Aperture 3

135

Comments

  • studio460studio460 Posts: 205Member
    Ade: Cool! I didn't realize Capture One had such a feature. Very neat!
  • JJ_SOJJ_SO Posts: 1,158Member
    @studio460 I'm based in Switzerland, german language part. Although I understand English, I don't understand all of the special vocabulary. And my opinion on that, with a sceptical look to Adobe's practice of demanding more money for localization: If a software developer want to sell his product in another country, he has to transfer the texts and the manual into that language. That's a lot of work, I know and a Google translator will not do the trick. But I appreciate and prefer each software developer who does take care about. Also, by law software and manuals HAVE to be localized in Europe.

    @Ade A combination of both would be nice. The focus points of the camera can show where you set the point (and also, if AF was engaged or not - when using shutter priority and shooting manual, no focus point is highlighted in aperture) and the focus area of C1 could confirm sharpness.
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,223Member
    I've looked into the others, LR (yuck), C1 and something else I no longer remember and none of them have the feel of Aperture. As a result I'm going to keep rolling with Aperture until I buy a camera that it no longer supports.

    I think the issue with Apple is that they are so wrapped up in iOS/mobile stuff that desktop apps like Aperture have simply fallen from their attention. At this point apps like aperture don't play nice in the mobile platforms, so it's just been left hanging.
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • studio460studio460 Posts: 205Member
    JJ: True, the focus-point information is helpful, beyond the indication of which area is actually in-focus.

    PB_PM: I'm afraid you're probably right. iOS, cloud apps, world domination, and all the rest will likely postpone further development on a "old" desktop application like Aperture into oblivion. Hopefully, not.
  • JJ_SOJJ_SO Posts: 1,158Member
    I agree, PB_PM, Apple is making tons of money with iOS. I just hoped, they would see Aperture as a nice hobby to show Adobe how it should been done :D Instead, they're still chewing on Steve's ideas. It's really tough for any other DAM to compete with Aperture's interface.
  • JJ_SOJJ_SO Posts: 1,158Member
    Trying to download the new version of view NX2 (2.7.4, european). I really would like to show you some developed RAWs...

    At 15.6 kB/s the bits are slendering through a DSL line which can perform 10 MBit. 158 MB in three hours... #-o Any question if Nikon photo sharing server is answered. Not at stone age speed.
  • JJ_SOJJ_SO Posts: 1,158Member
    I think, Nikon is still working with computers with some tubes and valves in, probably using punch cards as memory. So I went down in the cellar, reopened the box the D7100 was in and came back with a CD with NX2, version 2.7.3 in. Now it's working. and the download has still 1 hour 24 minutes left... I can't recall if I ever had such a lousy download rate? And frankly, I don't want to recall [-(
  • neversinkneversink Posts: 6Member
    edited March 2013
    I use Aperture because it is simple. I know I should use PS more often, as all my colleagues swear by it and insist it is the only game in town, but I just think it is an overly boated program. However, there are some things one can only accomplish in PS. But I'd rather reshoot than have to use PS

    Aperture is so simple and intuitive to use.Unfortunately they are being left in the dust by LR and others. Capture 1 is getting better. I actually have the new version of C1, but haven't tried it because unlike Aperture, there was always a delay using C1 between when I made an adjustment and when it appeared on screen. But unfortunately I will have to pick either LR or C1 I think, unless Apple can remember its customers who bought Aperture for its original photo editing tools and ease of use.

    Further, I am using Lion and the latest version of AP. Is there any benefit to upgrading to Mountain Lion?

    Thanks
    Post edited by neversink on
  • proudgeekproudgeek Posts: 1,422Member
    I'm running the newest version of Aperture (3.4.3 I think) on OS 10.8.x (which I guess is mountain lion). Just upgraded a few months ago from Aperture 2.1 and OS 10.5. The differences are monumental in my opinion.
  • JJ_SOJJ_SO Posts: 1,158Member
    @nversink: People who're running Mountain Lion continue to tell its' the more stable system, and some of the things rechanged after users complained loud enough, i.e. versions

    @proudgeek, the differences between AA 2.x and 3.x are out of question. In question is, if Apple stops being lazy with updates or new versions.
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,223Member
    Indeed, Aperture 3 was a big step up in terms of features. I still think Aperture 2 was faster overall, although the gap has become smaller since 3.3 was release, and handled memory use better.
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • JJ_SOJJ_SO Posts: 1,158Member
    I found a boxed version of AA 3 on my shelf, so I think, I never used version 2 and can't compare. Using View NX2 is probably even slower and so far I had to check the trash 3 times because I deleted a folder without purpose by just deleting one RAW file. I could recover it but working with this app is opposite of fun.
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,223Member
    Nikon's software is a joke. They need to get some real software developers to build NX3, if they ever bother to make it.
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • JJ_SOJJ_SO Posts: 1,158Member
    If it comes to Nikon software, "speed" or "performance" are not the first words crossing my mind, although the U-points are a nice feature. On the other hand: They have a version for D7100 ready while others are still testing or haven't started yet to finsih an update.
  • JJ_SOJJ_SO Posts: 1,158Member
    Anyway: CaptureOne now supports D7100. I just updated my 6 Pro to 7 Pro Version and try to get used to that interface, as I want to work with my pictures. DxO also announced to support D7100, certain features in April, others were about to be expected.

    Fact is, my testversion still has no clue about the NEF and I don't find it in the profile pack or whatever they call it.
  • JJ_SOJJ_SO Posts: 1,158Member
    edited April 2013
    DxO is now supporting D7100, too. Mixed impressions, but I didn't much going into deep. I just see mostly only one active core of 4 of my Mac's processor active and it is slooooow for those files compared to C1.
    Post edited by JJ_SO on
  • adamzadamz Posts: 842Moderator
    as it looks like Aperture has been abandoned by Apple, does any of You know a way to move Aperture library into LR? as I guess it's gonna be the only way to do some professional work in the next couple of years.
  • JJ_SOJJ_SO Posts: 1,158Member
    It's not only Aperture appearing abandoned: Since the D7100 came out (end of February) I'm waiting for a RAW-update. At present, no D7100 RAW file can be viewed on a Mac, except in Nikon Capture NX, C1, DxO and LR - specific converters, but not in Apple's own environment. It's embarassing, but I still have hope.

    If I were you, adamz, I start from scratch and would not try to transfer what is really complicated. You can open AA library and get the "originals", but all editing you will have to do again - or, you go for edited pictures and transfer them as 16bit TIF into LR, that needs a lot of diskspace. Especially when learning a new DAM it may be unwise to transfer form another DAM without knowing what is going on. Find out, if LR is what you want, work through the tutorials and then transfer the pictures you want

    Either way, some of the informations will go lost as Aperture doesn't stick to a standard (of Adobe, who is also not sticking to standards except the ones they set). Anyway, the behavior of Apple in that aspect really sucks!
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,223Member
    edited April 2013
    @adamz A move would take some work, but it is doable. First step would be to export both the original RAW files, and full size edited JPEGs to folders. Then you would need to import the files into Lightroom. Lightroom and Aperture allow you to work with your own file system, so I think it would be better to avoid using a library/catalog system to store the original RAW files, if you think changing programs is a possibility in the future.

    Frankly, I think Lightroom is an equally poor choice. The interface is terrible, typical Adobe product. It's a nice product, but it is one that is moving towards a monthly subscription based upgrade cycle. So if you want to have the latest updates, not even simply a new x.0 update, you'll need to pay. Paying $50 a month for the privilege of using Lightroom is too steep a price to pay, IMO. With a typical update cycle (usually 2 years between new x.0 overhauls), you'd be paying $1200 per version! That's insane, considering that Aperture is $79, and $149 for Lightroom today.

    @JJ_SO I have another thought. Maybe the slowness to update Aperture, iPhoto and RAW compatibility is a sign that a major update is coming? If the teams working on those features are working on a major update to Aperture and iPhoto, that would take a lot of resources away from updating the RAW compatibility.
    Post edited by PB_PM on
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • JJ_SOJJ_SO Posts: 1,158Member
    edited April 2013
    :-$ Psssst, PB_BM, don't speak it out loud, in my wilder dreams I also had such a fantasy. But I don't want to get a RAW editor which forces me first to upload my pictures into Apple's wondercloud. And some of the last updates were only for iCloud reasons...

    Oh and as for Lightroom... I think you're right. Before I'd switched to that thing, I'd take the trouble and learn Capture One. Equally poor interface but not depending on Adobe. Okay, one could get used to it, as I would have to get used to Aperture in stone grey outfit.
    Post edited by JJ_SO on
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,223Member
    edited April 2013
    I cannot think of any updates that were iCloud only. Then again, you're a little out of the loop on updates being in SL. I disabled iCloud in Aperture, but left it on in iPhoto, it;s a nice way to have access to your images on the go, and show them to clients without filing your iPad/iPhone with images.
    Post edited by PB_PM on
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • JJ_SOJJ_SO Posts: 1,158Member
    edited April 2013
    Not "iCloud only" but half of the features were for photostreams in iCloud. This, and the grey interface, kept me away from updating. White balance on faces and better highlight recovery, that's what comes in my mind, were the big things from AA 3.4 and following "stability improvements".

    Well, maybe tomorrow - tuesdays are update days.

    P.S.: Just read about the new features in LR 5 beta. Nice job, Adobe, although your marketing is just not my cup of tea.
    Post edited by JJ_SO on
  • AdeAde Posts: 1,071Member
    Paying $50 a month for the privilege of using Lightroom is too steep a price to pay, IMO. With a typical update cycle (usually 2 years between new x.0 overhauls), you'd be paying $1200 per version! That's insane, considering that Aperture is $79, and $149 for Lightroom today.
    $50/mo gets you ALL of Adobe's Creative Suite applications, not just Lightroom. You get Photoshop Extended, Illustrator, InDesign, DreamWeaver, Audition, Premier Pro, etc., in addition to Lightroom.

    I used to pay well over $2000 per 2-years for Creative Suite, so $1000/yr. Now with the cloud subscription I pay just $600 a year. And since I'm an existing Adobe customer, I get a discounted price of $360 for the first year.

    So moving to the cloud subscription was a no-brainer for me. I save $640 this year, and $400 per year thereafter.
  • DaveyJDaveyJ Posts: 958Member
    Aperature 3 is becoming my primary Photo tool. Again as a slide/sound medium it is pretty much the best. Light Room is not my favorite but admit with every tool has a learning curve.
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,223Member
    Paying $50 a month for the privilege of using Lightroom is too steep a price to pay, IMO. With a typical update cycle (usually 2 years between new x.0 overhauls), you'd be paying $1200 per version! That's insane, considering that Aperture is $79, and $149 for Lightroom today.
    $50/mo gets you ALL of Adobe's Creative Suite applications, not just Lightroom. You get Photoshop Extended, Illustrator, InDesign, DreamWeaver, Audition, Premier Pro, etc., in addition to Lightroom.

    I used to pay well over $2000 per 2-years for Creative Suite, so $1000/yr. Now with the cloud subscription I pay just $600 a year. And since I'm an existing Adobe customer, I get a discounted price of $360 for the first year.

    So moving to the cloud subscription was a no-brainer for me. I save $640 this year, and $400 per year thereafter.
    I guess if you have use for such apps, that's great. Never touched or had need for the entire creative suite, and most likely never will. If all you need is a photo organizer with some minor editing ability, like Lightroom or Aperture, that price is a little steep none the less. From my point of view, no matter what the price, Adobe products aren't worth it. I'd honestly rather go back to shooting JPEGS than switch to Lightroom.
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
Sign In or Register to comment.