? Professionals who don't want to bother with PC incompatibilities and drivers and the complexity of a Photoshop-based raw workflow?
Tell 'em to buy the low-end dual core Mac for $1999 and a Dell 24-inch monitor for under a grand on sale. Easy, and not too expensive for a professional.
There's no worry about converting raw images before use. And Aperture will let them use a loupe and a light table, and group photos into stacks...
It's just like the old days with film.
I've never used film (well a little at college) and love the look of this integrated solution - I usually catalogue in iPhoto and edit in photoshop but the integrated tools like pretty good - I just hope changes made in photshop can be added to the stacks etc. automatically - I know Aperture does support PSD. I can't wait to buy this program - now to find the money!
Originally posted by melgross
I can only speak from my experience in the business with my customers. These guys may have several lenses, but not many many.They buy 20D's or even Rebels, or Nikon equiv. I've had to pull them kicking and screaming into the digital world in the first place. Most of them have small iMacs or an iBook. Many have the cameras but not the computers. They bring their memory cards to us to do the work. These guys don't make much money. There are more successful ones as well but most are just doing this for a living. No different than most people. They don't want to know much about the computer. For a lot of them, it's an unwelcome, but necessary evil.
You can't imagine how many had told me that they would be retired before digital becomes mainstream, only to come and ask for advice about it a year or two later.
It's not a put down, it's just a reality of the business. Younger guys are more willing to invest than the older ones who look upon the whole thing with suspicion.
They also don't understand why they have to upgrade their equipment. They never had to before. A new lens maybe, or a new body or flash when they get too old, but that's it. This idea of spending money on a regular basis has them shook up.
I've had several guys buy an all in one camera for $1,000 and complain that the pics weren't as good as from film. They think they should be because it costs more than their film camera with a lens or two. The pricing model has gotten them confused.
What I've found is that the photogs who were interested in the computer anyway are the one's who change the most, but the ones who aren't find it difficult. Remember that most people have older PC's. So while a photog might HAVE a computer, (s)he might not enjoy using it the way we do, and so isn't thrilled when told that this is the way to go.
I don't mean to be depressing, but we are not representative of most people. We get joy out of it. Most people slog through with virus's, trojan horses, spyware, etc. so when they do get started they are not always "with it".
I'm sure that this will change as time goes on and these guys retire. But many of these guys are in their 40's. They start out tentatively, with inexpensive equipment. I suggest they get a Mac, but they want to stick with their PC It's a struggle.
Now, don't flame me! This is what I see in the business. We've had many hundreds of customers. Thousands over 28 years. Most photog's don't like something new. I've actually had guys sweat when we told them that their favorite film had just been discontinued.
So, what I'm saying is that few of these guys are going out and buying PM's with high end boards and 23" monitors. Some will.
So I think I see why you are so defensive about any threat to Photoshop. A true revolution might cost you customers.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
Well...the SQL part is CoreData.
...
I bet CoreData is the beginning of a 'versioning' system. I bet that 10.5 will bring some radical new way to use the computer.
Programs that use CoreData will allow a single file to contain all it's versioning info. No amount of changes will be permanent and people will be able to flip flop between versions very easily and track all the changes they've made.
PS...Another program that supposedly will use CoreData is Sandvox.
Core Data is a persistent-data layer. It allows developers to use the same code to write data out to an xml file, binary file, or SQLite database. And while Core Data does provide undo management, Core Data offers no functionality for persisting undo stacks across user sessions. The versioning engine in Aperture is in addition to its use of Core Data not because of it.
I do like this train of thought though. It will be interesting to see how Apple will refactor Aperture's versioning functionality for re-use across the line-up.
Originally posted by Ensign Pulver
melgross and TenoBell - please do something about your egregious apostrophes. The plural of photographer is simply "photographers" and camera is simply "cameras".
Why does everyone on planet Earth suddenly put apostrophes into every other word? You might as well insert an asterisk or question mark. One cow, two cows. Got it?
Back on topic: Aperture rocks.
It is not a PS competitor. Anyone complaining about the price or system requirements is not in the target market. Pros will eat this program up.
If you can actually find something useful in the post to comment upon, that would be good.
If I complained about all of the grammatical errors, spelling errors, and punctuation errors in posts, I would have no space left to say anything else.
Perhaps then, you should filter everyone's posts through your spell checker before you read them.
Getting back to Aperture it looks sooooo cool! I think this is basically iPhoto on steroids as originally rumoured. I love the zoom feature, stacks, different versions etc. I can't wait to buy it!
Originally posted by MacCrazy
Motion on my PowerBook G4 is fine - I'm expecting this to be too. I'm going to take a series of RAW photos over the next few days and burn onto a CD for testing a PowerBook system at the Apple store. That's the only way of really knowing.
Motion won't install if your cpu is less than an 867MHz G4. Above that it will work. 1.25GHz is ok, but not great. If you read the reviews of Motion, such as the one in DV magazine, which is one often read by pros, you will see that:
"CPU requirements are very steep." I can second that.
It seems from Apple's demo's that the requirements for Aperture are at least as high, as they are recommending at least a 1.25GHz cpu in a PB, and that it won't run (as Apple's reps told me) if your graphics board doesn't have 128MB RAM.
Originally posted by Ensign Pulver
Why does everyone on planet Earth suddenly put apostrophes into every other word? You might as well insert an asterisk or question mark. One cow, two cows. Got it?
Lesson #2, lose vs. loose?
Originally posted by melgross
Motion won't install if your cpu is less than an 867MHz G4. Above that it will work. 1.25GHz is ok, but not great. If you read the reviews of Motion, such as the one in DV magazine, which is one often read by pros, you will see that:
"CPU requirements are very steep." I can second that.
It seems from Apple's demo's that the requirements for Aperture are at least as high, as they are recommending at least a 1.25GHz cpu in a PB, and that it won't run (as Apple's reps told me) if your graphics board doesn't have 128MB RAM.
128 MB VRAM is steep but I think considering three of Apple's lines can run this program it's not that bad. Yeah it would be great if they would let iBook users have a go but the performance would probably be so that they don't want users having a bad user experience. Of course it could just be to drive new hardware sales! This program, unlike Motion, is designed for photo editing and therefore should be less processor intensive than video?
One thing I want to know is does this program have dual binaries.
Originally posted by bikertwin
But isn't this exactly who Apple is targeting? Professionals who don't want to bother with PC incompatibilities and drivers and the complexity of a Photoshop-based raw workflow?
Tell 'em to buy the low-end dual core Mac for $1999 and a Dell 24-inch monitor for under a grand on sale. Easy, and not too expensive for a professional.
There's no worry about converting raw images before use. And Aperture will let them use a loupe and a light table, and group photos into stacks...
It's just like the old days with film.
It is. But that's why I can't understand why they are showing it ONLY on the new Quad Macs with dual 30" monitors, with most likely Nvidia Quadro boards that are a $1,650 upgrade. Someone else here who also went to the show and sat in the class as I did said that it seemed a bit slow on the dual cpu units with single 23" monitors we used there.
Apple could have also demoe'd it on a 20" iMac, and a 1.67GHz PM.
Don't you agree?
They seemed to be far more interested in pulling the high end photogs in than the little guy.
Each machine used for the demo was a $3,300 unit with, no doubt, several Gigs of RAM, a top of the line board, and two $2,500 monitors. What would be the cost? I get $11,150, not including tax or shipping. This includes 2GB RAM and the cost of the program itself.
Do you think that this was intended to appeal to guys who likely don't earn more than three or four times that, because most don't.
Originally posted by murk
So I think I see why you are so defensive about any threat to Photoshop. A true revolution might cost you customers.
I'm not defensive, I'm realistic. How long have you been in the business?
If you read all the posts you would understand my position.
If you read my profile, you would know that I'm retired, I gain nothing from my posts in any financial sense.
Last year, my partner and I sold off most of the lab, and then closed the rest. I had had enough. I'll be 56 in Nov. and wanted to get out of the daily grind that was becoming increasingly more of a hassle. I now advise, consult, lecture, teach, and can do it on my own schedule instead of worrying about deadlines.
If anything, Aperture will give me another area to investigate. I already said that I would purchase it.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
Then there are a number of ways to view this history...I dunno which would be best but the one that pops into my mind is a little history 'slider' that lets you go back and forth on the changes with the 'bookmarks' as guides to where you should put the slider to see the state of the file at that very time.
I could imagine that sort of file history mechanism integrated with something like Onlife's application history.
Originally posted by MacCrazy
One thing I want to know is does this program have dual binaries.
Highly doubtful Apple will ship any software products as universal binaries to non-developers before the first non-DTK Intel-based systems are available.
Originally posted by MacCrazy
Of course it could just be to drive new hardware sales! This program, unlike Motion, is designed for photo editing and therefore should be less processor intensive than video?
One thing I want to know is does this program have dual binaries. [/B]
Don't put it past them.
You would think that it would need less oomph. But if you saw the way they were demoing and using it in the class room you might not think that. Everything was being done in real time, though the demo's were faster than the class, which had small, but noticeable delays. You would drag a photo, and it would take a fraction of a second before it followed your cursor. Something like when you resize a window in OS X on a slower machine. The quads didn't have this effect.
I don't think that there is any question that Apple has a universal binary for this. Whether the x86 part is ready yet is anyones guess.
Originally posted by MacCrazyMacCrazy
I've never used film (well a little at college) and love the look of this integrated solution - I usually cataliPhoton iPhoto and photoshopphotoshopmade in photshop can be added to the stacks etc. automatically -photshopAperture does support PSD. I can't wait to buy this program - now to find the money!
I don't see how Aperture could know what sort of edits you have done while in Photoshop (it can tell that it is modified, but not in what way) so it wouldn't be able to apply them to multiple images. You would have to bring the whole stack into Photoshop and then do some sort of group apply there.
Another thing I just thought of: Using Photoshop from Aperture would ruin the process of CoreData, since Aperture does not know the mechanism by CoreDataotoshop is editing the picture, Aperture must make a copy of the image so as not to ruin the master.