[B]That is not calibrating anything - that's just adjusting colours AFTER the raw conversion process. That's not what I'm saying at all. Aperture renders truer colour from Raw files period.
IT IS calibrating. You just don't understand it. These are adjustments that occur during the conversion. And honestly, it really doesn't make much difference when it is done since Photoshop has 16 bit color processing for most of the important image transformations.
Quote:
Originally posted by the cool gut
This is really great if you enjoy doing most of your post processing AFTER raw conversion which is not ideal.
It's well understood that sharpening is best applied as a last step after resizing when processing a photo. Also, it is IMPOSSIBLE to sharpen an image until it's been converted.
While you are deriding Photoshop's sharpening tools, why don't you look at what Aperture has for sharpening. Nowhere near the flexibility of Photoshop's sharpening tools. I can forgive Apple for a lack of features since it's a new product but what tools they have included should be better than they are.
"Like the noise reduction, the sharpen filter is sorely lacking. It?s a basic unsharp mask without a threshold option, so it?s possible to pick up a lot of noise. for a program with a noisy RAW converter, that's not something that should be omitted. A threshold option is not a good thing to leave out."
Tell me, what do you think Aperture allows you do do to the image before it's converted from RAW?
I will tell you that the 3 things a RAW converter is needed for (with current technology) is WB adjustment, exposure adjustment, and of course Bayer interpolation. All other adjustments can be done in Photoshop and result in an equal degree of quality. After the interpolation, the data can safely be carried into the main photoshop window and worked on with no loss in quality vs using the converter for adjustments. I usually make some use of curves and other adjustments in ACR because it's convenient and non-destructive but it's not a necessity.
I'm not quite sure how Photoshop doesn't handle large files very well, as you say. A lot of that is hardware dependent. There are people using photoshop to stitch together photos resulting in images that equate to hundreds of megapixels.
I guess I just don't think Adobe is going to rest on their laurels while Aperture advances. Anyway, I also don't think Apple intends Aperture to be a Photoshop replacement. I also have to say that I think it's $500 price tag is too high for the functionality it includes. Even it's conversion has it's issues:
"Aperture produces sub-professional output when compared to most industry-standard converters. For some, the problem is even worse."
"Adobe's Camera Raw and other programs like Capture One have been years in the making and unless Apple buys up some quality RAW technology and drops it into the 1.5 update, you're not going to see Aperture rival the professional RAW apps any time soon. But it may not be as easy as that, judging by the results from the next section."
"It saddens me to say that Aperture's innovations are only skin deep. If it could deliver on the promise of being both fast and produce flawless results, it would be the dream package. At this point it is an expensive and questionable alternative to Camera Raw, a free extension to Photoshop, and Adobe's Bridge which can batch produce better quality images in arguably less time. For US$500 (Photoshop itself retails for US$649), there is no excuse not to be aware of professional needs like a high-quality sharpen tool, DNG exporting or more basic things like curves, a sampler tool for RGB pixel readings, or retention of EXIF data on output."
I advise you to read the Arstechnica review to see how a photographer would respond to it. Sure, it has potential but so does Gimp. People keep saying they think Gimp will compete with Photoshop just like they say Linux will compete with Windows. I just doubt any of these things will happen within the next 10 years.
Having said all of that, I am not against Apple making this into a great product.
First off, the Mac revenues have been between 30 and 40%. They're unlikely to want to give that up just out of spite against Apple.
Second, their development costs may be higher, but that hasn't stopped them before. Notice that they were among the first to provide PowerPC plug-ins, SMP plug-ins, AltiVec plug-ins and G5 plug-ins. Also, a lot of code is shared between their Mac and Windows versions.
Maybe you're right. Right now Adobe has Apple by the balls. By all indications, conroe will be ready to roll by this fall. If so new Power Macs could be introduced. Who will buy them without univerasl PS? People who use FCP can jump on in and get an intel mac but what about PS users? Every review of intel Macs mention that PS run under rosetta is unworkable. Pretty much the only app not workable under rosetta. When the new power macs arrive, every day without universal PS will be lost sales.
Why do you think the boys from apple are hanging all around adobe? You think they are going to let adobe hold the workstation division hostage? I'll bet there working on the app even as we speak?
Why do you think the boys from apple are hanging all around adobe? You think they are going to let adobe hold the workstation division hostage? I'll bet there working on the app even as we speak?
I don't know. What I do know is that Adbe not planning on releasing cs3, the only intel native version of their cs suite, in Q2 2007. I think that is July/September timeframe. If Powermacs come out in August as many expect and have predicted here, there will be a one year lag between PM intro and,argueably, the most important piece of software for that machine. A real conundrum for Apple.
I don't know. What I do know is that Adbe not planning on releasing cs3, the only intel native version of their cs suite, in Q2 2007. I think that is July/September timeframe. If Powermacs come out in August as many expect and have predicted here, there will be a one year lag between PM intro and,argueably, the most important piece of software for that machine. A real conundrum for Apple.
That's true for sure. The only thing Apple can do -besides turbosupporting Adobe in CS developing- is making Rosetta faster en better, until it get's a speed penalty that's accepatble for most powerusers. Say 20-30% ? I wouldn't mind if I bought a machine thet's 50% faster, and even more when the adbe Univerals finally arrive.
That's pretty much irrelevant as most pro photographers who use Photoshop for RAW conversion will do a custom color calibration yielding the best possible results for their camera(s).
Maybe for novice users but for Pros and serious amateurs, Aperture could only be thought of as a replacement for Bridge and ACR (Adobe Camera RAW). Aperture doesn't include anywhere near the funcionality of Photoshop and probably never will. How about advanced sharpening? What about blending multiple photos for high dynamic range subjects? What if I need advanced noise reduction? What about the advanced layer capabilities in Photoshop? How would I make a multiple exposure image like this: http://www.pbase.com/eclecticphoto/image/34244176
with Aperture? I guess my point is that Aperture is a developer, not an editor. It's but one part of what is often a multi-step process.
Developer is a poor choice of labels.
Try, Raw Project Management Tool for managing your stacks of digital raw images; and it wasn't designed to be a Photoshop application.
Now TIFFany [creators work in Apple Engineering] was a Photoshop application before the creators halted development and went to work full0-time at Apple; and don't be surprised if they release a product based upon much of it seeing as how one of the creators is one of the lead developers/creators of Quartz.
Now TIFFany [creators work in Apple Engineering] was a Photoshop application before the creators halted development and went to work full0-time at Apple; and don't be surprised if they release a product based upon much of it seeing as how one of the creators is one of the lead developers/creators of Quartz.
It's been clear for a long time that Apple has the talent and budget to run Photoshop into the ground.
What they don't have is the political will, since chasing such a high profile and professional market developer from the platform would have severe repercussions.
Ditto for Microsoft. Look at how long we've been waiting for a simple spreadsheet from Apple.
If a true Photoshop replacement ever comes, it will come from a third-party developer.
Considering Adobe's purchase of Macromedia, I feel that it would be very stupid of Apple to try and seriously compete with a major title like Photoshop. Apple obviously has only gone into the realms of Photo Management software that can compliment a Photoshop user very well. I think Apple has done well in offering a more user friendly consumer oriented set of tools to do similar types of production that Adobe CS and Macromedia Studio offer (obviously things like Flash, Illustrator etc are lacking)... so the big boys of Adomedia (Adobe + Macromedia, yeah shut up!) have their share of the pie that they've been used to.
I'd just like Adobe to get the Safari plugins completed for Shockwave and Flash so I don't have to have the drop down menu tell me that it couldn't find the plugin. I'm running it through Rosetta, and it still does it.
Aperture 3.0 will definitely be an interesting piece of software.
With regard to Photoshop, it's a complex piece of software which is why no-one's been able to replicate it on the platform.
Adobe uses their own imaging technology to keep the software crossplatform, which is why it's bloated.
The only software that begins to tackle OS X-native imaging is Stone Design's iMaginator.
The problem there is that as MacWorld has said, Stone has never really understood how to make an interface that's compelling to Pros.
I'm not sure why no-one's picked up on TIFFany's legacy.
Personally, I think Quark should make an image editor to give away free with the purchase of Xpress and buy SoftPress' Freeway to complete their own Creative Suite.
I just downloaded that app and it works really well on my dual core G5, the effects are fast! great little app!
Considering Adobe's purchase of Macromedia, I feel that it would be very stupid of Apple to try and seriously compete with a major title like Photoshop.
Not at all, - this is Adobes problem: Apple is the highest respected software company in the digital creative field. Bar none. Because of this, Apple has kept the Mac the platform of choice for digital creation. What's Adobe going to do? pull products from the Mac? Bahahahaa! Not a chance. Blue birds will be tweating in hell before that happens.
Plus, Microsoft has made it clear that it will be competing with Adobe after Longhorn is released. And I'll tell you one thing, no fucking way will Apple sit on the sidelines if that happens.
adobe is going to have to align with one of the os manufacturers and apple is a better choice. adobe knows that microsoft is coming to dethrone a few of their crown jewels. the imaging apps are not the most important thing to them. microsoft is planning a "pdf killer" and that's a HUGE HUGE concern to adobe.
adobe can take on any photoshop competitor with ease. but document format that's pre-installed on windows computers scares them a lot.
Comments
Originally posted by the cool gut
[B]That is not calibrating anything - that's just adjusting colours AFTER the raw conversion process. That's not what I'm saying at all. Aperture renders truer colour from Raw files period.
IT IS calibrating. You just don't understand it. These are adjustments that occur during the conversion. And honestly, it really doesn't make much difference when it is done since Photoshop has 16 bit color processing for most of the important image transformations.
Originally posted by the cool gut
This is really great if you enjoy doing most of your post processing AFTER raw conversion which is not ideal.
It's well understood that sharpening is best applied as a last step after resizing when processing a photo. Also, it is IMPOSSIBLE to sharpen an image until it's been converted.
While you are deriding Photoshop's sharpening tools, why don't you look at what Aperture has for sharpening. Nowhere near the flexibility of Photoshop's sharpening tools. I can forgive Apple for a lack of features since it's a new product but what tools they have included should be better than they are.
"Like the noise reduction, the sharpen filter is sorely lacking. It?s a basic unsharp mask without a threshold option, so it?s possible to pick up a lot of noise. for a program with a noisy RAW converter, that's not something that should be omitted. A threshold option is not a good thing to leave out."
http://arstechnica.com/reviews/apps/aperture.ars/6
Tell me, what do you think Aperture allows you do do to the image before it's converted from RAW?
I will tell you that the 3 things a RAW converter is needed for (with current technology) is WB adjustment, exposure adjustment, and of course Bayer interpolation. All other adjustments can be done in Photoshop and result in an equal degree of quality. After the interpolation, the data can safely be carried into the main photoshop window and worked on with no loss in quality vs using the converter for adjustments. I usually make some use of curves and other adjustments in ACR because it's convenient and non-destructive but it's not a necessity.
I'm not quite sure how Photoshop doesn't handle large files very well, as you say. A lot of that is hardware dependent. There are people using photoshop to stitch together photos resulting in images that equate to hundreds of megapixels.
Originally posted by the cool gut
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>VERSION 1.1 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I guess I just don't think Adobe is going to rest on their laurels while Aperture advances. Anyway, I also don't think Apple intends Aperture to be a Photoshop replacement. I also have to say that I think it's $500 price tag is too high for the functionality it includes. Even it's conversion has it's issues:
"Aperture produces sub-professional output when compared to most industry-standard converters. For some, the problem is even worse."
"Adobe's Camera Raw and other programs like Capture One have been years in the making and unless Apple buys up some quality RAW technology and drops it into the 1.5 update, you're not going to see Aperture rival the professional RAW apps any time soon. But it may not be as easy as that, judging by the results from the next section."
http://arstechnica.com/reviews/apps/aperture.ars/5
"It saddens me to say that Aperture's innovations are only skin deep. If it could deliver on the promise of being both fast and produce flawless results, it would be the dream package. At this point it is an expensive and questionable alternative to Camera Raw, a free extension to Photoshop, and Adobe's Bridge which can batch produce better quality images in arguably less time. For US$500 (Photoshop itself retails for US$649), there is no excuse not to be aware of professional needs like a high-quality sharpen tool, DNG exporting or more basic things like curves, a sampler tool for RGB pixel readings, or retention of EXIF data on output."
I advise you to read the Arstechnica review to see how a photographer would respond to it. Sure, it has potential but so does Gimp. People keep saying they think Gimp will compete with Photoshop just like they say Linux will compete with Windows. I just doubt any of these things will happen within the next 10 years.
Having said all of that, I am not against Apple making this into a great product.
This invariably slows things down.
If Apple puts all their resources into a Photoshop-level editor, they will be looking to push the Mac platform ahead. And the Mac platform only.
I don't see how Adobe could match such an effort, even with their history.
Their competitor would be much faster to respond to upgrades, and I think PS would suffer the same fate as Premiere.
Originally posted by Frank777
I don't see how Adobe could match such an effort, even with their history.
Their competitor would be much faster to respond to upgrades, and I think PS would suffer the same fate as Premiere.
Great. Yet another app for the Mac platform to loose.
You do know that Adobe doesn't like stiff competition, do you ? At least not on the Mac. Instead of taking the challenge, they prefer to just drop it.
Originally posted by BigBlue
Great. Yet another app for the Mac platform to loose.
You do know that Adobe doesn't like stiff competition, do you ? At least not on the Mac. Instead of taking the challenge, they prefer to just drop it.
You know, you're right. They'll just drop it. They'll only lose what, 20% of their revenue stream?
Originally posted by gregmightdothat
You know, you're right. They'll just drop it. They'll only lose what, 20% of their revenue stream?
But what are their costs to maintain that 20%? For Adobe, is developing for the Mac more costly than Windows?
Second, their development costs may be higher, but that hasn't stopped them before. Notice that they were among the first to provide PowerPC plug-ins, SMP plug-ins, AltiVec plug-ins and G5 plug-ins. Also, a lot of code is shared between their Mac and Windows versions.
a Blog-post of one of the adobe engineers about the transition of adobe's codebase to intel. Nice read.
Originally posted by backtomac
Maybe you're right. Right now Adobe has Apple by the balls. By all indications, conroe will be ready to roll by this fall. If so new Power Macs could be introduced. Who will buy them without univerasl PS? People who use FCP can jump on in and get an intel mac but what about PS users? Every review of intel Macs mention that PS run under rosetta is unworkable. Pretty much the only app not workable under rosetta. When the new power macs arrive, every day without universal PS will be lost sales.
Why do you think the boys from apple are hanging all around adobe? You think they are going to let adobe hold the workstation division hostage? I'll bet there working on the app even as we speak?
Originally posted by ibuzz
Why do you think the boys from apple are hanging all around adobe? You think they are going to let adobe hold the workstation division hostage? I'll bet there working on the app even as we speak?
I don't know. What I do know is that Adbe not planning on releasing cs3, the only intel native version of their cs suite, in Q2 2007. I think that is July/September timeframe. If Powermacs come out in August as many expect and have predicted here, there will be a one year lag between PM intro and,argueably, the most important piece of software for that machine. A real conundrum for Apple.
Originally posted by backtomac
I don't know. What I do know is that Adbe not planning on releasing cs3, the only intel native version of their cs suite, in Q2 2007. I think that is July/September timeframe. If Powermacs come out in August as many expect and have predicted here, there will be a one year lag between PM intro and,argueably, the most important piece of software for that machine. A real conundrum for Apple.
That's true for sure. The only thing Apple can do -besides turbosupporting Adobe in CS developing- is making Rosetta faster en better, until it get's a speed penalty that's accepatble for most powerusers. Say 20-30% ? I wouldn't mind if I bought a machine thet's 50% faster, and even more when the adbe Univerals finally arrive.
Originally posted by Daffy_Duck
That's pretty much irrelevant as most pro photographers who use Photoshop for RAW conversion will do a custom color calibration yielding the best possible results for their camera(s).
Maybe for novice users but for Pros and serious amateurs, Aperture could only be thought of as a replacement for Bridge and ACR (Adobe Camera RAW). Aperture doesn't include anywhere near the funcionality of Photoshop and probably never will. How about advanced sharpening? What about blending multiple photos for high dynamic range subjects? What if I need advanced noise reduction? What about the advanced layer capabilities in Photoshop? How would I make a multiple exposure image like this: http://www.pbase.com/eclecticphoto/image/34244176
with Aperture? I guess my point is that Aperture is a developer, not an editor. It's but one part of what is often a multi-step process.
Developer is a poor choice of labels.
Try, Raw Project Management Tool for managing your stacks of digital raw images; and it wasn't designed to be a Photoshop application.
Now TIFFany [creators work in Apple Engineering] was a Photoshop application before the creators halted development and went to work full0-time at Apple; and don't be surprised if they release a product based upon much of it seeing as how one of the creators is one of the lead developers/creators of Quartz.
Originally posted by mdriftmeyer
Now TIFFany [creators work in Apple Engineering] was a Photoshop application before the creators halted development and went to work full0-time at Apple; and don't be surprised if they release a product based upon much of it seeing as how one of the creators is one of the lead developers/creators of Quartz.
It's been clear for a long time that Apple has the talent and budget to run Photoshop into the ground.
What they don't have is the political will, since chasing such a high profile and professional market developer from the platform would have severe repercussions.
Ditto for Microsoft. Look at how long we've been waiting for a simple spreadsheet from Apple.
If a true Photoshop replacement ever comes, it will come from a third-party developer.
I guess only time will tell.
Originally posted by Frank777
Ditto for Microsoft. Look at how long we've been waiting for a simple spreadsheet from Apple.
We've had one for a while, Appleworks. Do you need one more simplistic than that?
Originally posted by ThinkingDifferent
We've had one for a while, Appleworks. Do you need one more simplistic than that?
No, but you do need one that is actually included on machines they currently sell.
Maybe they still have it on the ibook, but that would be the only one as it's the only non-professional ppc machine left.
Originally posted by Frank777
Aperture 3.0 will definitely be an interesting piece of software.
With regard to Photoshop, it's a complex piece of software which is why no-one's been able to replicate it on the platform.
Adobe uses their own imaging technology to keep the software crossplatform, which is why it's bloated.
The only software that begins to tackle OS X-native imaging is Stone Design's iMaginator.
The problem there is that as MacWorld has said, Stone has never really understood how to make an interface that's compelling to Pros.
I'm not sure why no-one's picked up on TIFFany's legacy.
Personally, I think Quark should make an image editor to give away free with the purchase of Xpress and buy SoftPress' Freeway to complete their own Creative Suite.
I just downloaded that app and it works really well on my dual core G5, the effects are fast! great little app!
Originally posted by CDonG4
Considering Adobe's purchase of Macromedia, I feel that it would be very stupid of Apple to try and seriously compete with a major title like Photoshop.
Not at all, - this is Adobes problem: Apple is the highest respected software company in the digital creative field. Bar none. Because of this, Apple has kept the Mac the platform of choice for digital creation. What's Adobe going to do? pull products from the Mac? Bahahahaa! Not a chance. Blue birds will be tweating in hell before that happens.
Plus, Microsoft has made it clear that it will be competing with Adobe after Longhorn is released. And I'll tell you one thing, no fucking way will Apple sit on the sidelines if that happens.
adobe can take on any photoshop competitor with ease. but document format that's pre-installed on windows computers scares them a lot.