It's hard to believe you use their software if you call it crap
Believe it... I use their software because unfortunately amongst the pro circles they do have a monopoly, but that is changing.
And I call it crap because despite having a monopoly, their software is bug ridden, their support is beyond a joke, and their business model is to squeeze every last penny from their customers, no matter the negative PR it may cause them.
Because of Creative Cloud, there is a growing movement amongst the pros to break free of the Adobe prison and find new, more fertile grounds. Aperture is like a breath of fresh air, and I welcome the day when I can find the time to dump Lightroom for ever. After that, will be looking to chuck CS6.
Virtually no pros use Aperature. I'm sorry to say that, but that's the fact. And I'm talking about pros. Apple repositioned this software a long time ago. They tried, at first, to appeal to pros, but due to their failure to understand pro needs, they failed. While the software is much better now, it's too little, too late. They don't upgrade often enough, and it's fallen well behind.
Sorry, but you're dead wrong. I know a LOT of pro photographers who use Aperture, or like me, are in the active process of switching to it. Just because YOU don't know anyone who uses it, doesn't mean there aren't any!
While all you bozos bicker on about having to actually pay for the software you use, I've spent a few pleasant hours editing a bunch of my photos on my iPad 2 with LRM.
What struck me right away was its elegant and well-thought-out UI. You simply set your collections in LR to synch with LRM, and they soon appear in LRM. Or you can create new collections from your iPad's Camera Roll.
Each control has a display-wide slider, and you can watch the histogram in the upper right corner as you tap and drag.
The main thing about the app for me, though is how pleasant it is to edit my photos on the iPad. It reminded me of Steve's keynote when he sat down in that comfortable chair on stage with his new iPad and how he remarked how the iPad "becomes" the app that's running. I felt that way using LRM. It was fun and easy.
This was a good move for Adobe. Many will find the app useful, and it'll help sell more CC subscriptions.
I'm sadly frustrated that Apple is not leading the way on this front, something you could argue is historically a core sector. I am sure there is pent up demand (well there is on my part at least) for Aperture for iPad/iPhone with access to photos in your main aperture library across both local networks and the web.
This would be a killer app which would allow you to look at work with clients (without a laptop or having to specifically download iDevice filling files) and make edits that would sync with the original library.
It would be so slick, a truly professional app that would have no comparison.
Almost everyone I know has either abandoned Aperture for Lightroom or has never considered it and instead of being the powerhouse it could be Apple/Aperture seems to be in the doldrums in photo-management/editing and has lost it's position of groundbreaking leader to Adobe.
I try Lightroom every time there is a new version and so far I have stuck with Aperture because LR seems so clunky and counter-intuitive but frankly if Apple doesn't take a stronger position and produce something vastly superior to catch-up I will also join the hoards of LR users too and it will be another nail in the coffin of a potentially great product called Apperture.app.
Come on Apple, get your finger out!!!
I am with you 200%.
I bought aperture when it cost an arm and a leg 200 USD. It was perfect, better than anything out there. Then it got neglected, then the price was cut and I said "well good, they bring as many on the sw as possible, an update will be released". But nope!
It's like if apple has dangerously forgotten that some people, not professionals who can afford 100+ dollars a year for creative cloud, WOULD NEVERTHELESS SPEND MONEY FOR A SERVICE!
The ones that are on iTunes Match, that were on iDisk and MobileMe...
That paid for iLife and iWork...
They want more than your average joe, can pay for it and will, but cannot justify prices dedicated to pros because they don' make a living out of these. This was the backbone of apple's service paying customers.
In my opinion apple is on a completely wrong course.
It's hard to believe you use their software if you call it crap
Believe it... I use their software because unfortunately amongst the pro circles they do have a monopoly, but that is changing.
And I call it crap because despite having a monopoly, their software is bug ridden, their support is beyond a joke, and their business model is to squeeze every last penny from their customers, no matter the negative PR it may cause them.
Because of Creative Cloud, there is a growing movement amongst the pros to break free of the Adobe prison and find new, more fertile grounds. Aperture is like a breath of fresh air, and I welcome the day when I can find the time to dump Lightroom for ever. After that, will be looking to chuck CS6.
I assume you already have Pixelmator? Does most of what I need.
I assume you already have Pixelmator? Does most of what I need.
Not yet, but it's on my radar and I'm seriously contemplating looking at it... Some things about the UI don't quite sit well with me, but I see the dev's are actively improving it based on customer feedback, so might give it a bit more time to mature first before taking the plunge.
Virtually no pros use Aperature. I'm sorry to say that, but that's the fact. And I'm talking about pros. Apple repositioned this software a long time ago. They tried, at first, to appeal to pros, but due to their failure to understand pro needs, they failed. While the software is much better now, it's too little, too late. They don't upgrade often enough, and it's fallen well behind.
Sorry, but you're dead wrong. I know a LOT of pro photographers who use Aperture, or like me, are in the active process of switching to it. Just because YOU don't know anyone who uses it, doesn't mean there aren't any!
Other than requiring a lot of RAM, the tool works well for me. I have developed a workflow over many years that works very well for me and there is no reason to switch. Of the one notable feature that Aperture lacks (lens correction), I rarely feel I need lens correction. When I do; I use PTlens.
Other than requiring a lot of RAM, the tool works well for me. I have developed a workflow that works very well for me and there is no reason to switch. Of the one notable feature that Aperture lacks (lens correction), I rarely feel I need lens correction. When I do; I use PTlens.
I assume the tool you're referring to is Aperture. You're correct, it does require substantial amounts of RAM, but if you're a serious pro (or even semi-pro) photographer, chances are you're running at least an i7 with 12GB RAM or more. Processing RAW images from today's DSLR's takes a LOT of CPU power and RAM, especially when you start applying filters or enhancements to your RAW images. This is where Lightroom drives me absolutely INSANE. If you look at the Adobe discussion pages, people with Xeon workstations with RAID 0 SSD drives and 32GB of RAM report up to 10-second delays in zooming in on RAW images, or moving adjustment sliders in the Develop panel, if they've had lens correction or noise reduction applied in LR, and Adobe has constantly said (with each update) it's been "fixed", only for it to still be there. Something like what Intel has constantly done with their Centrino wireless adaptor drives, not fixing them for 2 years.
Usually, lens correction is only needed if you've photographed architecture and need to have it straightened. Otherwise I consider it an optional feature.
Other than requiring a lot of RAM, the tool works well for me. I have developed a workflow that works very well for me and there is no reason to switch. Of the one notable feature that Aperture lacks (lens correction), I rarely feel I need lens correction. When I do; I use PTlens.
I assume the tool you're referring to is Aperture. You're correct, it does require substantial amounts of RAM, but if you're a serious pro (or even semi-pro) photographer, chances are you're running at least an i7 with 12GB RAM or more. Processing RAW images from today's DSLR's takes a LOT of CPU power and RAM, especially when you start applying filters or enhancements to your RAW images. This is where Lightroom drives me absolutely INSANE. If you look at the Adobe discussion pages, people with Xeon workstations with RAID 0 SSD drives and 32GB of RAM report up to 10-second delays in zooming in on RAW images, or moving adjustment sliders in the Develop panel, if they've had lens correction or noise reduction applied in LR, and Adobe has constantly said (with each update) it's been "fixed", only for it to still be there. Something like what Intel has constantly done with their Centrino wireless adaptor drives, not fixing them for 2 years.
Usually, lens correction is only needed if you've photographed architecture and need to have it straightened. Otherwise I consider it an optional feature.
The see the RAM limitation mostly on my portable. Its a late 2013 rMBP 15" i7 with Nvidia GPU. As you know the most you can get into any MPB/rMBP laptop is 16GB. There is definitely a RAM leak, I have to watch my page outs if I intend to spend the whole day in Aperture. Quit out restart if I see it starting to page out drastically.
Interesting to hear that the grass is not greener when it comes to RAM with LR.
As for len correction, only really need it for my UW. Don't really care much about barrel distortion; actually that is the whole reason I pick UW is to get that effect. However, the CA at times bugs me to the point where Aperture's manual CA adjustment sliders don't cut it. Again, doesn't bug me much enough to make much use of it on a constant basis.
The see the RAM limitation mostly on my portable. Its a late 2013 rMBP 15" i7 with Nvidia GPU. As you know the most you can get into any MPB/rMBP laptop is 16GB. There is definitely a RAM leak, I have to watch my page outs if I intend to spend the whole day in Aperture. Quit out restart if I see it starting to page out drastically.
Interesting to hear that the grass is not greener when it comes to RAM with LR.
Lightroom is hit and miss on a lot of things. What I like is that its adjustment data takes up very little drive space beyond the storage required for the image files themselves.
Believe it... I use their software because unfortunately amongst the pro circles they do have a monopoly, but that is changing.
And I call it crap because despite having a monopoly, their software is bug ridden, their support is beyond a joke, and their business model is to squeeze every last penny from their customers, no matter the negative PR it may cause them.
Because of Creative Cloud, there is a growing movement amongst the pros to break free of the Adobe prison and find new, more fertile grounds. Aperture is like a breath of fresh air, and I welcome the day when I can find the time to dump Lightroom for ever. After that, will be looking to chuck CS6.
Changing? Where? I don't see it. Oh please, you're going to chuck Adobe's software for Aperture? Good luck with that!
Sorry, but you're dead wrong. I know a LOT of pro photographers who use Aperture, or like me, are in the active process of switching to it. Just because YOU don't know anyone who uses it, doesn't mean there aren't any!
Didn't anyone ever tell you moderators shouldn't start taking personal shots at posters? You're supposed to maintain the post quality around here, not take a piss on it.
I belong to a crowd that makes money doing this, and if I'm being bogged down by crappy software, that means more time of mine wasted not being able to charge a client for work that needs to be done. You know, that old expression, time is money?
Lots of pro's are now switching away from Adobe because it makes them less productive. I'll say it again, just because YOU don't have any friends that use software outside Adobe's prison, doesn't mean we don't exist, and get by much better without Adobe.
leave it alone. take the high road. If the fact that Aperture being the #5 highest paid App in the Mac store is not evidence enough to show people are using it, then nothing will be. Don't know why we keep going on about this. Use what works for you and what you like. Not because you think you need to be in the mainstream. Just because people use Windows more than Mac does not mean I'm gonna switch to Windows. If you think about it, many of us switch from the mainstream to to the minority with Windows-->Mac. Saying its not reasonable or possible to do the same with LR to Aperture is hypocritical frankly.
I did a comparison between Aperture and LR when they both came to market. I picked the best tool. I made my bed and now I'm goona sleep it in. The software and my workflow has been been refined over the years. I can use it in my sleep. I see no reason to switch. Same reason people don't from Mac to Windows or Windows to Mac. It works for them and they are comfortable with it. At the end of the day its what ever gets your job done with the least amount of hassle. For me and many others like you its Aperture. If others can't live with that fact, its their own personal problem that I don't tend to pyscho analyze.
leave it alone. take the high road. If the fact that Aperture being the #5 highest paid App in the Mac store is not evidence enough to show people are using it, then nothing will be. Don't know why we keep going on about this. Use what works for you and what you like. Not because you think you need to be in the mainstream. Just because people use Windows more than Mac does not mean I'm gonna switch to Windows. If you think about it, many of us switch from the mainstream to to the minority with Windows-->Mac. Saying its not reasonable or possible to do the same with LR to Aperture is hypocritical frankly.
I did a comparison between Aperture and LR when they both came to market. I picked the best tool. I made my bed and now I'm goona sleep it in. The software and my workflow has been been refined over the years. I can use it in my sleep. I see no reason to switch. Same reason people don't from Mac to Windows or Windows to Mac. It works for them and they are comfortable with it. At the end of the day its what ever gets your job done with the least amount of hassle. For me and many others like you its Aperture. If others can't live with that fact, its their own personal problem that I don't tend to pyscho analyze.
leave it alone. take the high road. If the fact that Aperture being the #5 highest paid App in the Mac store is not evidence enough to show people are using it, then nothing will be. Don't know why we keep going on about this.
Because you're using a completely flawed use of the chart to make your point. First of all, the chart Aperture is #5 on is for the top grossing apps, not the most downloaded or used, where it's actually #16, so that's your figure. The image editor Acorn is the #1 purchased app of all according to the App Store charts and no one could use that fact to argue that Acorn is the #1 most used Mac program and especially that it is therefore a major presence in the world of image editors, which is how this "data" is being used in your post, because it's not. Logic is the #13 most downloaded app and the #3 grossing app in Apple's App Store, but that says squat about Logic's share of the audio DAW market. And I have both Logic and Aperture and use both, so I'm no hater. Keynote, Numbers and Pages are all in the top 10 of top grossing, so you might as well say that they're among the world's most popular productivity programs, which would be, well, let's just say a rough argument.
leave it alone. take the high road. If the fact that Aperture being the #5 highest paid App in the Mac store is not evidence enough to show people are using it, then nothing will be. Don't know why we keep going on about this.
Because you're using a completely flawed use of the chart to make your point. First of all, the chart Aperture is #5 on is for the top grossing apps, not the most downloaded or used, where it's actually #16, so that's your figure. The image editor Acorn is the #1 purchased app of all according to the App Store charts and no one could use that fact to argue that Acorn is the #1 most used Mac program and especially that it is therefore a major presence in the world of image editors, which is how this "data" is being used in your post, because it's not. Logic is the #13 most downloaded app and the #3 grossing app in Apple's App Store, but that says squat about Logic's share of the audio DAW market. And I have both Logic and Aperture and use both, so I'm no hater. Keynote, Numbers and Pages are all in the top 10 of top grossing, so you might as well say that they're among the world's most popular productivity programs, which would be, well, let's just say a rough argument.
#5 top grossing, #16 top downloaded. The point is it generates money and gets downloaded often. If you get a rise out of picking fights over splitting hairs that up to you; not really interested personally.
Didn't anyone ever tell you moderators shouldn't start taking personal shots at posters? You're supposed to maintain the post quality around here, not take a piss on it.
I belong to a crowd that makes money doing this, and if I'm being bogged down by crappy software, that means more time of mine wasted not being able to charge a client for work that needs to be done. You know, that old expression, time is money?
Lots of pro's are now switching away from Adobe because it makes them less productive. I'll say it again, just because YOU don't have any friends that use software outside Adobe's prison, doesn't mean we don't exist, and get by much better without Adobe.
I just read your last post, if I were the kind of mod to take offense, I would have deleted it, and given you a mark, but I didn't. Don't talk about insults. Mine was nothing, and certainly far nicer than yours to me.
I started in this business in 1969, when I was 19, with Mcann-Ericsson. I did fashion and advertising work. I also shot Tv Clairol Summer Blond commercials. For over twenty years, I ran a major commercial photo lab here in NYC. We were the only company to process professional Kodachrome. My clients are worldwide, and well known.
In addition, we were one of the first labs to do digital when in 1988, I bought the Crossfield System, which consisted of their top line drum scanner, a Mac IICi, and pre Photoshop software. It cost $250,000 back then. When Adobe first came out with Photoshop, they came to us, and we were one of the first Adobe shops in the country. I just stopped beta testing CS for them recently, after 23 years.
What you don't seem to be knowledgable about is commercial work. There are a number of publishing systems around the world that will only work with Adobe software, and possibly still, in a few cases, Quark. With these systems, the plug-ins can cost thousands of dollars, and so the cost of Adobe's software is negligible. As far as an individual photographer is concerned, if it's a real business, their accountant can write this off. There are a number of ways to do this. Quite frankly, if you're a pro, and making decent money, the cost of this isn't all that much. It's a business expense like any other.
When you talk about photographers, you're talking about a major part of my life, then, and now, even though I'm retired. I'm happy to call a lot of these guys good friends. I don't know what you do, but I do know that of all the guys I know, Aperture isn't much on their minds. I'm not saying that no one uses it, but it is a definite minority around commercial workers. Maybe in the wedding and events crowd it's different.
My friend Michael Reichmann has a site called The Luminous Landscape. It's a well known pro site. In the forums, there are threads for Aperture and LR. The Aperture forum has 270 threads and a total of 1688 posts, and the LR forum has 4,122 threads and 31,976 posts as of a few minutes ago. For all pro sites that have forums for software, the story is the same.
I do expect that here, on an Apple centric site, we will get more people preferring Apple all the way. Mostly, I'm the same way. But that isn't always possible. This is one of those times.
Comments
And I call it crap because despite having a monopoly, their software is bug ridden, their support is beyond a joke, and their business model is to squeeze every last penny from their customers, no matter the negative PR it may cause them.
Because of Creative Cloud, there is a growing movement amongst the pros to break free of the Adobe prison and find new, more fertile grounds. Aperture is like a breath of fresh air, and I welcome the day when I can find the time to dump Lightroom for ever. After that, will be looking to chuck CS6.
What struck me right away was its elegant and well-thought-out UI. You simply set your collections in LR to synch with LRM, and they soon appear in LRM. Or you can create new collections from your iPad's Camera Roll.
Each control has a display-wide slider, and you can watch the histogram in the upper right corner as you tap and drag.
The main thing about the app for me, though is how pleasant it is to edit my photos on the iPad. It reminded me of Steve's keynote when he sat down in that comfortable chair on stage with his new iPad and how he remarked how the iPad "becomes" the app that's running. I felt that way using LRM. It was fun and easy.
This was a good move for Adobe. Many will find the app useful, and it'll help sell more CC subscriptions.
I am with you 200%.
I bought aperture when it cost an arm and a leg 200 USD. It was perfect, better than anything out there. Then it got neglected, then the price was cut and I said "well good, they bring as many on the sw as possible, an update will be released". But nope!
It's like if apple has dangerously forgotten that some people, not professionals who can afford 100+ dollars a year for creative cloud, WOULD NEVERTHELESS SPEND MONEY FOR A SERVICE!
The ones that are on iTunes Match, that were on iDisk and MobileMe...
That paid for iLife and iWork...
They want more than your average joe, can pay for it and will, but cannot justify prices dedicated to pros because they don' make a living out of these. This was the backbone of apple's service paying customers.
In my opinion apple is on a completely wrong course.
It's hard to believe you use their software if you call it crap
Believe it... I use their software because unfortunately amongst the pro circles they do have a monopoly, but that is changing.
And I call it crap because despite having a monopoly, their software is bug ridden, their support is beyond a joke, and their business model is to squeeze every last penny from their customers, no matter the negative PR it may cause them.
Because of Creative Cloud, there is a growing movement amongst the pros to break free of the Adobe prison and find new, more fertile grounds. Aperture is like a breath of fresh air, and I welcome the day when I can find the time to dump Lightroom for ever. After that, will be looking to chuck CS6.
I assume you already have Pixelmator? Does most of what I need.
I assume you already have Pixelmator? Does most of what I need.
Not yet, but it's on my radar and I'm seriously contemplating looking at it... Some things about the UI don't quite sit well with me, but I see the dev's are actively improving it based on customer feedback, so might give it a bit more time to mature first before taking the plunge.
Virtually no pros use Aperature. I'm sorry to say that, but that's the fact. And I'm talking about pros. Apple repositioned this software a long time ago. They tried, at first, to appeal to pros, but due to their failure to understand pro needs, they failed. While the software is much better now, it's too little, too late. They don't upgrade often enough, and it's fallen well behind.
Sorry, but you're dead wrong. I know a LOT of pro photographers who use Aperture, or like me, are in the active process of switching to it. Just because YOU don't know anyone who uses it, doesn't mean there aren't any!
Other than requiring a lot of RAM, the tool works well for me. I have developed a workflow over many years that works very well for me and there is no reason to switch. Of the one notable feature that Aperture lacks (lens correction), I rarely feel I need lens correction. When I do; I use PTlens.
Other than requiring a lot of RAM, the tool works well for me. I have developed a workflow that works very well for me and there is no reason to switch. Of the one notable feature that Aperture lacks (lens correction), I rarely feel I need lens correction. When I do; I use PTlens.
I assume the tool you're referring to is Aperture. You're correct, it does require substantial amounts of RAM, but if you're a serious pro (or even semi-pro) photographer, chances are you're running at least an i7 with 12GB RAM or more. Processing RAW images from today's DSLR's takes a LOT of CPU power and RAM, especially when you start applying filters or enhancements to your RAW images. This is where Lightroom drives me absolutely INSANE. If you look at the Adobe discussion pages, people with Xeon workstations with RAID 0 SSD drives and 32GB of RAM report up to 10-second delays in zooming in on RAW images, or moving adjustment sliders in the Develop panel, if they've had lens correction or noise reduction applied in LR, and Adobe has constantly said (with each update) it's been "fixed", only for it to still be there. Something like what Intel has constantly done with their Centrino wireless adaptor drives, not fixing them for 2 years.
Usually, lens correction is only needed if you've photographed architecture and need to have it straightened. Otherwise I consider it an optional feature.
Other than requiring a lot of RAM, the tool works well for me. I have developed a workflow that works very well for me and there is no reason to switch. Of the one notable feature that Aperture lacks (lens correction), I rarely feel I need lens correction. When I do; I use PTlens.
I assume the tool you're referring to is Aperture. You're correct, it does require substantial amounts of RAM, but if you're a serious pro (or even semi-pro) photographer, chances are you're running at least an i7 with 12GB RAM or more. Processing RAW images from today's DSLR's takes a LOT of CPU power and RAM, especially when you start applying filters or enhancements to your RAW images. This is where Lightroom drives me absolutely INSANE. If you look at the Adobe discussion pages, people with Xeon workstations with RAID 0 SSD drives and 32GB of RAM report up to 10-second delays in zooming in on RAW images, or moving adjustment sliders in the Develop panel, if they've had lens correction or noise reduction applied in LR, and Adobe has constantly said (with each update) it's been "fixed", only for it to still be there. Something like what Intel has constantly done with their Centrino wireless adaptor drives, not fixing them for 2 years.
Usually, lens correction is only needed if you've photographed architecture and need to have it straightened. Otherwise I consider it an optional feature.
The see the RAM limitation mostly on my portable. Its a late 2013 rMBP 15" i7 with Nvidia GPU. As you know the most you can get into any MPB/rMBP laptop is 16GB. There is definitely a RAM leak, I have to watch my page outs if I intend to spend the whole day in Aperture. Quit out restart if I see it starting to page out drastically.
Interesting to hear that the grass is not greener when it comes to RAM with LR.
As for len correction, only really need it for my UW. Don't really care much about barrel distortion; actually that is the whole reason I pick UW is to get that effect. However, the CA at times bugs me to the point where Aperture's manual CA adjustment sliders don't cut it. Again, doesn't bug me much enough to make much use of it on a constant basis.
The see the RAM limitation mostly on my portable. Its a late 2013 rMBP 15" i7 with Nvidia GPU. As you know the most you can get into any MPB/rMBP laptop is 16GB. There is definitely a RAM leak, I have to watch my page outs if I intend to spend the whole day in Aperture. Quit out restart if I see it starting to page out drastically.
Interesting to hear that the grass is not greener when it comes to RAM with LR.
Lightroom is hit and miss on a lot of things. What I like is that its adjustment data takes up very little drive space beyond the storage required for the image files themselves.
Changing? Where? I don't see it. Oh please, you're going to chuck Adobe's software for Aperture? Good luck with that!
Really? You must belong to a strange crowd then.
Changing? Where? I don't see it. Oh please, you're going to chuck Adobe's software for Aperture? Good luck with that!
Wow, spoken like a true Adobe fanboy, almost as bad as Android fanatics.
Wake up and smell the roses pal, there's a whole other world outside of Adobe out there! Get your head out of the sand and go see it.
Really? You must belong to a strange crowd then.
Didn't anyone ever tell you moderators shouldn't start taking personal shots at posters? You're supposed to maintain the post quality around here, not take a piss on it.
I belong to a crowd that makes money doing this, and if I'm being bogged down by crappy software, that means more time of mine wasted not being able to charge a client for work that needs to be done. You know, that old expression, time is money?
Lots of pro's are now switching away from Adobe because it makes them less productive. I'll say it again, just because YOU don't have any friends that use software outside Adobe's prison, doesn't mean we don't exist, and get by much better without Adobe.
MagMan1979,
leave it alone. take the high road. If the fact that Aperture being the #5 highest paid App in the Mac store is not evidence enough to show people are using it, then nothing will be. Don't know why we keep going on about this. Use what works for you and what you like. Not because you think you need to be in the mainstream. Just because people use Windows more than Mac does not mean I'm gonna switch to Windows. If you think about it, many of us switch from the mainstream to to the minority with Windows-->Mac. Saying its not reasonable or possible to do the same with LR to Aperture is hypocritical frankly.
I did a comparison between Aperture and LR when they both came to market. I picked the best tool. I made my bed and now I'm goona sleep it in. The software and my workflow has been been refined over the years. I can use it in my sleep. I see no reason to switch. Same reason people don't from Mac to Windows or Windows to Mac. It works for them and they are comfortable with it. At the end of the day its what ever gets your job done with the least amount of hassle. For me and many others like you its Aperture. If others can't live with that fact, its their own personal problem that I don't tend to pyscho analyze.
enough said.
MagMan1979,
leave it alone. take the high road. If the fact that Aperture being the #5 highest paid App in the Mac store is not evidence enough to show people are using it, then nothing will be. Don't know why we keep going on about this. Use what works for you and what you like. Not because you think you need to be in the mainstream. Just because people use Windows more than Mac does not mean I'm gonna switch to Windows. If you think about it, many of us switch from the mainstream to to the minority with Windows-->Mac. Saying its not reasonable or possible to do the same with LR to Aperture is hypocritical frankly.
I did a comparison between Aperture and LR when they both came to market. I picked the best tool. I made my bed and now I'm goona sleep it in. The software and my workflow has been been refined over the years. I can use it in my sleep. I see no reason to switch. Same reason people don't from Mac to Windows or Windows to Mac. It works for them and they are comfortable with it. At the end of the day its what ever gets your job done with the least amount of hassle. For me and many others like you its Aperture. If others can't live with that fact, its their own personal problem that I don't tend to pyscho analyze.
enough said.
Well put sir
MagMan1979,
leave it alone. take the high road. If the fact that Aperture being the #5 highest paid App in the Mac store is not evidence enough to show people are using it, then nothing will be. Don't know why we keep going on about this.
Because you're using a completely flawed use of the chart to make your point. First of all, the chart Aperture is #5 on is for the top grossing apps, not the most downloaded or used, where it's actually #16, so that's your figure. The image editor Acorn is the #1 purchased app of all according to the App Store charts and no one could use that fact to argue that Acorn is the #1 most used Mac program and especially that it is therefore a major presence in the world of image editors, which is how this "data" is being used in your post, because it's not. Logic is the #13 most downloaded app and the #3 grossing app in Apple's App Store, but that says squat about Logic's share of the audio DAW market. And I have both Logic and Aperture and use both, so I'm no hater. Keynote, Numbers and Pages are all in the top 10 of top grossing, so you might as well say that they're among the world's most popular productivity programs, which would be, well, let's just say a rough argument.
MagMan1979,
leave it alone. take the high road. If the fact that Aperture being the #5 highest paid App in the Mac store is not evidence enough to show people are using it, then nothing will be. Don't know why we keep going on about this.
Because you're using a completely flawed use of the chart to make your point. First of all, the chart Aperture is #5 on is for the top grossing apps, not the most downloaded or used, where it's actually #16, so that's your figure. The image editor Acorn is the #1 purchased app of all according to the App Store charts and no one could use that fact to argue that Acorn is the #1 most used Mac program and especially that it is therefore a major presence in the world of image editors, which is how this "data" is being used in your post, because it's not. Logic is the #13 most downloaded app and the #3 grossing app in Apple's App Store, but that says squat about Logic's share of the audio DAW market. And I have both Logic and Aperture and use both, so I'm no hater. Keynote, Numbers and Pages are all in the top 10 of top grossing, so you might as well say that they're among the world's most popular productivity programs, which would be, well, let's just say a rough argument.
#5 top grossing, #16 top downloaded. The point is it generates money and gets downloaded often. If you get a rise out of picking fights over splitting hairs that up to you; not really interested personally.
Oh, great, play the fanboy card when you have nothing of worth to say.
I just read your last post, if I were the kind of mod to take offense, I would have deleted it, and given you a mark, but I didn't. Don't talk about insults. Mine was nothing, and certainly far nicer than yours to me.
I started in this business in 1969, when I was 19, with Mcann-Ericsson. I did fashion and advertising work. I also shot Tv Clairol Summer Blond commercials. For over twenty years, I ran a major commercial photo lab here in NYC. We were the only company to process professional Kodachrome. My clients are worldwide, and well known.
In addition, we were one of the first labs to do digital when in 1988, I bought the Crossfield System, which consisted of their top line drum scanner, a Mac IICi, and pre Photoshop software. It cost $250,000 back then. When Adobe first came out with Photoshop, they came to us, and we were one of the first Adobe shops in the country. I just stopped beta testing CS for them recently, after 23 years.
What you don't seem to be knowledgable about is commercial work. There are a number of publishing systems around the world that will only work with Adobe software, and possibly still, in a few cases, Quark. With these systems, the plug-ins can cost thousands of dollars, and so the cost of Adobe's software is negligible. As far as an individual photographer is concerned, if it's a real business, their accountant can write this off. There are a number of ways to do this. Quite frankly, if you're a pro, and making decent money, the cost of this isn't all that much. It's a business expense like any other.
When you talk about photographers, you're talking about a major part of my life, then, and now, even though I'm retired. I'm happy to call a lot of these guys good friends. I don't know what you do, but I do know that of all the guys I know, Aperture isn't much on their minds. I'm not saying that no one uses it, but it is a definite minority around commercial workers. Maybe in the wedding and events crowd it's different.
My friend Michael Reichmann has a site called The Luminous Landscape. It's a well known pro site. In the forums, there are threads for Aperture and LR. The Aperture forum has 270 threads and a total of 1688 posts, and the LR forum has 4,122 threads and 31,976 posts as of a few minutes ago. For all pro sites that have forums for software, the story is the same.
I do expect that here, on an Apple centric site, we will get more people preferring Apple all the way. Mostly, I'm the same way. But that isn't always possible. This is one of those times.