Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Talk me in Aperture  (Read 26043 times)
Hellstan
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 158


WWW
« on: February 05, 2008, 04:12:24 PM »
ReplyReply

I run both LR and Aperture. From inception, I feel at home with LR, and get lost in Aperture.
Aperture geeks, here, talk me in convincing me to spend time on it. What benefit, regarding to LR (knowing that 80% of my workflow is in CS3 anyway) ?
Please tam me in not to put my Aperture on eBay.  
Thanks to you.
« Last Edit: February 05, 2008, 04:13:08 PM by Hellstan » Logged

digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 9315



WWW
« Reply #1 on: February 05, 2008, 06:10:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I run both LR and Aperture. From inception, I feel at home with LR, and get lost in Aperture.
Aperture geeks, here, talk me in convincing me to spend time on it. What benefit, regarding to LR (knowing that 80% of my workflow is in CS3 anyway) ?
Please tam me in not to put my Aperture on eBay.   
Thanks to you.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=172555\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Sorry, I can't. I started with Aperture too. Can't use it. Good luck with eBay!
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Hellstan
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 158


WWW
« Reply #2 on: February 05, 2008, 06:16:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Sorry, I can't. I started with Aperture too. Can't use it. Good luck with eBay!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=172578\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ha-ha, Andrew, from you, this is death penalty for Aperture.
Shall I hear  my Aperture speak to me like that :
"Are you quitting on me? Well, are you? Then quit, you slimy fucking walrus-looking piece of shit! Get the fuck off of my obstacle! Get the fuck down off of my obstacle! NOW! MOVE IT! I'm going to rip your balls off, so you cannot contaminate the rest of the world! I will motivate you, Private Pyle, IF IT SHORT-DICKS EVERY CANNIBAL ON THE CONGO!"    
« Last Edit: February 05, 2008, 06:17:18 PM by Hellstan » Logged

digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 9315



WWW
« Reply #3 on: February 05, 2008, 06:27:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Ha-ha, Andrew, from you, this is death penalty for Aperture.

I had really high hopes for Aperture. When I first saw it demo'd (I think 2 years ago at PMA?) I was blow away. It demo's really well. And there ARE some really cool parts of it. But Apple appears to have built this pup in a vacuum. I don't know who they worked with outside the company in getting better usability out of it. But you know, there are lots of people who don't like Lightroom and think the world of Aperture. And if not for Aperture, Lightroom may not have seen the light of day (it was that close to being killed off). I just found LR was a better, more direct experience for me. I keep letting the system software update the app and check it out, but after a few minutes, I just quit, delete the files and go back to Lightroom.

This reminds me of the very old days (raise your hands old farts) when Photoshop was competing with Color Studio. Color Studio had some pretty impressive functionality (CMYK long before Photoshop). But it just didn't flow for a lot of users and it died. And then there was Live Picture. Anyway, one reason Adobe software is so successful is they do build products that most people find intuitive and often preferable to the competition (anyone recall Xres?).
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Hellstan
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 158


WWW
« Reply #4 on: February 05, 2008, 06:40:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Anyway, one reason Adobe software is so successful is they do build products that most people find intuitive and often preferable to the competition (anyone recall Xres?).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=172582\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

In fact, to know about usability of any product, I check how far I can go learning by myself, eyes wide shut, if I may say so, without  opening a manual or a tutorial. LR is definitely in that category. I used it since a year before needing to go further with Luminous tutorial and so on. With Aperture, from day one, page one, I had to rely on guidance.    
Logged

jeremyrh
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 291


« Reply #5 on: February 06, 2008, 05:41:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Please tam me in not to put my Aperture on eBay.   
Thanks to you.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=172555\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Dont put your Aperture on ebay - it will reduce the price I get for mine.

Seriously, since the D300 debacle I've been looking at LR and although it has some nice tools for photographers, the organisation and navigation sucks, and the modular design is pointlessly annoying.

So for now I'm staying patient and waiting for 10.5.2 ... at least for a little while
Logged
brucepercy1
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 35


WWW
« Reply #6 on: February 12, 2008, 01:14:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Have a look at the aperture tutorials on line. The video podcasts in particular. If you watch them, you'll see just how powerful Aperture really is. It's in a different league from Lightroom. It just depends if you need all the features of Aperture.

The strengths of Aperture as I see it are:

*Great auditioning tools for comparing images
*stacking similar images together based on how close together they were shot in time
*smart albums for sorting and finding images.

It's initially not intuitive - it has a very different approach to how to manage images, but once you get into it, it really does begin to snowball.
Logged

--

Best Wishes,

Bruce Percy
http://www.brucepercy.com
Hellstan
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 158


WWW
« Reply #7 on: February 12, 2008, 01:41:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Have a look at the aperture tutorials on line. The video podcasts in particular. If you watch them, you'll see just how powerful Aperture really is. It's in a different league from Lightroom. It just depends if you need all the features of Aperture.

The strengths of Aperture as I see it are:

*Great auditioning tools for comparing images
*stacking similar images together based on how close together they were shot in time
*smart albums for sorting and finding images.

It's initially not intuitive - it has a very different approach to how to manage images, but once you get into it, it really does begin to snowball.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174305\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks a lot Bruce.
Well, I feel C1 has nice tools too for comparing/duplicating variant and sorting images
I definitely don't like the magnifier in Aperture, much prefer the equivalent tools in LR or C1
Stacks are a forte, yes

As a lefthanded / right brained guy, I love intuitive apps. Aperture is much more left brain to me — asks for learning before handling.
Well, I won't put it on eBay and leave me a week-end to delve more into it.

UPDATE
Just downloaded Aperture 2.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2008, 01:59:21 PM by Hellstan » Logged

brucepercy1
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 35


WWW
« Reply #8 on: February 12, 2008, 02:45:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Hellstan,

Yes, I have to admit I was the same. When I loaded it up, I was stuck as to how to do anything with it. Whereas Lightroom was straightforward.

The only thing being, that to get the most out of software, you have to dig deeper than the skin, and in Apertures case - thats where all its strengths lie.

Also, I would like to add that when you see the aperture video tutorials - youll find the features are really neat, sort of, wow - how come Lightroom doesnt offer that..... but the way you have to call them up perhaps seems a little strange until you get your head round how Aperture structures things.

Sometimes, in order to do something really good, we have to turn things on their head. Aperture does this. Unlike Lightroom which has some basic directory and grouping mechansims.

But Im not saying Aperture is better than Lightroom. its really down to your own preferences and what you require out of the software. Perhaps Lightroom is all you need. They are quite different.
Logged

--

Best Wishes,

Bruce Percy
http://www.brucepercy.com
Hellstan
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 158


WWW
« Reply #9 on: February 12, 2008, 03:40:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Hi Hellstan,

Yes, I have to admit I was the same. When I loaded it up, I was stuck as to how to do anything with it. Whereas Lightroom was straightforward.

The only thing being, that to get the most out of software, you have to dig deeper than the skin, and in Apertures case - thats where all its strengths lie.

Also, I would like to add that when you see the aperture video tutorials - youll find the features are really neat, sort of, wow - how come Lightroom doesnt offer that..... but the way you have to call them up perhaps seems a little strange until you get your head round how Aperture structures things.

Sometimes, in order to do something really good, we have to turn things on their head. Aperture does this. Unlike Lightroom which has some basic directory and grouping mechansims.

But Im not saying Aperture is better than Lightroom. its really down to your own preferences and what you require out of the software. Perhaps Lightroom is all you need. They are quite different.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174325\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Apart video tutorial included with it (disc 2), which are the best to learn deeper ?
I went back to Aperture after reading your sensible post and in fact it's really rich, yes…
Logged

brucepercy1
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 35


WWW
« Reply #10 on: February 12, 2008, 03:53:08 PM »
ReplyReply

hi hellstan,

I'm not sure.... I didn't look at the Discs that came with the software. All the tutorials I looked at were on the Aperture web site. Now they have released 2, I have no idea if the tutorials are still there or have been updated.

Yes, it's very rich. Like I said, Aperture and Lightroom have similar features, but I do feel they are different in what you'd want them for. Aperture is great for global edits and structuring of your files. It all starts to make sense in that way, whereas I felt that Lightroom was poor on the file system side of things. It just uses categories etc to group files, which doesn't realy work for me.

Have a look at smart albums in Aperture. There is also an Aperture blog site with some nice short examples of workflows you can do. Plus it integrates with Apples Automator which is nice.

Perhaps Aperture isn't what you need. It's what I need, but perhaps not for you. Very rich features, but unfortunately a little buggy, but if you get into it, you'll either love it or hate it. I personally love it.
Logged

--

Best Wishes,

Bruce Percy
http://www.brucepercy.com
Hellstan
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 158


WWW
« Reply #11 on: February 12, 2008, 03:57:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
hi hellstan,

I'm not sure.... I didn't look at the Discs that came with the software. All the tutorials I looked at were on the Aperture web site. Now they have released 2, I have no idea if the tutorials are still there or have been updated.

Yes, it's very rich. Like I said, Aperture and Lightroom have similar features, but I do feel they are different in what you'd want them for. Aperture is great for global edits and structuring of your files. It all starts to make sense in that way, whereas I felt that Lightroom was poor on the file system side of things. It just uses categories etc to group files, which doesn't realy work for me.

Have a look at smart albums in Aperture. There is also an Aperture blog site with some nice short examples of workflows you can do. Plus it integrates with Apples Automator which is nice.

Perhaps Aperture isn't what you need. It's what I need, but perhaps not for you. Very rich features, but unfortunately a little buggy, but if you get into it, you'll either love it or hate it. I personally love it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174340\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, I really like some of the Capture 1 Pro tools, especially as I'm workin with an M8 now, and C1 has profiles dedicated to it.
But I browsed the tutorial for Ap. 2 and the new tools like correction of blown highlights (I often shoot in hard light places like cafes or the like) seems absolutely a must. Pity the download is bugged : it refuse the serial number Apple emails to you, warning you you should have Ap. 1 or superior to launch the trial. Micro$oft like…  

UPDATE
Been unfair to Apple : they're not bogged by Micro$oft yet :
It's stated on the update window in small characters you have to rename or relocate Aperture from its original Application folder prior to launch the trial update.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2008, 04:00:10 PM by Hellstan » Logged

jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3648



WWW
« Reply #12 on: February 12, 2008, 05:39:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
..... whereas I felt that Lightroom was poor on the file system side of things. It just uses categories etc to group files, which doesn't realy work for me.

Have a look at smart albums in Aperture.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You can have what ever filing structure with your folders, that you want in Lightroom. Best doing it outside of LR in a decent file manager.
I file by date+ description[e.g. 2007/2007-12-December/2007-12-25  Xmas day - present opening is the heirachy I use] and add keywords, you can then find stuff via keywords, metadata such as file type or date.
This way of filing is very robust and is very good practice as it will outsurvive all programmes and changes of OSs.

Aren't Collections, LR's version of Smart Albums?

Seems like you haven't really learnt what LR does.
Speaking of learning
Quote
All the tutorials I looked at were on the Aperture web site. Now they have released 2, I have no idea if the tutorials are still there or have been updated.
Lots of tutorials on Aperture 2 online. Though not that easy to find.
[a href=\"http://www.apple.com/aperture/tutorials/#organizecompare-keywords]Aperture tutorials[/url]
« Last Edit: February 12, 2008, 05:42:36 PM by jjj » Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
Steven Draper
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 147


WWW
« Reply #13 on: February 12, 2008, 09:01:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi, I've used Aperture and also Lightroom. As a libuary tool I prefer Aperture as I created a number of custom meta data templates with specific fields relating to the photographic content.

Processing, both offer slight differences in how to do similar things. I only use Ap or LR for general "tune ups" for web or standard everyday prints. (Most of my personal work goes through Capture NX - Tiff - CS workflow) However in Ap raw updates should be applied to all archived images. LR uses same engine as CS which is IMHO useful.

File structure, seems to be broadly the same in practice - different names etc, I prefer Ap, but I think that is only because I used it first. I do not load any files into the actual software database - which was the Big snag with Aperture 1

Speed, on my ancient Powerbook LR seems to have the edge.

Overall UI, I slightly prefer AP, but getting very used to LR.

The LR slide displays and web outputs are very good - screen image quality seems better in LR.

I personally slightly prefer Ap, but, and this is the big but, as my more commercial projects will weigh heavily on a successful application such as AP or LR to edit quickly in the field, provide slide shows, present example etc. the industry standard seems to be LR, (As CS is to serious editing) therefore using anything else IMHO comes with the risk of being exposed in the future...
Logged

image examples are at my website  stevendraperphotography.com   and Polepics is      "Here"
Hellstan
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 158


WWW
« Reply #14 on: February 13, 2008, 02:58:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Hi, I've used Aperture and also Lightroom. As a libuary tool I prefer Aperture as I created a number of custom meta data templates with specific fields relating to the photographic content.

Processing, both offer slight differences in how to do similar things. I only use Ap or LR for general "tune ups" for web or standard everyday prints. (Most of my personal work goes through Capture NX - Tiff - CS workflow) However in Ap raw updates should be applied to all archived images. LR uses same engine as CS which is IMHO useful.

File structure, seems to be broadly the same in practice - different names etc, I prefer Ap, but I think that is only because I used it first. I do not load any files into the actual software database - which was the Big snag with Aperture 1

Speed, on my ancient Powerbook LR seems to have the edge.

Overall UI, I slightly prefer AP, but getting very used to LR.

The LR slide displays and web outputs are very good - screen image quality seems better in LR.

I personally slightly prefer Ap, but, and this is the big but, as my more commercial projects will weigh heavily on a successful application such as AP or LR to edit quickly in the field, provide slide shows, present example etc. the industry standard seems to be LR, (As CS is to serious editing) therefore using anything else IMHO comes with the risk of being exposed in the future...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174417\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Steven,
I tried Ap. 2 tonight. Great new tools like hot and cold areas, recovery, etc.
But there is a huge but : it is so slow ! Puts strain on my PPC 2x2,5 Ghz like LR, CS2 or C1 never
do, with the wheel spinning indefinitely. I unticked the "Update previews" preference, which improved slowness a bit, but just a bit. How come I've read some here and on Apple forum they run Aperture on their Powerbook fast enough ?  
I should add my PPC has been completely overhauled and double-checked 6 months ago, so it's not faulty…  
Logged

john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2904



WWW
« Reply #15 on: February 13, 2008, 03:27:43 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
You can have what ever filing structure with your folders, that you want in Lightroom. Best doing it outside of LR in a decent file manager.
I file by date+ description[e.g. 2007/2007-12-December/2007-12-25  Xmas day - present opening is the heirachy I use] and add keywords, you can then find stuff via keywords, metadata such as file type or date.
This way of filing is very robust and is very good practice as it will outsurvive all programmes and changes of OSs.

Aren't Collections, LR's version of Smart Albums?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174387\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You make good points, though you're wrong about Collections and Smart Albums. LR only has dumb Collections to which you have to add items manually. Aperture has those too, "albums", but smart albums let you specify a query, so they reflect any updates to metadata. Ap2 takes this further, so you can now include adjustments in a smart album - eg got to test this, but you might define a filter as "images shot in Feb 2008 with rating over 1 and noise reduction not set". This could be a powerful way to control progress through a job, and such Smart Collections would be a great addition to Lightroom. It's one of the few areas where Ap2 has any advantage.

Dumb as they currently are, Collections still allow the sort of project hierarchy that you are simply forced to adopt in Aperture, where projects obscure the physical locations and folder structures, something which kind of dents the idea that Aperture has better DAM features (which it does if you gerrymander how you define DAM). Who can argue that it's not best to have both folder visibility and project hierarchies, if you want them?

John
Logged

rustyjaw
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 26


« Reply #16 on: February 14, 2008, 12:28:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Steven,
I tried Ap. 2 tonight. Great new tools like hot and cold areas, recovery, etc.
But there is a huge but : it is so slow ! Puts strain on my PPC 2x2,5 Ghz like LR, CS2 or C1 never
do, with the wheel spinning indefinitely. I unticked the "Update previews" preference, which improved slowness a bit, but just a bit. How come I've read some here and on Apple forum they run Aperture on their Powerbook fast enough ?   
I should add my PPC has been completely overhauled and double-checked 6 months ago, so it's not faulty… 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174481\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm having the same experience. When I start editing a photo it's quick, but after adding a few adjustments it begins to slow down a lot, almost as bad as Aperture 1.x.

I really feel in a quandary right now. I've used both Aperture and LR quite a lot (Aperture at home, LR at work) and they each have strengths and weaknesses. I much prefer Aperture's UI (especially in v2.0), it's organizational features, and a few of it's tools. But I like LR's speed, and more of it's editing tools more. I'm going to try and hold out for LR 2 before upgrading Aperture.
Logged

[span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%']flickr[/span] | [span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%']website[/span]
Hellstan
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 158


WWW
« Reply #17 on: February 14, 2008, 12:37:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I'm having the same experience. When I start editing a photo it's quick, but after adding a few adjustments it begins to slow down a lot, almost as bad as Aperture 1.x.

I really feel in a quandary right now. I've used both Aperture and LR quite a lot (Aperture at home, LR at work) and they each have strengths and weaknesses. I much prefer Aperture's UI (especially in v2.0), it's organizational features, and a few of it's tools. But I like LR's speed, and more of it's editing tools more. I'm going to try and hold out for LR 2 before upgrading Aperture.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174876\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, I made a PRAM on my Mac and it's slightly better. What irks me, apart the slowness, are Aperture's cursors which "stick" and are not smooth as in C1 or LR.
I'm fortunate to have all 3 applications and for now it's C1 I prefer for its fast enhancing tools,
then LR. But Aperture has some very convenient tools also for fast work like recovery with display of hot and cold areas, really convenient.
I'll make another test after defrag of my hard drive.
If Aperture 2 is still that slow, I'll use it only for pictures needing fast recovery.
If not, I might consider a switch. Even if the vault eats a lot of disk space unnecessarily.
Logged

john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2904



WWW
« Reply #18 on: February 14, 2008, 12:40:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Even if the vault eats a lot of disk space unnecessarily.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174882\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Then use referenced rather than managed images.

John
Logged

Hellstan
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 158


WWW
« Reply #19 on: February 14, 2008, 01:00:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Then use referenced rather than managed images.

John
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174884\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Apple's Aperture
A Non-Review

"On faster machines I'm quite sure it runs better. A friend with a Quad G5 and 4 GB of RAM says that it runs quite nicely. I'm sure it does. But until there's a $10,000 UbberMac on my desk I'll just have to take his word for it."
*** I have a 2x2,5Ghz and it's still slow. LR and C1 are not.

"One of the major complaints against Aperture, which I resoundingly echo, is that it is a unitary database program. By this I mean that it keeps all of its files and data in one huge database. This has several implications. The first is that your entire collection of raw files, completed files, versions etc, can not be larger than a single hard drive. This is simply unacceptable for a professional application. I currently have more then two Terabytes of files occupying 10 separate drives, and I'm sure that most pros and active photographers have as much if not more – and growing weekly.

Yes, I know that you can change to a different database, but what if you want to search for, compare and re-catalog files that reside on different disks? Can't do it. Bad. Really bad. Can you say "dumb design"?

Another issue is that your raw files are sucked into this database, and that's where they live. Yes, you can first copy them to a separate directory and drive before ingesting them into Aperture. And, yes, you can extract them from Aperture. But, I am very uncomfortable having my files living inside a large unitary database. I really don't see why a more modern relational database structure can not be adopted. It feels like Apple simply adapted their rather limited IPhoto structure when creating Aperture.

Consequently Aperture really has little utility for cataloging images. Without the ability to catalog files outside of its own limited environment, photographers are forced to use other cataloging programs, and these are incapable of reaching inside Aperture to index its files. All in all a bad situation."

Agree.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2008, 01:02:43 PM by Hellstan » Logged

Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad