I think this program is actually competitive with Photoshop. Not completely of course, not the organization part, but definitely for retouching. I know there are a lot of people that, for the most part, use Photoshop only for retouching photographs. In fact, to me at least, the name suggests that it was specifically designed for this originally, and then expanded to other illustration work too.
One of the biggest things that makes this app so nice is that it ISN'T version 9, 11, or something along those lines. Photoshop has so much old code, and it is impeded by a UI that refuses to be revolutionary: don't alienate your user-base!
I think that Aperture is both iPhoto on steroids and a great pro photographer's workflow app. Why? iPhoto is a workflow app. It handles importing, organization, basic editing/support for external editors, and exporting to web/file/print. Aperture does the same thing, just with without worrying about the one-button mouse conundrum. Professional photographers need a good iPhoto on steroids, and will find it in Aperture.
Photoshop is still essential for any pro- or anyone that wants to do content creation/compositing/serious editing. No question about that.
Can apple make an app to compete with photoshop for that external editor option? Yes, and I bet they have something in the design stage. Can Adobe create a workflow solution as elegant and intuitive as Aperture? Yes, but not as features in photoshop. It would have to be a new app from the ground up. I know they tried to do that with CS2, but they'll have to try again and harder if they want to impress people who have seen Aperture.
All of a sudden, photographers using a PC are at a serious disadvantage. This is what Apple needs to continue its market-share push.
I'll try to remember to ask about that at the show tomorrow.
I'm looking forward to hearing the answer to this too. I have a 12" PB, and whilst I'm not a pro, I am an entusiastic amateur. From the looks of it (can't watch the vids now, must wait till I get home ), Aperture provides the tools I would want for my photo work - levels, crop/resize, sharpening, colour management, that sort of thing. I don't need all the extras that PS has to offer, but I could see myself making use of the extras that Aperture has to offer .
i have to disagree with the idea that this is not just a souped up iphoto. its basically like photoshop's bridge. it appears to be a management/workflow app that lets you organize and prune shots quickly. but what does it let you do in terms of image editing? iphoto allows for the basic elements like saturation, tints, sharpness blah blah. what can this do that iphoto cant?
It uses CoreImage to display really huge images in a snap. iPhoto is really slow to work with, but this thing should be able to zoom into and out of really big images in a snap. Or apply image filters in real time.
Creating a lie vs. correcting images? What the hell does that kind of judgemental nonsense mean?
Apple =good. Adobe=bad?
NO! they are differant tools, like a chain saw and a table saw. Apature corrects images in so far as color, hwite balance...from raw, as well as basic things like red eye.
If you want to do something fancy, like blur the background in a picture of, say a football player catching a ball so those in the croud cant be recognised, that is where photo shop comes in, not a lie, just advanced modification.
Apples tool is a manager FIRST with a few basic "correction" tools, Adobe PS is all about "MODIFICATION", with managment tacked on as an after thought - It is an editor, Apples tool is a manager
(in Adobes defence, PS is really old software, predating digital photography and they cant piss off the user base by making too many radical changes, and probably shouldnt. it serves a differant need)
After rereading the Think Secret info on CS3 and Apple Photo Pro, it is apparent that Adobe had a heads up.
Quote:
The Adobe survey presented Photo Pro (Aperture) as a product geared towards photographers who handle numerous images regularly, offering extensive batch processing features and several automated features.
Among those listed were one-click importing with automatic backup to a second location, batch processing of metadata on import, rapid image browsing, support for multiple RAW settings per image, integrated high-quality camera raw processing, automated multi-page prints, and flexible contact sheet creation.
Apple, for the time being at least, is trying to appease Adobe. The amazing thing is the speed which Apple can produce stuff like this. How long did it take to get Photoshop up to it's current level? That's a real testament to Cocoa. And that, my friends, is the reason Adobe is worried. Apple is much more nimble.
It's so hilarious to read people talking about Apple threatening Adobe's PS market.
It is funny, but then again, where is Premiere on the Mac? I'm not saying it is going to happen. In fact I don't think it will. I'm just saying it's not totally unprecedented.
It's so hilarious to read people talking about Apple threatening Adobe's PS market.
I agree. Photographers don't necessarily make a large portion of the buyers of Photoshop, and I can easily imagine photographers still using Photoshop as well as Aperture.
Quote:
Originally posted by Simple Ranger
It is funny, but then again, where is Premiere on the Mac? I'm not saying it is going to happen. In fact I don't think it will. I'm just saying it's not totally unprecedented.
I'd argue that Apple's video editing offerings were a lot more similar to Adobe's than the photo software offerings. Aperture isn't a direct competitor to Photoshop, rather more like complementary (at least for now), which wasn't the case for the video editing software.
Personally, I won't use either, I'm just using iPhoto and PS Essentials, and I look forward to the upgrades of those programs.
You missed it. I suggest watching the tour movies ( all of them ). All the image manipulation takes place in RAW, but you can apply a color sync profile to the image and then continue to manipulate it. That includes printer profiles.
You can take an operation and apply it to multiple photos ( although its not clear how wide spread that is ) in much the same way that excel can cut and paste styles.
I also think that this will shine in combination with Automator, but that remains to be seen.
It is clear to me that Apple have looked at the end to end workflow of a PHOTOGRAPHER and created an app to support that process, from capture through to delivery.
I watched the tours, and in every one I saw features that I _wished_ that iPhoto had. Im only a bad amateur, and I can see aperture improving my photography workflow.
There is no comparison to be had with photoshop. Photoshop is a creation app, not a workflow app, and the two will complement each other very nicely.
This is not a Final Cut/ Premiere situation but a Motion/After Effects situation. Apple is a hardware company and its stratagy ever since Jobs 2.0 has been to seek out software niches that leverage the 'whole widget' philosophy. Motion and Aperture use the Core Libraries to good effect and do things it would be very hard to achieve under Windows until Longwait (theoretically). Apple knows that nobody is going to get rid of After Effects or Photoshop and it doesn't want them to. It wants to push Adobe to keep competing on the Mac space; to sell more Macs.
I would have thought that this could replace alot of what a Photographer might use Photoshop for. There's colour correction. Comparison of photos. Blemish removal. Workflow.
Photoshop is is more image-creation in my book. ie it's more an art creation package.
For me, Aperture is more 'Photoshop' than Photoshop is.
Photoshop is more...'Art or Image' shop.
I think Aperture does for busy pro' Photographers what Front Row does for Media Computers.
It's back to basics...but with an elegance and sophistication that Photoshop can't match.
Photoshop is my favourite Mac app. But it has an ancient interface that in no way compares to the digital professionalism of Aperture. PS is still with the 90's interface Photoshop. PS is cluttered.
Yes. It does have depth. For Image creation. Photoshop can't be beat.
For a photographer? If I was working with just Photographs and wasn't into 'image creation'? One could easily eliminate it from workflow.
Creating something other than a photograph? That's Photo or 'Artshop/Image Shop's job....
Aperture definitely shows the way forward on interface design. Adobe could learn so much from real time effects...cocoa potential and in UI design from Apple.
Adobe have sat on their a** defending Tabs from the encroaching Macromedia. (Ironic...) How long have we had Core Image now? Core Video? What have Adobe done with it?
Bruce is just a s*ck up to M$. The Mac version of Photoshop should be lightyears ahead right now. Aperture shows the way. Brightly.
Not really...I actually read about products and look at guided tours before opening my mouth.
I'd say you did because you made an accusation without explaining it at the same time you made the accusation. Basically, you yourself were threadcrapping too.
Comments
I think that Aperture is both iPhoto on steroids and a great pro photographer's workflow app. Why? iPhoto is a workflow app. It handles importing, organization, basic editing/support for external editors, and exporting to web/file/print. Aperture does the same thing, just with without worrying about the one-button mouse conundrum. Professional photographers need a good iPhoto on steroids, and will find it in Aperture.
Photoshop is still essential for any pro- or anyone that wants to do content creation/compositing/serious editing. No question about that.
Can apple make an app to compete with photoshop for that external editor option? Yes, and I bet they have something in the design stage. Can Adobe create a workflow solution as elegant and intuitive as Aperture? Yes, but not as features in photoshop. It would have to be a new app from the ground up. I know they tried to do that with CS2, but they'll have to try again and harder if they want to impress people who have seen Aperture.
All of a sudden, photographers using a PC are at a serious disadvantage. This is what Apple needs to continue its market-share push.
Originally posted by Aquatic
OK another awesome app. However...Apple is making all our apps now. Is this good or bad?
Mmm ... Adding a fine 3D app would do nicely, thank you.
(They *still* should have bought Maya, darn it ...)
Originally posted by melgross
I'll try to remember to ask about that at the show tomorrow.
I'm looking forward to hearing the answer to this too. I have a 12" PB, and whilst I'm not a pro, I am an entusiastic amateur. From the looks of it (can't watch the vids now, must wait till I get home
Originally posted by macfly
i have to disagree with the idea that this is not just a souped up iphoto. its basically like photoshop's bridge. it appears to be a management/workflow app that lets you organize and prune shots quickly. but what does it let you do in terms of image editing? iphoto allows for the basic elements like saturation, tints, sharpness blah blah. what can this do that iphoto cant?
It uses CoreImage to display really huge images in a snap. iPhoto is really slow to work with, but this thing should be able to zoom into and out of really big images in a snap. Or apply image filters in real time.
Originally posted by melgross
Creating a lie vs. correcting images? What the hell does that kind of judgemental nonsense mean?
Apple =good. Adobe=bad?
NO! they are differant tools, like a chain saw and a table saw. Apature corrects images in so far as color, hwite balance...from raw, as well as basic things like red eye.
If you want to do something fancy, like blur the background in a picture of, say a football player catching a ball so those in the croud cant be recognised, that is where photo shop comes in, not a lie, just advanced modification.
Apples tool is a manager FIRST with a few basic "correction" tools, Adobe PS is all about "MODIFICATION", with managment tacked on as an after thought - It is an editor, Apples tool is a manager
(in Adobes defence, PS is really old software, predating digital photography and they cant piss off the user base by making too many radical changes, and probably shouldnt. it serves a differant need)
The Adobe survey presented Photo Pro (Aperture) as a product geared towards photographers who handle numerous images regularly, offering extensive batch processing features and several automated features.
Among those listed were one-click importing with automatic backup to a second location, batch processing of metadata on import, rapid image browsing, support for multiple RAW settings per image, integrated high-quality camera raw processing, automated multi-page prints, and flexible contact sheet creation.
Apple, for the time being at least, is trying to appease Adobe. The amazing thing is the speed which Apple can produce stuff like this. How long did it take to get Photoshop up to it's current level? That's a real testament to Cocoa. And that, my friends, is the reason Adobe is worried. Apple is much more nimble.
It's so hilarious to read people talking about Apple threatening Adobe's PS market.
Originally posted by Tidelwav
It's so hilarious to read people talking about Apple threatening Adobe's PS market.
It is funny, but then again, where is Premiere on the Mac? I'm not saying it is going to happen. In fact I don't think it will. I'm just saying it's not totally unprecedented.
Originally posted by Tidelwav
It's so hilarious to read people talking about Apple threatening Adobe's PS market.
I agree. Photographers don't necessarily make a large portion of the buyers of Photoshop, and I can easily imagine photographers still using Photoshop as well as Aperture.
Originally posted by Simple Ranger
It is funny, but then again, where is Premiere on the Mac? I'm not saying it is going to happen. In fact I don't think it will. I'm just saying it's not totally unprecedented.
I'd argue that Apple's video editing offerings were a lot more similar to Adobe's than the photo software offerings. Aperture isn't a direct competitor to Photoshop, rather more like complementary (at least for now), which wasn't the case for the video editing software.
Personally, I won't use either, I'm just using iPhoto and PS Essentials, and I look forward to the upgrades of those programs.
You missed it. I suggest watching the tour movies ( all of them ). All the image manipulation takes place in RAW, but you can apply a color sync profile to the image and then continue to manipulate it. That includes printer profiles.
You can take an operation and apply it to multiple photos ( although its not clear how wide spread that is ) in much the same way that excel can cut and paste styles.
I also think that this will shine in combination with Automator, but that remains to be seen.
It is clear to me that Apple have looked at the end to end workflow of a PHOTOGRAPHER and created an app to support that process, from capture through to delivery.
I watched the tours, and in every one I saw features that I _wished_ that iPhoto had. Im only a bad amateur, and I can see aperture improving my photography workflow.
There is no comparison to be had with photoshop. Photoshop is a creation app, not a workflow app, and the two will complement each other very nicely.
Lemon Bon Bon
Photoshop is is more image-creation in my book. ie it's more an art creation package.
For me, Aperture is more 'Photoshop' than Photoshop is.
Photoshop is more...'Art or Image' shop.
I think Aperture does for busy pro' Photographers what Front Row does for Media Computers.
It's back to basics...but with an elegance and sophistication that Photoshop can't match.
Photoshop is my favourite Mac app. But it has an ancient interface that in no way compares to the digital professionalism of Aperture. PS is still with the 90's interface Photoshop. PS is cluttered.
Yes. It does have depth. For Image creation. Photoshop can't be beat.
For a photographer? If I was working with just Photographs and wasn't into 'image creation'? One could easily eliminate it from workflow.
Creating something other than a photograph? That's Photo or 'Artshop/Image Shop's job....
Aperture definitely shows the way forward on interface design. Adobe could learn so much from real time effects...cocoa potential and in UI design from Apple.
Adobe have sat on their a** defending Tabs from the encroaching Macromedia. (Ironic...) How long have we had Core Image now? Core Video? What have Adobe done with it?
Bruce is just a s*ck up to M$. The Mac version of Photoshop should be lightyears ahead right now. Aperture shows the way. Brightly.
Lemon Bon Bon
Originally posted by kim kap sol
It'd be appreciated if melgross could use the bathroom instead of relieving his/her bowels on this thread.
I'd argue you have done what you just accused, because I don't remember anything melgross wrote that would cause a person to think this.
Originally posted by kwsanders
I noticed that Aperture does handle the RAW format of the Canon Digital Rebel XT/350D. Now if we only had that in iPhoto 5.
It's probably coming in 6 if it isn't in 5. I hope the speed and the CoreData stuff from Aperture gets pushed down into iPhoto.
Originally posted by JeffDM
I'd argue you have done what you just accused, because I don't remember anything melgross wrote that would cause a person to think this.
Not really...I actually read about products and look at guided tours before opening my mouth.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
Not really...I actually read about products and look at guided tours before opening my mouth.
I'd say you did because you made an accusation without explaining it at the same time you made the accusation. Basically, you yourself were threadcrapping too.