Except it doesn't support RAW files from quite a lot of important cameras! And the DNG support is flaky as well!
None of the semi- pro or pro converter programs support all RAW cameras. That's almost impossible. But, they add cameras every few months. Apple just added more, as did Adobe, and Photo Mechanic.
Updated to 1.51; it is much better. The loupe had been really jumpy on my G5 dual core, but not it is smooth. Now if they would just accept RAW data from my new Canon; supposedly the hyave added it, but I haven't checked with any new images (it does not work with previously imported one).
For me, my Canon XTi photos come in a little underexposed and not sharp enough. A preset takes care of this and I also make good use of the shadows enhancer (lots of my shots are in mountainous valleys where there are wide varieties in lighting). Tonight I will be setting up storage on external HDs, which Aperture allows.
Apple's DNG support is lacking because there are essentially two kinds of DNG files: There are DNG files which contain the original Bayer sensor readout from the RAW file, and there are DNG files that have been converted to linear mode (not totally sure what that means). The second option is meant to ensure that you can use your DNG files with an application even if that application does not support the bayer matrix in your camera... It's a compatibility option - and Apple simply doesn't support linear DNG files.
So, essentially, Apple only supports DNG files made from supported RAW files, which eliminates one of the main advantages of DNG - improved compatibility and being able to use raw data in applications that haven't been patched to support your specific camera.
Apple's DNG support is lacking because there are essentially two kinds of DNG files: There are DNG files which contain the original Bayer sensor readout from the RAW file, and there are DNG files that have been converted to linear mode (not totally sure what that means). The second option is meant to ensure that you can use your DNG files with an application even if that application does not support the bayer matrix in your camera... It's a compatibility option - and Apple simply doesn't support linear DNG files.
So, essentially, Apple only supports DNG files made from supported RAW files, which eliminates one of the main advantages of DNG - improved compatibility and being able to use raw data in applications that haven't been patched to support your specific camera.
rminkler, if your response was in reply to my question.
Considering the lack of a standard and the ongoing debates surrounding DNG, I just don't think that it is appropriate that Apple be centred out.
To me, Aperature is like many of Apple's phenomenons, that has triggered others to partake and either enhance its development and/or solicit others. Developing a solution to satisfy everybody is impossible. Giving one a choice go or bad, is not giving license to maliciously critique it as the language used by some seem to be doing.
Apple's DNG support is lacking because there are essentially two kinds of DNG files: There are DNG files which contain the original Bayer sensor readout from the RAW file, and there are DNG files that have been converted to linear mode (not totally sure what that means). The second option is meant to ensure that you can use your DNG files with an application even if that application does not support the bayer matrix in your camera... It's a compatibility option - and Apple simply doesn't support linear DNG files.
So, essentially, Apple only supports DNG files made from supported RAW files, which eliminates one of the main advantages of DNG - improved compatibility and being able to use raw data in applications that haven't been patched to support your specific camera.
DNG Linear is retarded: at that point, you just have a TIFF file.
Why create a new file format for something that contains the same exact data as the most compatible lossless file format on the planet?
JeffDM: There are some functions in Aperture that are fantastic that are not in iPhoto, and Aperture works great with jpeg (at the moment it doesn't read my cam's RAW output, so I am using it to work with my jpeg images).
The one funtion I am finding the most useful (outside of sharpen which I apply to every image as a default) is the adjust brightness and darkness of shadows. I live in a rather mountainous area and it is common for images to have bright sunlight at the top but dark shadow at the bottom, sometimes to the degree that the bottom is not very visible. Using Aperture, I can adjust all of this to make a clear photo with ease. Most importantly, I have things set to create a version of the phot to be edited, so the original stays unchanged incase Idon't like what I do to it.
Anybody try Aperture on a MacBook, yet? I'm planning to upgrade my old PB 15 (1.5GHz G4) and wisht to save the cash and go for the MB. I do not do intensive editing, but would like to have a first good look at my images in a coffee shot on the day of the shoot.
JeffDM: There are some functions in Aperture that are fantastic that are not in iPhoto, and Aperture works great with jpeg (at the moment it doesn't read my cam's RAW output, so I am using it to work with my jpeg images).
The one funtion I am finding the most useful (outside of sharpen which I apply to every image as a default) is the adjust brightness and darkness of shadows. I live in a rather mountainous area and it is common for images to have bright sunlight at the top but dark shadow at the bottom, sometimes to the degree that the bottom is not very visible. Using Aperture, I can adjust all of this to make a clear photo with ease. Most importantly, I have things set to create a version of the phot to be edited, so the original stays unchanged incase Idon't like what I do to it.
Anybody try Aperture on a MacBook, yet? I'm planning to upgrade my old PB 15 (1.5GHz G4) and wisht to save the cash and go for the MB. I do not do intensive editing, but would like to have a first good look at my images in a coffee shot on the day of the shoot.
Unfortunately, it's those very functions, sharpen, and high light/shadow correction that are the most poorly implemented in Aperture.
Mmmm... they work well enough for me and they are within the app, so I don't need to launch PS; can do everything in one package, but I know that there is auto save or something like that so I will give it a try (PS, that is, form within Aperture).
I have honestly never really used PS, but I will have a try now that I have a new camera that is too much for iPhoto.
Mmmm... they work well enough for me and they are within the app, so I don't need to launch PS; can do everything in one package, but I know that there is auto save or something like that so I will give it a try (PS, that is, form within Aperture).
I have honestly never really used PS, but I will have a try now that I have a new camera that is too much for iPhoto.
As long as you don't require the highest quality, then it's fine.
I'm not a professional photographer and I also no longer get an academic discount on Adobe, which is a major factor in my choice to use Aperture. Organization, simplicity are others. I also simply like the UI better, but that is personal choice. Just want to make my photos look a little better than when they are imported (they all come in slightly under exposed and not as sharp as I would like) and to be able to organize them well and quickly compare between a couple of images when choosing which to print, all fo which Aperature does great for me.
Melgross: would you recommened a MB or a MBP for running Aperature in the field for lite editing but mainly just having a preview of the images taken and to give me something to do while I enjoy a cofffee? Or I should rephrase: how well will Aperature fair on a new Core 2 Duo MacBook?
I'm not a professional photographer and I also no longer get an academic discount on Adobe, which is a major factor in my choice to use Aperture. Organization, simplicity are others. I also simply like the UI better, but that is personal choice. Just want to make my photos look a little better than when they are imported (they all come in slightly under exposed and not as sharp as I would like) and to be able to organize them well and quickly compare between a couple of images when choosing which to print, all fo which Aperature does great for me.
Melgross: would you recommened a MB or a MBP for running Aperture in the field for lite editing but mainly just having a preview of the images taken and to give me something to do while I enjoy a cofffee? Or I should rephrase: how well will Aperature fair on a new Core 2 Duo MacBook?
What we saw at the Pro Photo Expo, here in NYC last week was the MBP running Aperture. They didn't, as far as I know have any Mac Book there. Even if they did it would have been the old model, even though the show would have been a good place to intro it, if it did run Aperture well. But, it's not a pro machine, so they didn't.
It seems to be a pretty fast machine, as long as you get a 2 GHz or faster chip with the 4MB of cache rather than the 1.83 and slower with the 2 MB.
Also you would need 2 GB RAM for best performance, particularly if Rosetta is important now. It really does run much faster with 2 GB.
If you are not doing pro work, you probably don't need the fastest machine, because you are not on a deadline, where your reputation is at stake. Therefore, a Mac Book should be fine.
The other thing is related to screen rez, and size. As you will see on the page linked to below, there is a big difference between the screens. Whatever you get, the screen will be very different. The Mac Book has only a glossy screen, not one I prefer for serious work, but possibly better for viewing DVD's where reflections aren't a problem. The screen is also smaller, and has less resolution on the Mac Books.
That's all up to you. If you don't mind scrolling around a lot, and magnifying a lot as well, then the smaller screen will also be fine.
Comments
Except it doesn't support RAW files from quite a lot of important cameras! And the DNG support is flaky as well!
None of the semi- pro or pro converter programs support all RAW cameras. That's almost impossible. But, they add cameras every few months. Apple just added more, as did Adobe, and Photo Mechanic.
For me, my Canon XTi photos come in a little underexposed and not sharp enough. A preset takes care of this and I also make good use of the shadows enhancer (lots of my shots are in mountainous valleys where there are wide varieties in lighting). Tonight I will be setting up storage on external HDs, which Aperture allows.
So, essentially, Apple only supports DNG files made from supported RAW files, which eliminates one of the main advantages of DNG - improved compatibility and being able to use raw data in applications that haven't been patched to support your specific camera.
Apple's DNG support is lacking because there are essentially two kinds of DNG files: There are DNG files which contain the original Bayer sensor readout from the RAW file, and there are DNG files that have been converted to linear mode (not totally sure what that means). The second option is meant to ensure that you can use your DNG files with an application even if that application does not support the bayer matrix in your camera... It's a compatibility option - and Apple simply doesn't support linear DNG files.
So, essentially, Apple only supports DNG files made from supported RAW files, which eliminates one of the main advantages of DNG - improved compatibility and being able to use raw data in applications that haven't been patched to support your specific camera.
rminkler, if your response was in reply to my question.
Considering the lack of a standard and the ongoing debates surrounding DNG, I just don't think that it is appropriate that Apple be centred out.
To me, Aperature is like many of Apple's phenomenons, that has triggered others to partake and either enhance its development and/or solicit others. Developing a solution to satisfy everybody is impossible. Giving one a choice go or bad, is not giving license to maliciously critique it as the language used by some seem to be doing.
Apple's DNG support is lacking because there are essentially two kinds of DNG files: There are DNG files which contain the original Bayer sensor readout from the RAW file, and there are DNG files that have been converted to linear mode (not totally sure what that means). The second option is meant to ensure that you can use your DNG files with an application even if that application does not support the bayer matrix in your camera... It's a compatibility option - and Apple simply doesn't support linear DNG files.
So, essentially, Apple only supports DNG files made from supported RAW files, which eliminates one of the main advantages of DNG - improved compatibility and being able to use raw data in applications that haven't been patched to support your specific camera.
DNG Linear is retarded: at that point, you just have a TIFF file.
Why create a new file format for something that contains the same exact data as the most compatible lossless file format on the planet?
The one funtion I am finding the most useful (outside of sharpen which I apply to every image as a default) is the adjust brightness and darkness of shadows. I live in a rather mountainous area and it is common for images to have bright sunlight at the top but dark shadow at the bottom, sometimes to the degree that the bottom is not very visible. Using Aperture, I can adjust all of this to make a clear photo with ease. Most importantly, I have things set to create a version of the phot to be edited, so the original stays unchanged incase Idon't like what I do to it.
Anybody try Aperture on a MacBook, yet? I'm planning to upgrade my old PB 15 (1.5GHz G4) and wisht to save the cash and go for the MB. I do not do intensive editing, but would like to have a first good look at my images in a coffee shot on the day of the shoot.
JeffDM: There are some functions in Aperture that are fantastic that are not in iPhoto, and Aperture works great with jpeg (at the moment it doesn't read my cam's RAW output, so I am using it to work with my jpeg images).
The one funtion I am finding the most useful (outside of sharpen which I apply to every image as a default) is the adjust brightness and darkness of shadows. I live in a rather mountainous area and it is common for images to have bright sunlight at the top but dark shadow at the bottom, sometimes to the degree that the bottom is not very visible. Using Aperture, I can adjust all of this to make a clear photo with ease. Most importantly, I have things set to create a version of the phot to be edited, so the original stays unchanged incase Idon't like what I do to it.
Anybody try Aperture on a MacBook, yet? I'm planning to upgrade my old PB 15 (1.5GHz G4) and wisht to save the cash and go for the MB. I do not do intensive editing, but would like to have a first good look at my images in a coffee shot on the day of the shoot.
Unfortunately, it's those very functions, sharpen, and high light/shadow correction that are the most poorly implemented in Aperture.
PS does a far better job.
I have honestly never really used PS, but I will have a try now that I have a new camera that is too much for iPhoto.
Mmmm... they work well enough for me and they are within the app, so I don't need to launch PS; can do everything in one package, but I know that there is auto save or something like that so I will give it a try (PS, that is, form within Aperture).
I have honestly never really used PS, but I will have a try now that I have a new camera that is too much for iPhoto.
As long as you don't require the highest quality, then it's fine.
Melgross: would you recommened a MB or a MBP for running Aperature in the field for lite editing but mainly just having a preview of the images taken and to give me something to do while I enjoy a cofffee? Or I should rephrase: how well will Aperature fair on a new Core 2 Duo MacBook?
I'm not a professional photographer and I also no longer get an academic discount on Adobe, which is a major factor in my choice to use Aperture. Organization, simplicity are others. I also simply like the UI better, but that is personal choice. Just want to make my photos look a little better than when they are imported (they all come in slightly under exposed and not as sharp as I would like) and to be able to organize them well and quickly compare between a couple of images when choosing which to print, all fo which Aperature does great for me.
Melgross: would you recommened a MB or a MBP for running Aperture in the field for lite editing but mainly just having a preview of the images taken and to give me something to do while I enjoy a cofffee? Or I should rephrase: how well will Aperature fair on a new Core 2 Duo MacBook?
What we saw at the Pro Photo Expo, here in NYC last week was the MBP running Aperture. They didn't, as far as I know have any Mac Book there. Even if they did it would have been the old model, even though the show would have been a good place to intro it, if it did run Aperture well. But, it's not a pro machine, so they didn't.
It seems to be a pretty fast machine, as long as you get a 2 GHz or faster chip with the 4MB of cache rather than the 1.83 and slower with the 2 MB.
Also you would need 2 GB RAM for best performance, particularly if Rosetta is important now. It really does run much faster with 2 GB.
If you are not doing pro work, you probably don't need the fastest machine, because you are not on a deadline, where your reputation is at stake. Therefore, a Mac Book should be fine.
The other thing is related to screen rez, and size. As you will see on the page linked to below, there is a big difference between the screens. Whatever you get, the screen will be very different. The Mac Book has only a glossy screen, not one I prefer for serious work, but possibly better for viewing DVD's where reflections aren't a problem. The screen is also smaller, and has less resolution on the Mac Books.
That's all up to you. If you don't mind scrolling around a lot, and magnifying a lot as well, then the smaller screen will also be fine.
Here is the spec page for both lines.
http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPL...D&nclm=MacBook