Apple's Aperture 3 brings 200 new features, including Faces, Places

123468

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 146
    If you download the trial and run Software Update this shows up (65.2 MB) for A3
  • Reply 102 of 146
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bikertwin View Post


    Do you have to do the CMYK conversion on every photo in the photo shoot, or just the ones they actually publish?



    I send a selection of CMYK photos withe embedded profiles and the magazine editor picks the ones to use. It's very useful for me to do RGB->CMYK conversion and proofing because then I can see pretty much exactly what the final colors will be.
  • Reply 103 of 146
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Restalot View Post


    Not to be a cheapskate... but how is it iWork for iPad is only worth $10/app ($30 total) and Aperture 3 is $199? I suppose M$ does not have a near monopoly on photo software to break.



    Aperture is a professional desktop app, whereas iWork apps for iPad are still iPhone OS apps, however productive they are.
  • Reply 104 of 146
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post


    You obviously haven't used it enough.



    I use CS4 on a Mac Pro 8 core machine with 10 GB of RAM and it's the slowest, buggy POS imaginable. I guess you don't use many of Snow Leopards new features either because Photoshop regularly fails at using "spaces," is only 32 bit, needs Flash to even run and has trouble even making a simple icon preview for cover-flow. I could write for pages on what's wrong with CS4 on a Mac. Quite literally the worst designed, and yet most expensive program I own.



    The Adobe haltered on this forum is really getting to ridiculous levels. As someone who makes a living using the CS4 Master Collection, all I can say is that without Adobe we would not be in business.



    Several companies have released Photoshop like photo editing applications going back to the early 90's and none have gained any real following. Adobe also has strategically purchased several complementary software companies such as Aldus and Macromedia as well as smaller ones to round out their suite.



    Apple wrote Aperture from scratch as far as I know, but they purchased many of their other Pro apps. If Apple is going to go head to head with Adobe they will have to win over the huge installed base of Acrobat users for starters, and like Adobe, they will also need to acquire other software companies on which to build a comparable design/publishing suite.



    Apple's business model was traditionally built on the backs of design and publishing professionals who saw them through the lean times. Those same professionals later moved into multimedia, and web programming. Adobe and Macromedia were the building blocks for many small firms. Apple in turn seems to be abandoning professional designers for the mass market of consumers, however Adobe and Macromedia continued to innovate and have enabled creatives push the envelope.



    I for one am a big Adobe supporter for the reasons stated above and for those of you who are Adobe bashers, you know damn well there is nothing better out there for the design professional. Finally, speaking strictly from my experience with the CS applications, which includes daily usage of several titles - going back to Illustrator 1a and Photoshop 1, I think the applications work rather well even on less powerful iMacs as well as Mac Pros.



    My only regret is that we are pretty much forced to buy the whole suite when only a few applications offer new needed features. This policy is especially undesirable when they just make up unneeded features so that all of the applications in the suite can be called 'New and Improved'.
  • Reply 105 of 146
    tofinotofino Posts: 697member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


    The Adobe haltered on this forum is really getting to ridiculous levels. As someone who makes a living using the CS4 Master Collection, all I can say is that without Adobe we would not be in business.



    Several companies have released Photoshop like photo editing applications going back to the early 90's and none have gained any real following. Adobe also has strategically purchased several complementary software companies such as Aldus and Macromedia as well as smaller ones to round out their suite.



    Apple wrote Aperture from scratch as far as I know, but they purchased many of their other Pro apps. If Apple is going to go head to head with Adobe they will have to win over the huge installed base of Acrobat users for starters, and like Adobe, they will also need to acquire other software companies on which to build a comparable design/publishing suite.



    Apple's business model was traditionally built on the backs of design and publishing professionals who saw them through the lean times. Those same professionals later moved into multimedia, and web programming. Adobe and Macromedia were the building blocks for many small firms. Apple in turn seems to be abandoning professional designers for the mass market of consumers, however Adobe and Macromedia continued to innovate and have enabled creatives push the envelope.



    I for one am a big Adobe supporter for the reasons stated above and for those of you who are Adobe bashers, you know damn well there is nothing better out there for the design professional. Finally, speaking strictly from my experience with the CS applications, which includes daily usage of several titles - going back to Illustrator 1a and Photoshop 1, I think the applications work rather well even on less powerful iMacs as well as Mac Pros.



    My only regret is that we are pretty much forced to buy the whole suite when only a few applications offer new needed features. This policy is especially undesirable when they just make up unneeded features so that all of the applications in the suite can be called 'New and Improved'.



    i think you're missing a point. If you - like many others here - have been using Adobe's products for that long, you should be among the firsts to have experienced the gradual transformation of their software from great tools to expensive bloatware.



    The 'without Adobe we would not be in business' goes both ways. Without us - the people who started with 1.0 versions - Adobe would not be in business either. That's something that seems to be lost on the company. As a mac user since the days of the Mac II, i feel that adobe doesn't care about us anymore, and that's where my resentment comes from.
  • Reply 106 of 146
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by RichyS View Post


    My favourite bit of 'WTF' with Photoshop is that it installs a crippled version of Opera deep within your system for the purposes of running the help files. Why?



    That and the fact that you can't move the application from the default directory without some serious hackery.



    Flash looks like a piece of tight, well written code by comparison.



    My guess would be that Photoshop uses portions of former Trolltech's Qt Software stack and Opera [before 10.5] was native in Qt for it's interface and having a small footprint decided just to leverage it instead of moving their app help system to WebKit.
  • Reply 107 of 146
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by stumbleone View Post


    Unless I missed it somewhere, A3 still doesn't seem to do CMYK conversion, which is an absolute must for those involved in magazine photos. (Does Lightroom?) If A3 had CMYK I could dispense with Photoshop to a very great extent. The way it is now, all my photo work eventually has to take a detour through PS no matter what I use to catalog or edit.



    Really? It seems Sports Illustrated and National Geographic disagree with your assessment.



    Raw supported cameras:



    http://www.apple.com/aperture/specs/raw.html



    Adjustments:



    http://www.apple.com/aperture/features/#adjustments



    Printing:



    http://www.apple.com/aperture/features/#printing
  • Reply 108 of 146
    docno42docno42 Posts: 3,710member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


    I for one am a big Adobe supporter for the reasons stated above and for those of you who are Adobe bashers, you know damn well there is nothing better out there for the design professional.



    Perhaps, but I think the un-even attention paid to Mac Users, who were the bread-and-butter of Adobe for so many years, is what is rankling people.



    Just look at the furor over flash. The only reason Adobe is even concerned at this point is with the iPhone and soon to be iPad flash is going to be forced to irrelevance. And for those who don't think it can happen, you have extremely short and selective memories about the early days of Firefox and the dominance of IE. The tragedy is Adobe's and Adobe's alone.



    As for replacing Adobe, just ask Avid how dissing Apple can work out. I don't think we are anywhere near that with Adobe - some of the delays with Photoshop and other apps support 64-bit are Apple's fault with their about face on 64 bit carbon - but Adobe has their own share of blame in not updating their software and they shouldn't take the Mac for granted. When there is enough pressure and pent up demand, industries can shift. And it doesn't have to be Apple-initiated like it was with Avid and Final Cut....
  • Reply 109 of 146
    wigginwiggin Posts: 2,265member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mario View Post


    Basically it's quite useless since it wants to be an image database first and image editing program (and not a good one at it) second.



    You can't do anything to an image until you first "import" it, into stupid proprietary DB. Thanks, but no thanks. I like keeping my images on the filesystem, organized in folders with perhaps spotlight comments if I really care. With OS X it's so trivial to get to an image you want to edit anyway.



    And when it comes to actual image editing, Lightroom and Photoshop combo is better, but for Nikon dSLRs, CaptureNX still produces the best RAW conversion of any of them.



    I'm not quite sure why you complain that Apeture is an "image editing program second" when that is also exactly what Lightroom is. Or else why do you need the combo of both Lightroom AND Photoshop? Bit of a double-standard, eh?



    But the real reason I'm replying is regarding the "stupid proprietary DB." As I'm sure many others will have pointed out by now, Aperture works just fine referencing your images however you wish to organize them outside of the app. But I'd also point out that even if you import them into Aperture, they are in no way placed into a database, proprietary or otherwise.



    Yes, they are placed inside of a package, but that is nothing more than a type of folder. All your precious photos are a simple right-click away in the file system, not in a database. And the only reason Aperture places them in a package is because it will reoganize the folders as you reorganize your projects in the application. That way you know exactly where in the file system each and every photo can be found just by looking at the project browser.
  • Reply 110 of 146
    is it still single user app ? what happens if i have 3 Macs at home ( 2 laptops and mac pro ) and i'd like to have all of them synced up to one master database ?!?



    This is single reason why i hate iTunes. If one instance of iTunes is open on Mac pro neither laptop can open library Mac pro is using. I can understand it in iTunes since its consumer product but no way i'm buying $200 app thats as limiting as 2.0 version. That was crappy upgrade to say the least ( from 1.5 to 2.0 )
  • Reply 111 of 146
    Is anyone else having a problem with the email from Apple for Aperture 3. I did get the email right away and can see that there is a file attached, but I can not do anything with it? There is nothing in the email. Can someone PM me a link for where to initiate the download, because I think I can get the trial code separate.
  • Reply 112 of 146
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DocNo42 View Post


    Just look at the furor over flash. The only reason Adobe is even concerned at this point is with the iPhone and soon to be iPad flash is going to be forced to irrelevance.



    Well I wasn't originally going to go there but since you brought it up, Flash is also a really great application. Again there is nothing that can touch it for power and flexibility. Sure when misused it can become an annoyance but just as an example, I will let the Flash bashers see a Flash application I wrote, well part of my suite of Flash medical applications. Please tell me how this technology is irrelevant? What do you propose to replace it with? HTML5? Really? Please do elaborate with some technical examples.



    http://216.23.184.32/3d/40x80-revb.html



    PS I will only leave this file up for a little while.



    BTW this app will use 30% CPU on an old iMac Core Solo which is the same amount that loading Googles home page uses on the same machine
  • Reply 113 of 146
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by kjkelley View Post


    Is anyone else having a problem with the email from Apple for Aperture 3. I did get the email right away and can see that there is a file attached, but I can not do anything with it? There is nothing in the email. Can someone PM me a link for where to initiate the download, because I think I can get the trial code separate.



    Trial code comes in the email. Try it again.
  • Reply 114 of 146
    docno42docno42 Posts: 3,710member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wally007 View Post


    is it still single user app ? what happens if i have 3 Macs at home ( 2 laptops and mac pro ) and i'd like to have all of them synced up to one master database ?!?



    Nope - still no equivalent of Final Cut Server for Aperture



    Quote:

    This is single reason why i hate iTunes. If one instance of iTunes is open on Mac pro neither laptop can open library Mac pro is using.



    Well, the latest iTunes at least has Home Sharing which will sync content purchased in iTunes automatically between up to five computers. I picked up a copy of SuperSync recently on sale from MacZot and it works wonderfully - Mac, Windows or even an iTunes library saved on a hard drive. It glitches every once in a while, but restarts and picks up where it left off (seems to affect all library synchronization programs). I used it to merge multiple libraries together and to selectively sync files from my desktop to my laptops.



    Apple does need a multi-machine solution for Aperture. Changes to the way the vaults work may accomplish this easier than before, and you can export projects as libraries now (even consolidating masters in one step) - still experimenting and reading...
  • Reply 115 of 146
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


    Well I wasn't originally going to go there but since you brought it up, Flash is also a really great application. Again there is nothing that can touch it for power and flexibility. Sure when misused it can become an annoyance but just as an example, I will let the Flash bashers see a Flash application I wrote, well part of my suite of Flash medical applications. Please tell me how this technology is irrelevant? What do you propose to replace it with? HTML5? Really? Please do elaborate with some technical examples.



    http://216.23.184.32/3d/40x80-revb.html



    PS I will only leave this file up for a little while.



    BTW this app will use 30% CPU on an old iMac Core Solo which is the same amount that loading Googles home page uses on the same machine



    It's 3MB without the extraneous files. Perhaps around 4MB if I added everything up. That is one that looks like it would work well with a touchscreen. Hell, it looks like it was designed with a touchscreen in mind, just not a 3.5" display running 600MHz ARM CPU with 256MB RAM. Flash has its place but a slow mobile with a small screen and no buttons is not on of them.



    BTW, how does Google Maps work in a desktop browser if they aren't using Flash, except for StreetView? You can zoom and change your route dynamically, among other things, that seem much more complex and use less resources and smaller data packets than that Flash demo.



    If we're talking about medical files there are iPhone apps that tie into DBs that offer a lot more options with better performance.
  • Reply 116 of 146
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    It's 3MB without the extraneous files.



    Yep it is 2.9 MB but that is a savings of about 390 MB that the actual image data stated out with.
  • Reply 117 of 146
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tardis View Post


    If I was a professional working with PhotoShop on a daily basis, my company would not question the cost of the software.



    However, as an amateur who only needed to retouch or create images occasionally, investing in PhotoShop 7.0 was a huge expenditure for me personally. Adobe's later versions of Photoshop didn't seem to offer much more functionality, so I didn't upgrade to the CS versions.



    Even so, I was rather surprised when I installed Mac OS X 10.5 and found that PhotoShop didn't work. Not, "needed to be upgraded" or "needed a converter", it simply didn't work and was "not supported'. This was less than 5 years old software, and the maker Adobe simply walked away.



    I know you do not "own" software you merely "license" it, but finding that what I thought I had "bought" from Adobe looked more like a four-year rental was rather shocking. From what I understand, it would not have been too hard for Adobe to maintain compatibility.



    Did I "upgrade", which basically meant buying CS again? Of course not. For my limited use, I can live with having to re-start using an older Mac, or running Gimp on Ubuntu. But I would prefer to have the pixel-basher available without a re-start, so I have been looking out for a replacement.



    I must say I have been impressed by the image-editing capabilities of iPhoto so far, but they are no substitute for PhotoShop. If Apple's Aperture can deliver the results I need at an affordable price, I will no longer need to be blackmailed by Adobe.



    If Apple is pitching Aperture to provide the functionality of PhotoShop at a fraction of the price, and simultaneously compensate for the problems Mac users have with Adobe products, I wish them the best of luck and I will probably buy it.



    Check out GIMP ~



    My old Photoshop CS works on a 2008 3.06Ghz Core 2 Duo iMac with no problems!



    As an amateur, Gimp does a lot of things one could do in older versions of Photoshop. And it is free!



    http://sourceforge.net/projects/gimponosx/



    As a post says~



    "GIMP is by no means as powerful as photoshop when it comes to the many advanced features adobe now offers, however, it has numerous excellent features, great for all the basics most people use photoshop for, and, of course, it's $700 less"
  • Reply 118 of 146
    docno42docno42 Posts: 3,710member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


    Well I wasn't originally going to go there but since you brought it up, Flash is also a really great application. Again there is nothing that can touch it for power and flexibility.



    For the iPhone or iPad, there is always the SDK that can go way beyond flash. It depends on your needs and your target audience.



    The objection is to the massive overuse of flash that can be accomplished via other more open and standards compliant means, and the generally lackluster performance of flash on anything other than Windows. Adobe has taken Mac users for granted for a long time - pardon me if I don't shed a tear for Flash loosing it's dominance.



    Quote:

    Sure when misused it can become an annoyance but just as an example, I will let the Flash bashers see a Flash application I wrote, well part of my suite of Flash medical applications.



    Very impressive.



    Quote:

    Please tell me how this technology is irrelevant?



    I never said flash in general was irrelevant - it can have it's uses. Also I would find it hard to believe that you would expect that application to run on an iPhone or iPod Touch. Heck, even an iPad would be awkward with that control interface - the iPad a different experience and I hope you would want to fully take advantage of it instead of just porting a mouse-based flash app over.



    Quote:

    What do you propose to replace it with? HTML5? Really? Please do elaborate with some technical examples.



    For the iPad it would be best replaced with an actual app via the SDK that takes full advantage of the device's unique UI. I think that's also another big point in Apple not support Flash on the iPhone/iPad - consistency of interface. Probably not what you, as a developer, wants to hear - but this is why I don't have a problem with Apple blocking flash, nor acting as gatekeeper with the app store. This may come off as a little harsh but I couldn't care less that as a developer you might be inconvenienced a little. It's about time the focus shifts from making it all about the developers and instead focusing on the end user for once. Apple prizes their consistent user experience. Rather than considering Apple nuts for trying to do so, I think everyone else is nuts for tolerating such a crap and generally inconsistent user experience from Windows and to a lesser extent Mac OSX for so long.



    I'll always own a general purpose computer like a Mac or Windows PC, and I'll be using them at work for some time to come, but that doesn't mean I also won't look forward to coming home to using an iPad for my home computing needs - an appliance that let's me read email, surf the web, control devices in my house - and do it without having to think about the underlying hardware, OS or any other "techie stuff". I do enough of that at work, thank you. When I get home I just want it to work.



    And no, I don't think the two models are mutually exclusive either, despite all the chicken little's running around wringing their hands about the demise of the Mac



    Quote:

    BTW this app will use 30% CPU on an old iMac Core Solo which is the same amount that loading Googles home page uses on the same machine



    Maybe from a cold boot, but if you have had flash running for some time there is no way you can predict it's resource usage on any one machine - it's extremely inconsistent and usually ends in either a crash of the plugin or a pinwheel of death. And that's just not anecdotal. I get that flash is a great tool for you - great! It's just not a universally great tool and it's not nearly as efficient as you are implying.
  • Reply 119 of 146
    stevehsteveh Posts: 480member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by emig647 View Post


    I I just hope Aperture can fix/fixed the performance issues.



    Comments by some beta testers (for example, http://edmondterakopian.blogspot.com/) are that it flies compared to 2.x.



    Downloading the trial seems like a cheap way to find out.
  • Reply 120 of 146
    My email from Apple is faulty or my email server is destroying the attachment, I am only getting the trial code but no link.



    CAN SOMEONE PLEASE PM ME WITH THE LINK TO THE 30d TRIAL. I WOULD GREATLY APPRECIATE. THANK IN ADVANCE!
Sign In or Register to comment.