Aperture 3 is here

[kevinparis]

damn... there goes my lear jet

K

 

[kit laughlin]

Hello to all.

Great thread. A couple of general workflow-level questions:

I use ACR (CS4 extended version, so use Bridge to organise, and ACR for tweaking, and Ps for printing/output to web galleries for customers, etc.) and have been experimenting with C1.

Even though there are aspects of C1 that look interesting, I find that I always default to ACR, simply because it is a deep program that I know pretty well, and because its batch processing works well. Under deadline pressure, it's ACR all the way (my image numbers on a typical job are 400–600, or so, usually).

But as a Mac user, and a fan of a number of photographers here who like Aperture, I want to look at it too. But to even make the effort to get into another complex software, I am after a "Aperture looks like it would be better for X, Y, Z, but C1 for P, Q, and R, and ACR for this and that" kind of comparison. It's a time thing, basically.

If, for example, Aperture has better organising capabilities than Bridge, that would be great to know, and I would be starting as a complete Aperture newbie, so no old libraries to worry about, and I have fast machines and drives as well as a fast internet connection (sorry Jono!), so some of folk's concerns would not affect me.

Or very happy if this has been done elsewhere, and someone could point me in the right direction.

cheers and TIA, Kit

 

[jonoslack]

Hello to all.

Great thread. A couple of general workflow-level questions:

I use ACR (CS4 extended version, so use Bridge to organise, and ACR for tweaking, and Ps for printing/output to web galleries for customers, etc.) and have been experimenting with C1.

Hi Kit
Well - Aperture 3 is rather unpredictable, it's a bit flakey right now, but it's also the most beautiful thing.

However, if you're coming from ACR and Bridge, then the conceptual leap you need to get over is the 'conversion' idea.

With Aperture (and Lightroom too), the idea is not to make a conversion, but to make the changes to the RAW file within the progam and only to do the output when you need it for web/client/print/whatever.

IMHO, and having really made an effort to convert to Lightroom (feeling that Apple had lost the plot) I feel that Aperture 3 is a wonderful thing, quick, efficient, intuitive and powerful. But it's important to understand the concept.

 

[jonoslack]

damn... there goes my lear jet

K

Sorry . . . and there was me thinking you'd be buying the drinks next week

 

[kit laughlin]

Jono wrote:

With Aperture (and Lightroom too), the idea is not to make a conversion, but to make the changes to the RAW file within the progam and only to do the output when you need it for web/client/print/whatever.

How is this different to Bridge/ACR? Any changes you make to a file in the Raw window are reflected in Bridge once you close that window, and the output (conversion) can be done later in a variety of ways via Actions directly from Bridge. I am sure the point that you are making is significant, but I think that probably I don't get it (not enough coffee, perhaps?).

Whatever you can add will be gratefully received. Cheers, KL

 

[Godfrey]

Ah. Indeed Godfrey, however, messing with RAW.plist is something most of us have done to our good at some time or another.

Currently though, it's easier to use Kevin's nice little automator to change the name of the camera, as 'similar' cameras are supported for both the GF1 (G1) EP1&2 (E30)

Incidentally - although slightly flakey, when it's good Aperture 3 is completely stunning - much better than I'd expected and really quick as well. One has to assume that if it's fantastic most of the time, a couple of upgrades will make it fantastic all of the time!

I don't mess with things like RAW.plist for clients or for serious work. That's the kind of thing that only hobbyists are willing to muck about with. For my needs, I want the vendor of the software I use to support the equipment I use. That way my use of the software has proper support and consistency in operation as well.

I see that another Digital Camera Raw Compatibility update has been released and Aperture will now support all the currently available Micro-FourThirds cameras. That's a good thing: no more messing with things you shouldn't.

I still don't like Aperture's UI very much. Dunno why ... I just don't. And I still use it for the book feature.

Lightroom is much more to my taste for the bulk of my workflow: less confusing, simpler, more straightforward. I find the tools more than satisfactory, and LR3PB's are better. Good enough for me. I'd rather do photography than hop back and forth between tools all the time. ;-)

 

[emmawest72]

For info.

I did the upgrade yesterday from AP 2 to AP3 + update 3.0.1.

The conversion took about 8 hours ( during the night) for a library with a size of 50G ( almost 59,000 photos and).
Library is on an external hardrive ( FW400) . I have a black macbook 2.2ghz with 4GB RAM.

Conversion went without any problems and this morning everything just worked fine. Most of my files are RAW ( Fuji S5pro) or scanned 16 bit TIFFS ( i.e. big files as a lot of it is from 6x6 or 6x7 cameras).

I will do more testing this weekend but for the moment I'm more than happy. I still find the repair tool a bit on the slow side but it is also true that my machine is a bit old...

 

[jonoslack]

I don't mess with things like RAW.plist for clients or for serious work. That's the kind of thing that only hobbyists are willing to muck about with.

don't be patronising Godfrey
It doesn't suit you (and serious people do what they need to get what they want)

 

[Jamesmd]

jono , you must be a happy man today , all you wanted from Aperture you have !!

perhaps its the moment for a Riojita !!

salud ; chin chin

cheers

James

 

[Godfrey]

don't be patronising Godfrey
It doesn't suit you.

Sorry, but that's my opinion. I don't know any serious working photographer who depends upon hacked software, it's not sensible to: a bad business decision.

Happily, it looks like Apple has responded and issued an update which obviates all these hacks.

 

[kevinparis]

godfrey

agree that hacking software is not a smart thing to do in the longterm... my hack did not touch the software but rather alterted a copy of the raw file to make aperture recognise it. If i had wished i could have kept the originals for the time when they were supported.
I am sure there were limitations to this approach, but i regarded the ability to work straight away with my files in an application i was comfortable with worth it.

happy now that the support is built in

K

 

[kit laughlin]

@ Jono: I would really appreciate you expanding on the conceptual differences between ACR and Aperture. Is part of it that you don't open separate windows, like you do with ACR or C1? I have never used either LR or Aperture. Cheers, kl

 

[jonoslack]

Sorry, but that's my opinion. I don't know any serious working photographer who depends upon hacked software, it's not sensible to: a bad business decision.

Happily, it looks like Apple has responded and issued an update which obviates all these hacks.

Editing configuration files is a long way from 'hacking software', which you surely understand - raw.plist is simply a configuration file, and making changes to it doesn't constitute 'hacking software'.

However, your remarks are breathtakingly condescending and patronising (not to mention calculatingly insulting) , even if they do represent your opinion (which of course you are entitled to).

 

[jonoslack]

@ Jono: I would really appreciate you expanding on the conceptual differences between ACR and Aperture. Is part of it that you don't open separate windows, like you do with ACR or C1? I have never used either LR or Aperture. Cheers, kl

Hi Kit
I think the point is that you have the important facilities of ACR / Bridge and Photoshop all together at the file level, and yes, not just not separate windows, but not separate applications either.

Maybe you should get a trial of one of them and have a play around?

 

[kit laughlin]

Thanks Jono. My seeming reluctance is only my aversion to learning yet another deep software (I have spent years learning ACR and Final Cut Pro!). And yet I am inclining to this, simply because I am tired of dealing with Adobe (the cost of the annual upgrades, and their fear-based protection systems that make you jump through endless hoops for an uninstall-reinstall, etc.).

Nonetheless, I will get the trial! Thanks, sincerely. KL

 

[Godfrey]

Editing configuration files is a long way from 'hacking software', which you surely understand - raw.plist is simply a configuration file, and making changes to it doesn't constitute 'hacking software'.

However, your remarks are breathtakingly condescending and patronising (not to mention calculatingly insulting) , even if they do represent your opinion (which of course you are entitled to).

Configuration files are software, just like executable files. Apple does not document or support modification of their CoreServices.framework configuration files. Perhaps you just don't like the word "hacking" ... Ok, "editing undocumented files whose contents you do not completely understand". There, all better? It means the same thing to me.

You can mince words around all you want. To me, hacking the system's configuration files (or the original image files ... even worse!), you are putting the system and your data at risk.

I don't do that for work that I need to rely upon.
If you do and you're happy taking those risks, enjoy.

There's still enough about Aperture to keep me annoyed that its camera support, or lack thereof, is unimportant. ;-)

 

[jonoslack]

Thanks Jono. My seeming reluctance is only my aversion to learning yet another deep software (I have spent years learning ACR and Final Cut Pro!). And yet I am inclining to this, simply because I am tired of dealing with Adobe (the cost of the annual upgrades, and their fear-based protection systems that make you jump through endless hoops for an uninstall-reinstall, etc.).

Nonetheless, I will get the trial! Thanks, sincerely. KL

Well - you have nothing to lose (other than a few hours!).
Personally, I like Aperture, but perhaps you should get both trials and see which suits you best (or least).

all the best

 

[kit laughlin]

Jono: reporting back.

I have spent all day with the trial version of Aperture: I like it.

Two questions: is there a way to do lens correction, or does one have to run TIFFs through PTLens, or similar? And once one has used a keystroke command to get into an adjustment window, is there a keyboard way to increment values, to reduce mouse use?

I think the options for output are very clever and I look forward to exploring these further.

Cheers, KL

 

[jonoslack]

Configuration files are software, just like executable files.

?

Give it a break Godfrey - I'm not annoyed by your opinions, but by your continued implication that those who don't agree with you aren't serious.
In my opinion it's rude and unnecessary.

 

[jonoslack]

Jono: reporting back.

I have spent all day with the trial version of Aperture: I like it.

Two questions: is there a way to do lens correction, or does one have to run TIFFs through PTLens, or similar? And once one has used a keystroke command to get into an adjustment window, is there a keyboard way to increment values, to reduce mouse use?

I think the options for output are very clever and I look forward to exploring these further.

Cheers, KL

HI Kit
Yes - sadly no lens correction yet - hopefully it'll come. In the meantime you need to shell out into either Photoshop or PTlens or similar (but it works quite nicely and keeps everything together).
Not so hot on the shortcuts I'm afraid . . . . right and left arrow?
There is a help topic on keyboard shortcuts.

If you haven't yet fiddled with 'versions', that's also very powerful.

all the best