I wouldn't be surprised if Apple had a number of top-secret projects of the kind (the 'just in case' kind if MS decided to pull Office or if Adobe decided to pull Photoshop).
Sure, if MS and Adobe pull their flagship product, it'll hurt the Mac platform...but Apple will make sure these apps don't break for years to come so that current Office and PS users can slowly transition to the apps they'll be releasing in the next few years.
Seeing how Apple could keep Aperture secret for so long is a good indication Numbers/Spreadsheet app and other interesting apps are coming. And it'll be all about 'workflow'.
Adobe has had competition from other's over the years for Photoshop dominance. Even from Microsoft itself.
I agree with Melgross in the reason Photoshop has become entrenched is because it effectively serves the need of its market. I don't know many photographer's, graphics artist, or photo editors who do not use Photoshop, and would take some doing to move Photoshop form its position.
I also agree that Photoshop's user interface can use some serious rethought. And that Aperture is an example of that. From what I've seen has an excellent design for its user interface.
Adobe should take a close look at Aperture, look at Apple's example of use of Core Image, and take advantage of these API's. Adobe may need to do this also with Vista as Microsoft is doing the same in developing photo API's native to the OS.
I thoughroughly dissagree that Aperture is a Photoshop killer. They do not over lap function that much.
What can happen as in my case is that I really need the functionality of an app like Aperture more than I need the advanced functions of Photoshop.
Because I am more in the photography side. I take still pictures of my lighting and camera set ups. I don't do much digital photo manipulation.
melgross, thank you for the report from the show. I can't wait to see Aperture in person myself. Did Apple have it running on any laptops? Any hint on how it might possibly run on intel laptops perhaps?
melgross, thank you for the report from the show. I can't wait to see Aperture in person myself. Did Apple have it running on any laptops? Any hint on how it might possibly run on intel laptops perhaps?
No, they did not. From my conversation, I got the feeling that this wasn't intended to be used on a laptop, though it could be.
I wouldn't even dream of asking about "future products".
The requirements of Aperture are quite hefty (significantly higher than any other app in the Pro line.) I wouldn't be surprised if Apple produced an "Express" version of Aperture that runs better than "barely" on the best laptops.
I bet that there are a lot of people that, while I would still call them experts, they're not really professionals in the field. They don't have their own studios, $20,000 cameras, and the like, but they are better than iPhoto. These people would definitely appreciate much of the Aperture functionality, but they still would like to be able to take it around on their laptop.
It's a shame that Aperture won't run on the 12" Powerbook at all but will run on the iMac G5 - a consumer machine. What a joke the Powerbooks have become.
My only hopes are (1) that Apple updates the Powerbook 12" before or shortly after the release of Aperture to meet the minimum requirements or (2) that Aperture's web site shows a change to the minimum requirements to include the 12" Powerbook. The second is possible - they changed the Core Image "requirements" when the iBooks were released and only had 32 MB of video RAM, but I highly doubt it's going to happen in this case.
Those requirements make the app severely limiting. Sure, if you're a studio photographer who shoots on the road for short periods of time (weekends or even a single day during the week) or in studio and then works for days editing, culling and printing, Aperture will be fine with your Power Mac G5 with dual 30" displays sitting in your studio. But what about photojournalists who are in Latvia, Iraq, Syria, etc. and need a mobile system to edit and cull photos while moving from place to place, possibly working on a plane during travel in order to submit by a deadline. Sorry. You're out of luck.
It's not for pro photographers. It's for SOME pro photographers. Looks like I'll be shooting in JPEG for another 5 years until I finish my PhD and am ready to buy a new system. What a shame.
Several people have said that Aperture doesn't directly challenge Photoshop. I think that that is true now but that Aperture will challenge Photoshop sooner rather than later. Apple uses its software to drive its hardware sales. Right now, the only hardware that can run Aperture in a reasonable way is expensive, so Aperture can be expensive. A year from now Aperture will run smoothly on cheaper hardware, and Aperture's price will be lowered accordingly. Non-professionals who use Photoshop or Elements primarily for image adjustment can switch to Aperture, which may be a superior tool for this since it fully uses Apple technology. Professionals who want pixel-perfect images won't abandon Photoshop, but a lot of other people--like me--might. Of course, then I wouldn't have the pleasure of arguing with the Photoshop Installer over whether each new version I install is really an upgrade.
I won't speak to Apple's future plans, since I don't know them. I'll only talk about the present.
Aperture is to Photoshop as InDesign is to Word.
Photoshop is powerful and complex and can be used for just about anything, from photography to CMYK production to de novo image creation to photo illustration. Word is powerful and complex and is used for everything from memos to newsletters to Ph.D. theses to mailmerge.
But neither Photoshop nor Word excel at any one thing. They're general purpose tools. It's great that they're so flexible (and lots of people buy them because of that flexibility), but for a *certain* audience that flexibility is a liability.
On the other hand, InDesign and Aperture are designed for a very *specific* audience. Creating newsletters and brochures is a dream in InDesign. Sure, you can replicate a lot of that in Word, but that's not the point. InDesign was crafted for creative types, not memo writers.
In the same vein, Aperture was designed for photographers. Not photo illustrators, not printing/production, not painters. It's for photographers.
my point is this: there are many types of photoshop users, and a lot of them are not photographers. me, for instance. my forté is creating stuff out of nothing. give me photoshop, and even a blank canvas, colors, filters, brushes and a wacom tablet, and i can WORK it. i'm even more dangerous when i have a photo to start with. i've made myself and my companies a lot of money by taking a pretty sorry photos.com image, and turning it into something unique and special. i'm not bragging (much... ahem *blush*), just proud of what i can do with the app and the experience i've gained. but i'm not a photographer.
but, and this is a guess, i don't think a non-photographer would know what to do with aperture. it's that focused (some would say niche). photoshop does a lot, A LOT, but does a photographer use the vector shape tool? i'm not being facetious here (or if i were, i'd be trying a lot harder). that's a serious question. my guess is that if you're overlaying type on the photo, and compositing it with things like, for my example, the blobby vector shape, you probably aren't aperture's target. who is photoshop's target market? EVERYone. and it can be every tool to every task and every person. the phoographer, yes. and the painter. and the typographer. and the layout artist. and the video editor... etc. it's not a bad thing, but i've said this for a logn time, if it weren't for branding, photoshop could stand to have a new name, because it's just not indicative of how WIDE its scope has become. but there are a lot of photographers who couldn't care less about those extra features. they consider the painting and typography and the video editing and the file management someone else's thing, not theirs. and they might, just might be looking for something that focused.
please note, i come not to bury photoshop, but to praise it.
My pitchfork is used exclusively in my garden. My wife won't let me bring a torch in the house outside of my shoops.
Ok, let me straighten things out here.
Thursday I went to the show. This is what I did regarding Aperture.
I spoke to several Apple reps about the program and hardware needed to run it.
I sat through the 20 minute presentation.
I took the hands on class they gave.
I think I have a pretty good idea of what this program is capable of doing at this time, and who would benefit from it the most.
Wedding and event photogs.
This group of people is going to get the most out of this. The great ability to organize and select photos is this program's strength. The work ing with RAW images is well done, though it does need support for more pro cameras than it has now. That would limit it. The amount of correction available will satisfy most of their needs. Wedding photog's will still have to go to PS for "special effects" (picture in picture,etc), but most of it can be done here. For them, the book layout function can be useful, if the client doesn't object to getting something that isn't a "real" photo. Otherwise this app can be close to perfect for them
Photojournalists.
It would depend on how the photog has to work. If (s)he has to organize and select photos, while doing their own corrections, then the front end of this program will again be perfect. If, like many journalists, they don't do any of that, just sending or bringing their work in for the editors to organize and select, with the journal itself doing all of the setup and correction, then the program won't be useful. Possibly the front end will be of use to the editorial staff.
Individual pro's other than the above mentioned.
It depends on how their work is used and output. If it goes to publication, and they do the selecting, then is will be of great help, again in the front end, as long as extensive work is not required. The output part of the program is not ready for that as yet. For local printing it is fine.
Commercial studio work.
Here, this program is the least suitable. Most comm photog's who are digital are using camera's and backs that are supplied with hi level programs that suit their purpose. Two systems I work with, Leaf and Phase One are setup for the high volume studio. The programs come with realtime abilities. As photo's are being shot at speeds of up to about a photo a second (medium format backs can't shoot faster than that as yet) the pics appear on the monitor screen in a contact sheet like format. The pics parade down the screen and can be instantly picked and enlarged to look at, or discarded from the emerging group (but not actually thrown away, just put into a discard folder). The editor is usually sitting at the computer doing this as the session is live, often stopping it to consult with the people on the set. These programs also do hi level correcting to preset standards the photog can adjust to meet individual clients needs.
Aperture may have some use after this is all done, but I can't see it taking the place of these highly specialized programs. These companies also will work with the individual photog and customize certain parts of the program as needed. Apple can't give that kind of service as they are not making or selling cameras and backs in the five figures. Nor should they be expected to.
Those are the main categories. There are sub categories, but that covers it fairly well. It remains to be seen if Apple is as responsive to the needs of photographers are they have been to filmmakers.
Having now read through the info on the web site and watched the videos, I guess I can understand why it's not going to run on a 12" PB with only 64MB video RAM. If I've understood it correctly, the processing is done on the fly, since the original RAW file is untouched, and the changes are just a set of commands that tells Aperture what to do to the image. No wonder it takes serious horsepower .
I think there have been some excellent posts here summing up Aperture's mandate.
It may not directly compete now. But if it follows Final Cut's road to potential...then...
Give it brushes, layers/channels, a few more of Final Cut's whizzy fx...and...I'd give it serious consideration. I'd use it.
I still think Photoshop is more for photo-illustration. I use it as such. It is great at manipulating and editing images. You can, of course, touch up photographs. But over the years it's become much more a an 'art shop' product. It's not got the raw fine art approach of Painter. (and god knows why Adobe didn't buy it when they had the chance...) But I think more and more...it's name is a misnoma. Photography might have been its original mandate...but it became a bit more sprawling than that...
Aperture hits the spot perfectly for a photographer. It is a 'photoshop'.
But for a Photographer? Who isn't also an 'artist' or illustrator? There's a new kid in town.
And it's Aperture.
If I'm an artist? At this stage of the game. If I want to create Artwork or manipulate it to any extent? If I want to take it beyond being merely a source photo? Or source piece of art? I'd use Photoshop.
If I was 'merely' photographer? I'd use Aperture. No question. Hands down. It's superb.
Having now read through the info on the web site and watched the videos, I guess I can understand why it's not going to run on a 12" PB with only 64MB video RAM. If I've understood it correctly, the processing is done on the fly, since the original RAW file is untouched, and the changes are just a set of commands that tells Aperture what to do to the image. No wonder it takes serious horsepower .
Let me tell you how they demo'd it.
All of the machines they had around the booth (actually around the booth on both sides. The center was used for the demo and classroom.) were PM's. I didn't ask which, but each one was using two 30" displays.
The classroom was also using PM's with 23" displays. I think they would have used 30", but you couldn't have seen above them to the screen in front.
No iMacs, No Powerbooks.
I think the new PB's have had a screen upgrade only so that they could run this, if more slowly. This is not a program that will be happy on a small low rez (1280x1024) screen.
Hmmm. Uncalled for. But...you didn't have to name call back...
Lemon Bon Bon
You're right. I didn't. But, it was after a very trying day, and while we may disagree, I'm just trying to give information that I've had a great deal of experience with. Too many people on the web say they do, but don't. You know that, I'm sure. If someone disagrees, that's fine. I don't like having my integrity called into question however. Their response to being told "no" is the one I received. Sometimes it's hard not to respond in kind.
Comments
Worth a read.
Invulnerable no more.
Lemon Bon Bon
Sure, if MS and Adobe pull their flagship product, it'll hurt the Mac platform...but Apple will make sure these apps don't break for years to come so that current Office and PS users can slowly transition to the apps they'll be releasing in the next few years.
Seeing how Apple could keep Aperture secret for so long is a good indication Numbers/Spreadsheet app and other interesting apps are coming. And it'll be all about 'workflow'.
I agree with Melgross in the reason Photoshop has become entrenched is because it effectively serves the need of its market. I don't know many photographer's, graphics artist, or photo editors who do not use Photoshop, and would take some doing to move Photoshop form its position.
I also agree that Photoshop's user interface can use some serious rethought. And that Aperture is an example of that. From what I've seen has an excellent design for its user interface.
Adobe should take a close look at Aperture, look at Apple's example of use of Core Image, and take advantage of these API's. Adobe may need to do this also with Vista as Microsoft is doing the same in developing photo API's native to the OS.
I thoughroughly dissagree that Aperture is a Photoshop killer. They do not over lap function that much.
What can happen as in my case is that I really need the functionality of an app like Aperture more than I need the advanced functions of Photoshop.
Because I am more in the photography side. I take still pictures of my lighting and camera set ups. I don't do much digital photo manipulation.
Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon
Lemon Bon Bon
PS. "stements"? Unprovoked? You called someone an 'ass'. And speaking of provoking... You're still here, aintcha?
PPS. Maybe you'll have to accept the fact that not everybody sees things as you do.
It'd be appreciated if melgross could use the bathroom instead of relieving his/her bowels on this thread.
You don't call that unprovoked? Perhaps you didn't read it?
I'm surprised at you.
Originally posted by Simple Ranger
melgross, thank you for the report from the show. I can't wait to see Aperture in person myself. Did Apple have it running on any laptops? Any hint on how it might possibly run on intel laptops perhaps?
No, they did not. From my conversation, I got the feeling that this wasn't intended to be used on a laptop, though it could be.
I wouldn't even dream of asking about "future products".
I bet that there are a lot of people that, while I would still call them experts, they're not really professionals in the field. They don't have their own studios, $20,000 cameras, and the like, but they are better than iPhoto. These people would definitely appreciate much of the Aperture functionality, but they still would like to be able to take it around on their laptop.
Originally posted by melgross
No, they did not. From my conversation, I got the feeling that this wasn't intended to be used on a laptop, though it could be.
It should be interesting, the Powerbooks BARELY squeak by the minimum requirements:
Minimum System Requirements
One of the following Macintosh computers:
Power Mac G5 with a 1.8 gigahertz (GHz) or faster PowerPC G5 processor
17- or 20-inch iMac G5 with a 1.8 GHz or faster PowerPC G5 processor
15- or 17-inch PowerBook G4 with a 1.25 GHz or faster PowerPC G4 processor
1GB of RAM
One of the following graphics cards:
ATI Radeon x600 Pro or x600 XT
ATI Radeon X800 XT Mac Edition
ATI Radeon X850 XT
ATI Radeon 9800 XT or 9800 Pro
ATI Radeon 9700 Pro
ATI Radeon 9600, 9600 XT, 9600 Pro, or 9650
ATI Mobility Radeon 9700 or 9600
NVIDIA GeForce 6600 LE or 6600
NVIDIA GeForce 6800 Ultra DDL or 6800 GT DDL
NVIDIA GeForce 7800 GT
NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500
5GB of disk space for application, templates, and tutorial
DVD drive for installation
My only hopes are (1) that Apple updates the Powerbook 12" before or shortly after the release of Aperture to meet the minimum requirements or (2) that Aperture's web site shows a change to the minimum requirements to include the 12" Powerbook. The second is possible - they changed the Core Image "requirements" when the iBooks were released and only had 32 MB of video RAM, but I highly doubt it's going to happen in this case.
Those requirements make the app severely limiting. Sure, if you're a studio photographer who shoots on the road for short periods of time (weekends or even a single day during the week) or in studio and then works for days editing, culling and printing, Aperture will be fine with your Power Mac G5 with dual 30" displays sitting in your studio. But what about photojournalists who are in Latvia, Iraq, Syria, etc. and need a mobile system to edit and cull photos while moving from place to place, possibly working on a plane during travel in order to submit by a deadline. Sorry. You're out of luck.
It's not for pro photographers. It's for SOME pro photographers. Looks like I'll be shooting in JPEG for another 5 years until I finish my PhD and am ready to buy a new system. What a shame.
http://www.thestreet.com/stocks/troy.../10248381.html
Aperture is to Photoshop as InDesign is to Word.
Photoshop is powerful and complex and can be used for just about anything, from photography to CMYK production to de novo image creation to photo illustration. Word is powerful and complex and is used for everything from memos to newsletters to Ph.D. theses to mailmerge.
But neither Photoshop nor Word excel at any one thing. They're general purpose tools. It's great that they're so flexible (and lots of people buy them because of that flexibility), but for a *certain* audience that flexibility is a liability.
On the other hand, InDesign and Aperture are designed for a very *specific* audience. Creating newsletters and brochures is a dream in InDesign. Sure, you can replicate a lot of that in Word, but that's not the point. InDesign was crafted for creative types, not memo writers.
In the same vein, Aperture was designed for photographers. Not photo illustrators, not printing/production, not painters. It's for photographers.
And it hits the bulls eye beautifully!
Originally posted by rok
okay, first, put the pitchfork and torch DOWN.
my point is this: there are many types of photoshop users, and a lot of them are not photographers. me, for instance. my forté is creating stuff out of nothing. give me photoshop, and even a blank canvas, colors, filters, brushes and a wacom tablet, and i can WORK it. i'm even more dangerous when i have a photo to start with. i've made myself and my companies a lot of money by taking a pretty sorry photos.com image, and turning it into something unique and special. i'm not bragging (much... ahem *blush*), just proud of what i can do with the app and the experience i've gained. but i'm not a photographer.
but, and this is a guess, i don't think a non-photographer would know what to do with aperture. it's that focused (some would say niche). photoshop does a lot, A LOT, but does a photographer use the vector shape tool? i'm not being facetious here (or if i were, i'd be trying a lot harder). that's a serious question. my guess is that if you're overlaying type on the photo, and compositing it with things like, for my example, the blobby vector shape, you probably aren't aperture's target. who is photoshop's target market? EVERYone. and it can be every tool to every task and every person. the phoographer, yes. and the painter. and the typographer. and the layout artist. and the video editor... etc. it's not a bad thing, but i've said this for a logn time, if it weren't for branding, photoshop could stand to have a new name, because it's just not indicative of how WIDE its scope has become. but there are a lot of photographers who couldn't care less about those extra features. they consider the painting and typography and the video editing and the file management someone else's thing, not theirs. and they might, just might be looking for something that focused.
please note, i come not to bury photoshop, but to praise it.
My pitchfork is used exclusively in my garden. My wife won't let me bring a torch in the house outside of my shoops.
Ok, let me straighten things out here.
Thursday I went to the show. This is what I did regarding Aperture.
I spoke to several Apple reps about the program and hardware needed to run it.
I sat through the 20 minute presentation.
I took the hands on class they gave.
I think I have a pretty good idea of what this program is capable of doing at this time, and who would benefit from it the most.
Wedding and event photogs.
This group of people is going to get the most out of this. The great ability to organize and select photos is this program's strength. The work ing with RAW images is well done, though it does need support for more pro cameras than it has now. That would limit it. The amount of correction available will satisfy most of their needs. Wedding photog's will still have to go to PS for "special effects" (picture in picture,etc), but most of it can be done here. For them, the book layout function can be useful, if the client doesn't object to getting something that isn't a "real" photo. Otherwise this app can be close to perfect for them
Photojournalists.
It would depend on how the photog has to work. If (s)he has to organize and select photos, while doing their own corrections, then the front end of this program will again be perfect. If, like many journalists, they don't do any of that, just sending or bringing their work in for the editors to organize and select, with the journal itself doing all of the setup and correction, then the program won't be useful. Possibly the front end will be of use to the editorial staff.
Individual pro's other than the above mentioned.
It depends on how their work is used and output. If it goes to publication, and they do the selecting, then is will be of great help, again in the front end, as long as extensive work is not required. The output part of the program is not ready for that as yet. For local printing it is fine.
Commercial studio work.
Here, this program is the least suitable. Most comm photog's who are digital are using camera's and backs that are supplied with hi level programs that suit their purpose. Two systems I work with, Leaf and Phase One are setup for the high volume studio. The programs come with realtime abilities. As photo's are being shot at speeds of up to about a photo a second (medium format backs can't shoot faster than that as yet) the pics appear on the monitor screen in a contact sheet like format. The pics parade down the screen and can be instantly picked and enlarged to look at, or discarded from the emerging group (but not actually thrown away, just put into a discard folder). The editor is usually sitting at the computer doing this as the session is live, often stopping it to consult with the people on the set. These programs also do hi level correcting to preset standards the photog can adjust to meet individual clients needs.
Aperture may have some use after this is all done, but I can't see it taking the place of these highly specialized programs. These companies also will work with the individual photog and customize certain parts of the program as needed. Apple can't give that kind of service as they are not making or selling cameras and backs in the five figures. Nor should they be expected to.
Those are the main categories. There are sub categories, but that covers it fairly well. It remains to be seen if Apple is as responsive to the needs of photographers are they have been to filmmakers.
Originally posted by melgross
It seems more oriented towards the individual photog
Well that's also what Apple is saying
Originally posted by JLL
Well that's also what Apple is saying
Yes, it is. But tempered by those groupings.
It may not directly compete now. But if it follows Final Cut's road to potential...then...
Give it brushes, layers/channels, a few more of Final Cut's whizzy fx...and...I'd give it serious consideration. I'd use it.
I still think Photoshop is more for photo-illustration. I use it as such. It is great at manipulating and editing images. You can, of course, touch up photographs. But over the years it's become much more a an 'art shop' product. It's not got the raw fine art approach of Painter. (and god knows why Adobe didn't buy it when they had the chance...) But I think more and more...it's name is a misnoma. Photography might have been its original mandate...but it became a bit more sprawling than that...
Aperture hits the spot perfectly for a photographer. It is a 'photoshop'.
But for a Photographer? Who isn't also an 'artist' or illustrator? There's a new kid in town.
And it's Aperture.
If I'm an artist? At this stage of the game. If I want to create Artwork or manipulate it to any extent? If I want to take it beyond being merely a source photo? Or source piece of art? I'd use Photoshop.
If I was 'merely' photographer? I'd use Aperture. No question. Hands down. It's superb.
Lemon Bon Bon
Originally posted by digitaldave
Having now read through the info on the web site and watched the videos, I guess I can understand why it's not going to run on a 12" PB with only 64MB video RAM. If I've understood it correctly, the processing is done on the fly, since the original RAW file is untouched, and the changes are just a set of commands that tells Aperture what to do to the image. No wonder it takes serious horsepower
Let me tell you how they demo'd it.
All of the machines they had around the booth (actually around the booth on both sides. The center was used for the demo and classroom.) were PM's. I didn't ask which, but each one was using two 30" displays.
The classroom was also using PM's with 23" displays. I think they would have used 30", but you couldn't have seen above them to the screen in front.
No iMacs, No Powerbooks.
I think the new PB's have had a screen upgrade only so that they could run this, if more slowly. This is not a program that will be happy on a small low rez (1280x1024) screen.
It'd be appreciated if melgross could use the bathroom instead of relieving his/her bowels on this thread.
Hmmm. Uncalled for. But...you didn't have to name call back...
Lemon Bon Bon
Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon
Hmmm. Uncalled for. But...you didn't have to name call back...
Lemon Bon Bon
You're right. I didn't. But, it was after a very trying day, and while we may disagree, I'm just trying to give information that I've had a great deal of experience with. Too many people on the web say they do, but don't. You know that, I'm sure. If someone disagrees, that's fine. I don't like having my integrity called into question however. Their response to being told "no" is the one I received. Sometimes it's hard not to respond in kind.
I don't hold grudges though.