Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Aperture Review by Luminous-Landscape  (Read 10781 times)
victor maldonado
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 11


WWW
« on: January 18, 2006, 06:31:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Howdy,

I just read the review by Michael Reichmann titled "Apple's Aperture a non-review" http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/...ture-none.shtml

"in light of this generally negative commentary, that I provide full disclosure. I have been, and still am a beta tester for some Adobe products, including Camera Raw. Furthermore, Thomas Knoll, the original author of Photoshop, and creator of Camera Raw, is a friend, has attended several of my workshops, and we have been shooting together on several occasions. I also have a friendship with Kevin Raber, the US VP of Sales and Marketing for Phase One, the publishers of Capture One software."

That said, I found many falsehoods for example:
"Firstly, it appears to be designed for future Macs. If you have a typical 2004 / 2005 generation Mac you will find running Aperture to be an exercise in waiting."

Not true and misleading.
It runs super fast using an October 2004 2.5 GHz mac with a nVidia6800 card. Faster than anything Photoshop could ever do.

"Firstly, it appears to be designed for future Macs. If you have a typical 2004 / 2005 generation Mac you will find running Aperture to be an exercise in waiting."

Again, not true. See answer to first statement.

"another problem is font size. Maybe its me and my middle-aged eyes, but a couple of hours with Aperture makes me want to visit my optometrist to see if I need better glasses."

Doing a side by side comparison of both Photoshop & Aperture the palette fonts appear to be exactly the same size as Aperture project fonts and sometimes Photoshop fonts are smaller still. Again another misleading statement by Luminous-Landscape.

"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'm using the same size hard drive that I was using for my Photoshop files 400 GB HD but now with Aperture I am saving many many gigabytes of storage that Photoshop was using with it's multiple versions of the same image file. So in fact by using Aperture a user can save on hard drive space.

"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"?"

Aperture not only lets a user search multiple databases it does it much faster than Photoshop. The same exact databases or hard drives used for photoshop files can be indexed and searched in Aperture.

"I am very uncomfortable having my files living inside a large unitary database."

Huh

"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."

Another flat out lie. Aperture can access any metadata and has presets from IPTC & EXIf protocol which is an industry standard. It has very robust metadata & cataloging features.

"I've left the question of raw editing till last. I have to say that I'm not overly impressed. Both Camera Raw and Capture One do a much better job in almost every regard, and faster to. It will also be unusual for any photographer to be happy with the overall level and variety of image control offered by Aperture, and therefore a trip to Photoshop will be necessary."

No data is given to back this statement up. We are left with believing Mr. Reichmann's already misleading statements.

"Apple makes this fairly easy on the way out, but problematic on the way back because Aperture doesn't understand Photoshop's layers."

Again, another fabricated lie.
Aperture can manage photoshop layers very well and maintains their stucture. All one has to do is select External Editor from Aperture and make the edits in Photoshop, the layers are preserved for future edits.

"(Layers on files coming back into Aperture from Photoshop are flattened, though if you re-export they are still there)."

Not true at all. See answer above.

"the Photoshoped file needs to reside inside the Aperture database for the whole system to make any sense without large numbers of multiple copies of files ending up all over the place."

Not true. Aperture makes 1 file that is edited in Photoshop, just 1 and it is placed in the Library not all over the place as Mr. Reichmann would have us to believe.

"Metadata and IPTC support is not very good, with no IPTC templates"

Not true.

"and also the inability to export complete metadata to other applications or import it properly."

Again, Mr. Reichmann does not know what he is talking about. All metadata is preserved on Aperture and is exportable.

"There are other flaws and gotcha's, almost too numerous to mention."

Name them. I'll be waiting.

In light of Mr. Reichmanns comments Luminous-Landscape has gone down several notches in my book.

If you're going to write a review a little objectivity would be grand.

love & peace,
victor
« Last Edit: January 18, 2006, 06:33:09 PM by victor maldonado » Logged
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #1 on: January 18, 2006, 06:50:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Fabricated lies are the worst kind of lies.
Logged
victor maldonado
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 11


WWW
« Reply #2 on: January 18, 2006, 07:20:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Fabricated lies are the worst kind of lies.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=56255\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


hey, hey, DarkPenguin

OK, that was funny, you got me, fabricated lies, heh

More like industrial sabotage I'd say.

It is one thing to not like Apple's Aperture, or some other application but state so instead of making stuff up.

There was a time a long long time ago when Luminous-Landscape documented the lemon photo printers that Epson was making (1270, 2000P). Luminous-Landscape did this well. But after their review of Aperture... I will read their reviews with a grain of salt. I wasn't aware they had sold out to "the man."



love & peace,
victor
« Last Edit: January 18, 2006, 07:29:59 PM by victor maldonado » Logged
michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4896



« Reply #3 on: January 18, 2006, 07:44:25 PM »
ReplyReply

I stand by my essay and every one of the points made.

I find that your counterpoints either don't directly address the concerns that I've raised, or are simply based on opinion rather than a factual rebuttle.

Since each one of the critisisms which I raised is echoed by one or more other independant reviewers, I would assume that you find these reviewers to be as guilty of "lies" as I am. At least I'm in some good company – including some of the most respected writers on the Mac scene today.

If you bother to re-read what I've written with a someone let jaundiced eye, you'll find that I in fact really like Aperture. I think that it'll be a great program, but not until Apple finishes it, and also fixes some of the more egregious bugs.

Michael
Logged
victor maldonado
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 11


WWW
« Reply #4 on: January 18, 2006, 11:54:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I stand by my essay and every one of the points made.

I find that your counterpoints either don't directly address the concerns that I've raised, or are simply based on opinion rather than a factual rebuttle.

Since each one of the critisisms which I raised is echoed by one or more other independant reviewers, I would assume that you find these reviewers to be as guilty of "lies" as I am. At least I'm in some good company – including some of the most respected writers on the Mac scene today.

If you bother to re-read what I've written with a someone let jaundiced eye, you'll find that I in fact really like Aperture. I think that it'll be a great program, but not until Apple finishes it, and also fixes some of the more egregious bugs.

Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=56258\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hello, Michael

My rebuttal is factual. If you like I will quote the Aperture manual. I think you owe Apple an apology and Luminous-Landscape should retract your review.

I not only use Aperture everyday but have taken the Aperture Train the Trainer class in Cupertino and have spoken with Aperture engineers and with two of the authors who have written the Aperture manuals. I am also a Certified Apple Pro Trainer so my statements come not only from my personal experience but also from professional training by Apple.

love & peace,
victor
Logged
Ronny Nilsen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 341


WWW
« Reply #5 on: January 19, 2006, 01:09:42 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I not only use Aperture everyday but have taken the Aperture Train the Trainer class in Cupertino and have spoken with Aperture engineers and with two of the authors who have written the Aperture manuals. I am also a Certified Apple Pro Trainer so my statements come not only from my personal experience but also from professional training by Apple.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=56270\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

And this of course makes you completely unbiased.  

Michael is rigth you know, most of your counterpoints don't directly address the issues Michael raises or are opinions. And on some points you don't seem to understand the issue Michael raises. Try reading the non-review again, this time without bias and anger.  
Logged

victor maldonado
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 11


WWW
« Reply #6 on: January 19, 2006, 09:39:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
And this of course makes you completely unbiased.   

Michael is rigth you know, most of your counterpoints don't directly address the issues Michael raises or are opinions. And on some points you don't seem to understand the issue Michael raises. Try reading the non-review again, this time without bias and anger. 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=56272\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Hello, ronnynil

The points made by Mr. Reichmann in the review about Aperture's ability to handle metadata, Photoshop layers, computers ability to handle the application, etc. are incorrect. A fact is a fact regardless who is saying it.

I also teach Adobe Photoshop and know a few who worked on Lightroom for Adobe. I would equally be non biased and objective about them. All one has to do to debunk Mr. Reichmann's review is use the application or read the Aperture manual.

Mr. Reichmann, you or anyone else can check out each point I made and attempt to refute it with documentation if you want to.

Show us the documention to refute my points so we can all see it.  

love & peace,
victor
Logged
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #7 on: January 19, 2006, 09:45:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Mr. Reichmann, you or anyone else can check out each point I made and attempt to refute it with documentation if you want to.

Show us the documention to refute my points so we can all see it. 

love & peace,
victor
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=56299\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think what is being requested is that you do that.  If the points are wrong then show the documentation that proves they are wrong.  One doesn't counter assertions with assertions.
Logged
michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4896



« Reply #8 on: January 19, 2006, 10:17:17 AM »
ReplyReply

So, after being called a liar I now need to write a comprehensive rebuttle?

No, I don't think so. Even if I had the time (which I don't), I don't have the inclination.

The point which I made is that every one of my assertions has also been made by one or more other reputable reviewers. If I was the only one with a negative view of Aperture, I would reconsider what I've written. Since (for a change) I am in the mainstream of cirtical opinion, there's no need, other than to satisfy one individual's anger.

One also only has to spend a bit of time on the Apple Aperture forum to take a measure of the truth of the points at question. They are being echoed by actualy users, and have been since day one.

In the end, there's nothing to retract. Nothing to apologize for. The article stands.

And so does my opinion, if you'd bothered to read my review in its entirety. Aperture is going to be a remarkable product when Apple gets around to fixing the bugs and making it usable by working pros in a production environment. For the time being it is simply a sign-post to the future.

Michael
Logged
macgyver
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 510


« Reply #9 on: January 19, 2006, 11:10:40 AM »
ReplyReply

I have to say, the non review on this site was one of the more favorible that I've read for a piece of software that seems to be "not quite ready for prime time" (to borrow from Saturday Night Live )

Oh, and as for the reference to what level of mac it runs on, I've used it on a quad g5 and while nice it most certainly wasn't "super fast" as you say.  I have to believe it would be mostly unusable on my powerbook.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2006, 11:11:01 AM by macgyver » Logged
BlasR
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 760



WWW
« Reply #10 on: January 19, 2006, 11:14:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Victor, so you came here and called the owner of the website a LIAR. Do you beleave anyone will beleave you?   You disrespect some one without even think, and you want the rest of US beleave on you?   You should think again before you call anyone a LIAR special if you called your self a master in  in any program.  You should get some one to teach you some manners.

BlasR
Logged

Hank
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 679


« Reply #11 on: January 19, 2006, 11:30:15 AM »
ReplyReply

If anything, Michael was gentle and ecouraging to Apple.

As a long time pro photographer and Mac user, I have to say that I'm breathlessly awaiting Aperture upgrades, may they come quickly and often.  He documents most bugs well, but there are others.  

Then there's the issue of speed.  Aperture is next to useless on a 933 MHz G4, and clunky on our several low end G5 twins.  

I'll make up my own mind when and if to buy bigger and faster computers, rather than have Mac try to force me to do it.
Logged
61Dynamic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1442


WWW
« Reply #12 on: January 19, 2006, 11:43:34 AM »
ReplyReply

victor maldonado is no more than either a hardcore Apple Zealot or a forum troll. Either way he deserves to be ignored. Logic, clear thinking and intelligent debate are not his allies.
Logged
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #13 on: January 19, 2006, 06:38:00 PM »
ReplyReply

In spite of others' description of Victor as a troll or whatnot, I'll try to address some of the factual weaknesses in his commentary on Michael's non-review.

Quote
"Firstly, it appears to be designed for future Macs. If you have a typical 2004 / 2005 generation Mac you will find running Aperture to be an exercise in waiting."

Not true and misleading.
It runs super fast using an October 2004 2.5 GHz mac with a nVidia6800 card. Faster than anything Photoshop could ever do.
Fact: A 2.5 GHz Mac is, according to the 2004/2005 generation, a top of the line, last-generation PowerMac.

This is anything but average, and what you're writing is false and misleading.

Evidence: iMacs, iBooks and PowerBooks in 2004/2005 did not have anywhere near this kind of computing power.

Quote
"another problem is font size. Maybe its me and my middle-aged eyes, but a couple of hours with Aperture makes me want to visit my optometrist to see if I need better glasses."

Doing a side by side comparison of both Photoshop & Aperture the palette fonts appear to be exactly the same size as Aperture project fonts and sometimes Photoshop fonts are smaller still. Again another misleading statement by Luminous-Landscape.
If you go on reading, you will see that his complaint is directed at the lack of adjustments for the fonts; Aperture does not respect the system font settings.

Is this also true for Photoshop, or are you just jumping at quotes taken out of context?

Quote
"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'm using the same size hard drive that I was using for my Photoshop files 400 GB HD but now with Aperture I am saving many many gigabytes of storage that Photoshop was using with it's multiple versions of the same image file. So in fact by using Aperture a user can save on hard drive space.

"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"?"

Aperture not only lets a user search multiple databases it does it much faster than Photoshop. The same exact databases or hard drives used for photoshop files can be indexed and searched in Aperture.

"I am very uncomfortable having my files living inside a large unitary database."

Huh
It appears that you do not understand the meaning of "unitary database".

From what I understand, Aperture "imports" all files into a single database, which cannot span more than one filesystem.

This is sixties-era (I'm prepared to accept the nomer "fifties-era", should anyone object) database design, and has been obsolete for well over a decade.

Another problem with this approach -- again, from what I understand -- is that there are no individual files as such anymore; you can't access the data without Aperture.

This would make anyone concerned about data integrity a bit concerned, in the "eggs-in-one-basket" way.

Quote
"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."

Another flat out lie. Aperture can access any metadata and has presets from IPTC & EXIf protocol which is an industry standard. It has very robust metadata & cataloging features.
Will it catalogue images without importing them and deleting the source files?

Quote
"I've left the question of raw editing till last. I have to say that I'm not overly impressed. Both Camera Raw and Capture One do a much better job in almost every regard, and faster to. It will also be unusual for any photographer to be happy with the overall level and variety of image control offered by Aperture, and therefore a trip to Photoshop will be necessary."

No data is given to back this statement up. We are left with believing Mr. Reichmann's already misleading statements.
No, you're not. Look at other reviews, such as the one at Ars Technica, clearly displaying the quality issues.

Quote
"Apple makes this fairly easy on the way out, but problematic on the way back because Aperture doesn't understand Photoshop's layers."

Again, another fabricated lie.
Aperture can manage photoshop layers very well and maintains their stucture. All one has to do is select External Editor from Aperture and make the edits in Photoshop, the layers are preserved for future edits.
Since this is the first factual error you seem to have pointed out in Michael's non-review, and your otherwise rather sloppy approach to facts yourself, I'd be tempted to disbelieve you just on past merits.

But since you're probably right, it doesn't make what Michael wrote a lie. It's an erroneous statement, yes, but not necessarily deliberately so.

Quote
"the Photoshoped file needs to reside inside the Aperture database for the whole system to make any sense without large numbers of multiple copies of files ending up all over the place."

Not true. Aperture makes 1 file that is edited in Photoshop, just 1 and it is placed in the Library not all over the place as Mr. Reichmann would have us to believe.
Exactly what is it that isn't true here? Doesn't Aperture keep the image within Aperture's own database?

Michael does not claim, as you would have us believe, that Aperture forces you to keep "multiple copies (...) all over the place", he's claiming that Aperture forces you to keep the source and results within Aperture's database.


In brief, I think you need to work on your reading comprehension, as well as your basic computer science and market knowledge.
Logged

Jan
Ronny Nilsen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 341


WWW
« Reply #14 on: January 20, 2006, 01:29:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Quote
"Apple makes this fairly easy on the way out, but problematic on the way back because Aperture doesn't understand Photoshop's layers."

Again, another fabricated lie.
Aperture can manage photoshop layers very well and maintains their stucture. All one has to do is select External Editor from Aperture and make the edits in Photoshop, the layers are preserved for future edits.

Since this is the first factual error you seem to have pointed out in Michael's non-review, and your otherwise rather sloppy approach to facts yourself, I'd be tempted to disbelieve you just on past merits.

But since you're probably right, it doesn't make what Michael wrote a lie. It's an erroneous statement, yes, but not necessarily deliberately so.

As far I can se Michael is rigth here also. If I read things rigth Aperture let you edit files in PS, but when they come back to A you can not edit layerd files within A, but will have to send them out to PS again. So any editing you will do in A must be done before exporting to PS, even if you can take them back to A for later export to PS.

But otherwise your post clearly shows that he's a case of "the light is on, but nobody is home".  
Logged

victor maldonado
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 11


WWW
« Reply #15 on: January 20, 2006, 03:05:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I think what is being requested is that you do that.  If the points are wrong then show the documentation that proves they are wrong.  One doesn't counter assertions with assertions.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=56300\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Hello, DarkPenguin

Here you go  :

1. Mr. Reichmann's comment: "Firstly, it appears to be designed for future Macs. If you have a typical 2004 / 2005 generation Mac you will find running Aperture to be an exercise in waiting."

Answer: One of the following Macintosh computers:
– Power Mac G5 with 1.8GHz or faster PowerPC G5 processor
– 17- or 20-inch iMac G5 with 1.8GHz or faster PowerPC G5 processor
– 15- or 17-inch PowerBook G4 with 1.25GHz or faster PowerPC G4 processor
– Dual 2GHz Power Mac G5 or faster recommended.
I have worked with Aperture on a 1.8GHz PPC G5 and it runs very fast, it is not "an exercise in waiting."

2. Quote: "another problem is font size. Maybe its me and my middle-aged eyes, but a couple of hours with Aperture makes me want to visit my optometrist to see if I need better glasses."

Answer: Doing a side by side comparison of both Photoshop & Aperture the palette fonts appear to be exactly the same size as Aperture project fonts and sometimes Photoshop fonts are smaller still, for example Photoshop Layer text size.

3. Quote: "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."

Answer: The same exact hard drive which keeps and has been keeping your Photoshop files can be used. In fact if you want to Aperture will duplicate your work on a separate hard drive called the Vault and you can have multiple Vaults or Libraries if you want to. In fact by using Aperture instead of Photoshop your hard drive space will increase because all versions are only 12k in size, Photoshop cannot do this.

The Vault works by creating a mirror image of your Library on an external device, such as a FireWire drive. You can connect as many Vaults as necessary

4. Quote: "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"?"

Answer: A very small sampling of what you can do with Aperture. You can view filename, keywords, version number, caption text, and file size. You can also view and enter industry-standard metadata like EXIF (Exchangeable Image File), and IPTC (International Press Telecommunications Council) information. This is all searchable, editable and indexed with a Query HUD or Search input box in the Viewer.

5. Quote: "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."

Answer: ALL metadata that is imported into Aperture remains intact. ALL inputted metadata is searchable and exportable. You can group and automate all metadata within Aperture and export it also. Aperture even contains presets that allow you to view and edit an image’s EXIF and IPTC data. The EXIF information includes a wide range of camera settings such as shutter speed, keywords, date and time, focal length, exposure, metering pattern, and flash information. The IPTC information, which can be embedded in a digital image by most image-editing applications, includes information like captions or copyright notices. Metadata information can also be added and edited after you import your images.

6. Quote: "I've left the question of raw editing till last. I have to say that I'm not overly impressed. Both Camera Raw and Capture One do a much better job in almost every regard, and faster to. It will also be unusual for any photographer to be happy with the overall level and variety of image control offered by Aperture, and therefore a trip to Photoshop will be necessary."

Answer: You can begin to edit RAW images immediately during the import from a camera, card reader or images in a folder on the hard drive. You cannot do this with Photoshop's Camera RAW during the import. With Aperture you can also collect images that were shot with 0-60 seconds of each other and have them organized and presorted during the import.

Aperture gives you an efficient, intelligent way to deal with large numbers of RAW images at full resolution with incredible display speed.

You can also import images using the drag-and-drop method. Open a Finder window and drag the images directly to a project in the Aperture Projects panel.

7. Quote: "Apple makes this fairly easy on the way out, but problematic on the way back because Aperture doesn't understand Photoshop's layers."

Answer: There may be processes you want to perform in an external application such as Adobe
Photoshop. Aperture allows you to edit your images in the application of your choice without having to exit Aperture and Aperture will preserve the layers from Photoshop.

8. Quote: "(Layers on files coming back into Aperture from Photoshop are flattened, though if you re-export they are still there)."

Answer: Layers coming back into Aperture are preserved. You can re-export them and they are still preserved.

9. Quote: "the Photoshoped file needs to reside inside the Aperture database for the whole system to make any sense without large numbers of multiple copies of files ending up all over the place."

Answer: Aperture makes 1 file that is edited in Photoshop, just 1, and this 1 file is placed in the Library not all over the place, and certainly not "large numbers of multiple copies of files ending up all over the place."

10. Quote: "Metadata and IPTC support is not very good, with no IPTC templates"

The fact of the matter is that Aperture ships with not only IPTC presets but also EXIF presets and you can make the presets as large as you want by adding to them or editing them.

11. Quote: "and also the inability to export complete metadata to other applications or import it properly."

All RAW metadata can be imported or exported by using Aperture and you can decide what metadata to include if you choose to exclude some it. Metadata information can also be added and edited after you import your images.

Some of the answers were taken word for word straight from the Aperture manual.

love & peace,
victor
Logged
victor maldonado
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 11


WWW
« Reply #16 on: January 20, 2006, 03:12:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The point which I made is that every one of my assertions has also been made by one or more other reputable reviewers.

One also only has to spend a bit of time on the Apple Aperture forum to take a measure of the truth of the points at question. They are being echoed by actualy users, and have been since day one.

In the end, there's nothing to retract. Nothing to apologize for. The article stands.

Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=56305\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Hello, Michael

I agree that there are several misrepresentations of Aperture on the web, you are not alone in this. See my response to DarkPenguin above.

Like any application that has ever been made user knowledge of the application must be taken into consideration when reading forum posts.

You made several mistakes in your review which I have corrected by quoting the user manual.

love & peace,
victor
Logged
victor maldonado
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 11


WWW
« Reply #17 on: January 20, 2006, 03:26:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Victor, so you came here and called the owner of the website a LIAR. Do you beleave anyone will beleave you?   You disrespect some one without even think, and you want the rest of US beleave on you?   You should think again before you call anyone a LIAR special if you called your self a master in  in any program.  You should get some one to teach you some manners.

BlasR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=56310\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Hello, BlasR

Sorry if I offended you with my rebuttal. I think objectivity should be paramount in reviews.

This would not be acceptable in any other industry why should it be any different in ours?

For example, if anyone reviews a movie like Cold Mountain the reviewer can't just say Nichol Kidman was not in the movie. It is the same with applications the reviewer just can't say "the inability to export complete metadata to other applications or import it properly," or "Layers on files coming back into Aperture from Photoshop are flattened," or "Metadata and IPTC support is not very good, with no IPTC templates." This is just not true but unfair to thoughs reading the review.

Quote: "You should get some one to teach you some manners."

Thank you BlasB, I will be more polite next time.

love & peace,
victor
Logged
macgyver
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 510


« Reply #18 on: January 20, 2006, 04:01:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Ill leave most of this to others who are more eloquent than I, but...

Quote
1. Mr. Reichmann's comment: "Firstly, it appears to be designed for future Macs. If you have a typical 2004 / 2005 generation Mac you will find running Aperture to be an exercise in waiting."

Answer: One of the following Macintosh computers:
– Power Mac G5 with 1.8GHz or faster PowerPC G5 processor
– 17- or 20-inch iMac G5 with 1.8GHz or faster PowerPC G5 processor
– 15- or 17-inch PowerBook G4 with 1.25GHz or faster PowerPC G4 processor
– Dual 2GHz Power Mac G5 or faster recommended.

I have worked with Aperture on a 1.8GHz PPC G5 and it runs very fast, it is not "an exercise in waiting."
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=56441\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I do not know what kind of banned substances you are ingesting, but I have to flatly disagree.  First off, there is a huge difference between what the manual says and what is reality.  The speedometer on my honda goes to 120 MPH, yet I doubt the car itself could ever go that fast.  While Aperature may work on all of the above computers that doesn't mean it works well or fast.  Also, what "runs very fast" to you may not to others, it's at least partially subjective (though not wholly so) and given your complete lack of objectivity here I am not inclined to believe you.


Quote
2. Quote: "another problem is font size. Maybe its me and my middle-aged eyes, but a couple of hours with Aperture makes me want to visit my optometrist to see if I need better glasses."

Answer: Doing a side by side comparison of both Photoshop & Aperture the palette fonts appear to be exactly the same size as Aperture project fonts and sometimes Photoshop fonts are smaller still, for example Photoshop Layer text size.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=56441\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Perhaps I can not read well, but no where in that quoted text did Mr. Reichman compare it to Photoshop.  Perahps he did in the full article, I would go check, but I'm not inclined to waste too much time on this.  It was a complaint about the said program, not a comparison.

Quote
8. Quote: "(Layers on files coming back into Aperture from Photoshop are flattened, though if you re-export they are still there)."

Answer: Layers coming back into Aperture are preserved. You can re-export them and they are still preserved.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=56441\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes....they are still there... but in Aperature they have been flattened, which partially negates the usefullness of having layers.


Quote
love & peace,
victor
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=56441\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Bull, you come here spreading neither love nor peace.  Your sarcasm isn't helping here.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2006, 04:02:57 PM by macgyver » Logged
victor maldonado
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 11


WWW
« Reply #19 on: January 20, 2006, 04:07:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Hello, jani

Quote: " you have a typical 2004 / 2005 generation Mac you will find running Aperture to be an exercise in waiting."

Apple makes 3 models, always has. This is typical. Here are the requirements one of the following Macintosh computers:
– Power Mac G5 with 1.8GHz or faster PowerPC G5 processor
– 17- or 20-inch iMac G5 with 1.8GHz or faster PowerPC G5 processor
– 15- or 17-inch PowerBook G4 with 1.25GHz or faster PowerPC G4 processor
– Dual 2GHz Power Mac G5 or faster recommended

It will not be "an exercise in waiting" if you use an 1.8GHz computer. Go to a any computer store that sell Apple computers and play with Aperture (if they have it loaded) on the slowest model. Aperture works on versions of the RAW files unlike Photoshop so the speed is over the top fast.

Quote: "Another problem is font size. Maybe its me and my middle-aged eyes, but a couple of hours with Aperture makes me want to visit my optometrist to see if I need better glasses. The fonts are small, the icons are small, and the overall feel is one of Apple trying to have shoehorned too much onto the screen at once. Maybe when I get my 30" CinemaDisplay I'll feel differently."

Quote: "If you go on reading, you will see that his complaint is directed at the lack of adjustments for the fonts; Aperture does not respect the system font settings."

The font sizes are the same between Aperture and Photoshop, some of Photoshop window might have a little bit larger font than Aperture while some palettes fonts are smaller than Aperture.

Quote: "From what I understand, Aperture "imports" all files into a single database, which cannot span more than one filesystem." "Another problem with this approach -- again, from what I understand -- is that there are no individual files as such anymore; you can't access the data without Aperture."

It may appear to be as such but click on the Aperture icon by Command clicking on it and choose Open Packages to see what is truly under the hood (not recommended unless you know what you are doing). What appears to be one single database isn't. You can find any of your images by searching with the Finder if you want to. Not only are your original RAW files still there but every Version is also and they are individual files.

Quote: "Will it catalogue images without importing them and deleting the source files?"

Yes. All data whether it is metadata or edits, adjustments, crops etc. are archived for future use. Never is the original RAW file altered it does all this non-destructively.

Quote: "Look at other reviews, such as the one at Ars Technica, clearly displaying the quality issues."

Yes, unfortunately there are other sites with misleading statements whether they are intentional because of product loyalty to other applications or systems or user errors or just mistaken. If you have an url that I can go to I would be happy to see it. This is how I ended up here after several people noticed LL's incorrect information in its Aperture review. I am not the only one who has noticed this, Mr. Reichmanns reputation precedes him as no longer being objective. This is too bad because I used to read his stuff many years ago and thought he was objective, in fact when I was told to read his Aperture review I defended him prior to reading it. I hope he remembers his roots and loyalty to photographers he once had regardless how is making the software.

I'm getting a kick reading all the Lightroom articles and the cheering going on for the same exact features that Aperture has and received all the hissing and boos. It is obvious some people just don't like Apple and are blinded by product loyalty. I use both PCs and Macs.

Quote: "In spite of others' description of Victor as a troll or whatnot, I'll try to address some of the factual weaknesses in his commentary"

Thank you

Quote: "I'd be tempted to disbelieve you just on past merits. But since you're probably right, it doesn't make what Michael wrote a lie. It's an erroneous statement, yes, but not necessarily deliberately so."

History will show. Let's meet next year at this time. I bet we'll know.

love & peace,
victor
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad