Aperture...

[steve holt]

im sure there is already a thread, but i didnt see one (and im to lazy to dig one up).
Ok i am switching to digital, and trying to find a good editing program, i was looking at Photoshop, but thats a bit pricey, so I was thinking Aperture (im running Tiger, getting Leopard). If you own it, do you like it? Whats its biggest flaw? (same Q's for Photoshop)

 

[lifeafter2am]

I tried both Aperture and Lightroom, and I stuck with Lightroom. Honestly, just download the demos for both of them and see which one you like the most. That is what I did, and I ended up using Lightroom. I was leaning more toward Aperture since I use a Mac also, but it didn't end up that way.

 

[BAB]

I tried both Aperture and Lightroom, and I stuck with Lightroom. Honestly, just download the demos for both of them and see which one you like the most. That is what I did, and I ended up using Lightroom. I was leaning more toward Aperture since I use a Mac also, but it didn't end up that way.

Would you share your reasons and observations?

 

[lifeafter2am]

I opened up Aperture and played around with it. Couldn't really do anything productive, felt like the interface wasn't working right. I opened some files and tried to edit them and such. It was just not very flowing, and the interface did nothing for me.

I opened up Lightroom and immediately thought that it was kiddy. The interface looked too simple, like it wasn't going to be a powerful enough program. At this point I tried Aperture again, but still could not really do what I wanted to. So then I went back into Lightroom and started importing some files and playing around. I could actually do just about everything I wanted too. The interface and the layout is really what sold it to me. The more I use it the more I love it!

Just my opinions. I know some people that work fast with Aperture and make it look easy and can't use Lightroom. Its all about what you learn!

Hope that Helps! :mrgreen:

 

[glaston]

I use Aperture.

I do alot of adjustments and Aperture makes it easier.
Apples "version" system is the main reason I use it. I also like the way it manages images.
You can reference files from any location. And it will store them in their current location, or store them in the Aperture library.
Then you make backup vaults of the library which can be used to restore the library in the event of data loss or to transfer to a different computer.
You have the library stored twice so it requires 2 times as much space.
It likes you to have the library and vault on separate physical drives.

I like it's light table feature also. Very nice.

 

[glaston]

I opened up Aperture and played around with it. Couldn't really do anything productive, felt like the interface wasn't working right. I opened some files and tried to edit them and such. It was just not very flowing, and the interface did nothing for me.

That's interesting. I thought the interface was very intuitive right off the bat.
You got the import panel on the left hand side, the adjustments panel on the right, viewer in the center and browser on the bottom.
That's basic mode, then there's 'maximize viewer' and 'maximize browser', and also a full screen mode with different HUD's that is how it's meant to be used when doing adjustments or corrections.
You can customize it's use of your display setup. If you have single or multiple displays.
You manage master files that are either referenced or contained within the aperture library. You can batch process as they're being imported, you can rename files and directories with complete control of all settings, or convert file types, assign color profiles, etc..
When you make an adjustment, it makes a new version of the master file by referencing it. So the master file is never altered. To cut down on space, these altered versions are stored as XML data and have extremely small space requirements since they don't contain the image data just the adjustment data.

The important thing to remember is that you can only work with files this way from within Aperture. So to use them in another application a version has to be exported. Either directly to an app like Photoshop, or to a file.

Ok i am switching to digital, and trying to find a good editing program, i was looking at Photoshop, but thats a bit pricey, so I was thinking Aperture

Photoshop is not the same type of app as Lightroom or Aperture.
Photoshop is an image editor that uses a seperate app called bridge for managing images.
Lightroom and Aperture are image management apps with limited editing functionality.
If you're new to digital imaging, you might like an app such as Paint Shop Pro or Photoshop Elements. They offer much of the same things as Photoshop but are less complex and cost alot less.
Paint Shop has Photo Album software bundled with it, and elements has it built into the app.

If you need dark room like functionality for hi rez photography though, that's what Aperture and Light Room are for.
If you need absolute control over your images, then that's what Photoshop is for.

 

[steve holt]

thanks guys! i think im gunna go with aperture. i havent been disapointed with any apple software yet.

 

[glaston]

Good choice!

As with any hardware or software, there are trade-offs.
Some people don't like how Aperture handles RAW files. I've personally never had a problem with RAW in Aperture though.
Since Aperture is a 1.0 version now, many areas where it needs work will be addressed in 2.0.

All software has shortcomings of course.

I've been using it for a little over a year now. I'm already at the point though that I would miss it alot if I had to switch.
I tried Lightroom and it's a good app, alot like Aperture.
The clincher for me is the "versioning" system Apple uses. It just fits right into the way I work.
As you said, Apple Apps have always worked well for me. Apple seems to have a good model for interface design and Aperture is no exception to that.

A few other image management apps I've used have a strange way of utilizing the library.
Such as with iPhoto, it doesn't let you reference images in place. It brings them into the library and stores them there. So then you have copies in different places.
With aperture, it gives you the choice of how they're stored.
Plus it allows you to make several vaults for secure backups.

This might not be such a big deal if you were starting fresh and all your images came directly from the camera into the app for storage.
I have gigabytes on top of gigabytes of images on my internal drives, and on external drives as well as network storage.
Aperture allowed me to import them to be stored in the aperture library, then I backed them up from their original location onto DVD+R and deleted the originals. I also imported the images from my working project directory into the aperture library but store them in their original locations.
I also have my entire library backed up on 3 different vaults. First vault is on an external firewire drive, 2nd vault is on a network disk that utilizes redundancy, 3rd vault is on DVD+R DL which span 4 different discs.

I'm about to try a different method also.
You can use a DV camera attached to a Mac via firewire as a tape drive.
There's a small app made specifically for it.
I don't know if there's a PC app that can do this but I'd venture a guess that there is.

One gripe I have about aperture is that if you open a master image using the external editor option and save that file back to the aperture library and close it, if you want to open that specific image again using the external editor function, aperture creates another version of it which collapses all the layers in it.
The best workaround I've found is to save the version from photoshop to the working project directory and work with it from there. You can also use the 'open recent' option in photoshop as long as it's in the list.
I don't think you can open a version file out of the library from within photoshop unless it's in the 'open recent' list.
At least I've never seen any options to do so.

 

[Sideburns]

For a beginner, lightroom would have been a much better choice, so if you still haven't bought aperture, go for lightroom. It's not awful, but Aperture's development/editing tools are (i find) more limited/harder to use. The organization features kick lightroom's butt, but lightroom's organization features are pretty adept anyways....

 

[theusher]

Aperture is better than Lightroom in my testing of both. My workflow is smoother, and imo the adjustments are better. Here and there I liked small things about lightroom better, but overall for me it's no contest.