I've found that while Aperture was essentially useless when it was first introduced, it has gotten better, no doubt. The latest version is actually pretty good, to the point that the basic conversion is pretty much equal to, though somewhat different than, the one in ACR, or other pro converters.
I've no problem with that part of it at this time. It's the rest of Apple's tools that have problems. They simply are not up to the required level yet.
The new plug-in architecture is needed, but is not implemented the way I would have liked to see.
I'm not satisfied that Aperture closes the file completely, applying all corrections made in the non-destructive mode, requiring you to apply all plug-in functions to the now flattened file. Then you must close, and flatten, that file again before going to PS, or some other program, to enable other work that might be needed.
That's at least one too many times.
Learn to program in Objective-C and Cocoa and write your own plugins. That might satisfy your needs.
No photography forum, especially the Aperture one, shows a true representation of pro photographers. Using the habits of a handful of posters who make up the majority on a single forum is no way to state a conclusion about the rest of the world.
We fully concur. My comments are all regarding Aperture usage in trained hands on strong Macs; quite definitely not about the rest of the world. Note that app-specific fora are a very good source for commentary from app-conversant individuals.
And I am saying that (unless one is an Apple marketer ) the opinions of the rest of the world do not matter when discussing a given app's performance. Only commentary from folks conversant with any given app is relevant.
...The latest version is actually pretty good, to the point that the basic conversion is pretty much equal to, though somewhat different than, the one in ACR, or other pro converters...
RAW conversion probably varies by camera. IMO for my Nikon D2x Nikon Capture is best, Aperture 2nd, ACR 3rd. However NC is clunky to use, so I pretty much only use Aperture or ACR.
Quote:
...It's the rest of Apple's tools that have problems. They simply are not up to the required level yet.
I agree that tools have far to go; Aperture is clearly a v2 not a v9. However I am very happy with Aperture right now (a strong Mac Pro makes a lot of difference). David Chapman said it well: "Aperture cut my PS CS, CS2 and now CS3 workload down from 100% to around 5%. A huge time-saver, plus of course the image management side that CS2 or 3 doesn't do (and I include Bridge in this)."
RAW conversion probably varies by camera. IMO for my Nikon D2x Nikon Capture is best, Aperture 2nd, ACR 3rd. However NC is clunky to use, so I pretty much only use Aperture or ACR.
Each software company makes its choices as to what they think is best, which is why having a number of converters is best for everyone.
Camera companies also make their choices of sensors, and how they take the data off. So, you're correct in what you say about combinations.
Quote:
I agree that tools have far to go; Aperture is clearly a v2 not a v9. However I am very happy with Aperture right now (a strong Mac Pro makes a lot of difference). David Chapman said it well: "Aperture cut my PS CS, CS2 and now CS3 workload down from 100% to around 5%. A huge time-saver, plus of course the image management side that CS2 or 3 doesn't do (and I include Bridge in this)."
-Allen Wicks
My problem is that the basic conversion is only the beginning. It's how the various programs allow you to fine tune the result of that that makes the difference. I also have software from DP Labs, that I first bough for lens/body correction, but since became a full fledged converter and adjustment program. It also does a few things better, and a few things worse.
Someday, this will all settle down to the point where it won't matter which program you use.
The management end of the program is its strong point, but Bridge has come pretty far, and has a different concept of use that fits the way many pros work. It's also an easier fit for many, as it's been evolving over the years, and doesn't present a rdical change in working habits that many have grown up with.
That's a personal choice for many, and I can't argue one way or the other about it. I find that both Bridge and Aperture serve me well there.
Comments
I've found that while Aperture was essentially useless when it was first introduced, it has gotten better, no doubt. The latest version is actually pretty good, to the point that the basic conversion is pretty much equal to, though somewhat different than, the one in ACR, or other pro converters.
I've no problem with that part of it at this time. It's the rest of Apple's tools that have problems. They simply are not up to the required level yet.
The new plug-in architecture is needed, but is not implemented the way I would have liked to see.
I'm not satisfied that Aperture closes the file completely, applying all corrections made in the non-destructive mode, requiring you to apply all plug-in functions to the now flattened file. Then you must close, and flatten, that file again before going to PS, or some other program, to enable other work that might be needed.
That's at least one too many times.
Learn to program in Objective-C and Cocoa and write your own plugins. That might satisfy your needs.
No photography forum, especially the Aperture one, shows a true representation of pro photographers. Using the habits of a handful of posters who make up the majority on a single forum is no way to state a conclusion about the rest of the world.
We fully concur. My comments are all regarding Aperture usage in trained hands on strong Macs; quite definitely not about the rest of the world. Note that app-specific fora are a very good source for commentary from app-conversant individuals.
And I am saying that (unless one is an Apple marketer
-Allen Wicks
...The latest version is actually pretty good, to the point that the basic conversion is pretty much equal to, though somewhat different than, the one in ACR, or other pro converters...
RAW conversion probably varies by camera. IMO for my Nikon D2x Nikon Capture is best, Aperture 2nd, ACR 3rd. However NC is clunky to use, so I pretty much only use Aperture or ACR.
...It's the rest of Apple's tools that have problems. They simply are not up to the required level yet.
I agree that tools have far to go; Aperture is clearly a v2 not a v9. However I am very happy with Aperture right now (a strong Mac Pro makes a lot of difference). David Chapman said it well: "Aperture cut my PS CS, CS2 and now CS3 workload down from 100% to around 5%. A huge time-saver, plus of course the image management side that CS2 or 3 doesn't do (and I include Bridge in this)."
-Allen Wicks
Learn to program in Objective-C and Cocoa and write your own plugins. That might satisfy your needs.
That's very funny, but worthless advice, as I'm sure you know.
Even if I did, the whole point to what I was saying is that Apple's plug-in technology wouldn't allow anything other than what Apple is allowing.
RAW conversion probably varies by camera. IMO for my Nikon D2x Nikon Capture is best, Aperture 2nd, ACR 3rd. However NC is clunky to use, so I pretty much only use Aperture or ACR.
Each software company makes its choices as to what they think is best, which is why having a number of converters is best for everyone.
Camera companies also make their choices of sensors, and how they take the data off. So, you're correct in what you say about combinations.
I agree that tools have far to go; Aperture is clearly a v2 not a v9. However I am very happy with Aperture right now (a strong Mac Pro makes a lot of difference). David Chapman said it well: "Aperture cut my PS CS, CS2 and now CS3 workload down from 100% to around 5%. A huge time-saver, plus of course the image management side that CS2 or 3 doesn't do (and I include Bridge in this)."
-Allen Wicks
My problem is that the basic conversion is only the beginning. It's how the various programs allow you to fine tune the result of that that makes the difference. I also have software from DP Labs, that I first bough for lens/body correction, but since became a full fledged converter and adjustment program. It also does a few things better, and a few things worse.
Someday, this will all settle down to the point where it won't matter which program you use.
The management end of the program is its strong point, but Bridge has come pretty far, and has a different concept of use that fits the way many pros work. It's also an easier fit for many, as it's been evolving over the years, and doesn't present a rdical change in working habits that many have grown up with.
That's a personal choice for many, and I can't argue one way or the other about it. I find that both Bridge and Aperture serve me well there.