I just got an email about Aperture. Has anyone heard of it? It seems like Mac is trying to move in on adobe...
http://www.apple.com/aperture/specs.html:rolleyes:
http://www.apple.com/aperture/specs.html:rolleyes:
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Aperture
- Thread starter Bote
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
We've known about this for a while now. As for moving in on Adobe, that's not how it is at all. Aperture and Photoshop are two completely seperate programs used for different tasks.
People always seem to jump to the conclusion of Apple taking on Adobe. My friend actually just did this today, but I straightened him out.
People always seem to jump to the conclusion of Apple taking on Adobe. My friend actually just did this today, but I straightened him out.
I wouldn't say that they are two COMPLETELY seperate programs. I would say that Aperture handles some functions that Photoshop CAN do, but Adobe never bothered to make very useful. I mean, Photoshop can handle RAW images and all that, but they never really set up a program to handle workflow like Aperture will. They are kind of complementary in my book. Although if you just used Photoshop to touch up your RAW images and didn't really get into all the filters and such that Photoshop offers and do creative editing and compositions, then you could probably get by with just Aperture.p0intblank said:We've known about this for a while now. As for moving in on Adobe, that's not how it is at all. Aperture and Photoshop are two completely seperate programs used for different tasks.
People always seem to jump to the conclusion of Apple taking on Adobe. My friend actually just did this today, but I straightened him out.
Okay, maybe they're not completely different from one another, but they are certainly used for different tasks. Like you said, Photoshop can certainly handle RAW images, but Aperture was built with RAW images in mind, along with a quick workflow. Aperture also has a very nice organization system going on which interests me. The UI looks sooo nice. ::insert drool emoticon here::
Well i use phtoshop on my home PC (iBook for xmas ) and i prefer that to making grapics then editing raw images tbh with you, and people such as photographers, will make good use of apple's new program in my honest opinion it suits there needs more then photshop, i will be buying this as im getting into all this photography stuff lol
But yeah has anyone actually got it yet?
) and i prefer that to making grapics then editing raw images tbh with you, and people such as photographers, will make good use of apple's new program in my honest opinion it suits there needs more then photshop, i will be buying this as im getting into all this photography stuff lolBut yeah has anyone actually got it yet?
betty02 said:
It's not actually shipping yet, so not legally anyway.
Should be released soon though.
betty02 said:Well i use phtoshop on my home PC (iBook for xmas
But yeah has anyone actually got it yet?
You can't use Aperture on an iBook if you get one for xmas. It'll require a dual G5 system.
Sorry.
Abstract said:
I dont know about an iBook but you *could* run it on a Power Book albright a bit slow due to heavy use of core image which I'm sure the graphics card on an Apple laptop would choke on. CPU wise they require a 1.25Ghz G4 last time I checked but I'm almost positive Aperture would run like ass.
I want my Aperture dammit, looks like a GREAT program for an all RAW workflow and seems to have a number of features to show off to clients to make em go ohhh and ahhh.
I thought you needed a 1.8 GHz G5.
EDIT: Nevermind, it says you need a 1.8 GHz G5, or even a 1.25 GHz G4 PowerBook. I don't know why you would need a 1.8 GHz G5, but only require a 1.25 GHz G4. Anyway, it would run like ass on an iBook. I wouldn't even try to run it on anything less than the 1.67 Ghz G4 PowerBooks, preferrably the new ones since the resolution is high enough.
It wouldn't even be of much use on an iBook. It's lacking in processor speed, screen resolution (yeah yeah, external monitor works if you have one), and even harddrive speed make the iBook a poor choice to use Aperture, even if you can get it to work sluggishly.
EDIT: Nevermind, it says you need a 1.8 GHz G5, or even a 1.25 GHz G4 PowerBook. I don't know why you would need a 1.8 GHz G5, but only require a 1.25 GHz G4. Anyway, it would run like ass on an iBook. I wouldn't even try to run it on anything less than the 1.67 Ghz G4 PowerBooks, preferrably the new ones since the resolution is high enough.
It wouldn't even be of much use on an iBook. It's lacking in processor speed, screen resolution (yeah yeah, external monitor works if you have one), and even harddrive speed make the iBook a poor choice to use Aperture, even if you can get it to work sluggishly.
From my perspective the main difference(there are many countless others) between Photoshop and Aperture is the volume of pictures you want to handle. If you want to handle some hundreds to thousends of pictures then Aperture is the way to go. If you want to tweak some pics for perfection - photoshop is the way to go.
Cheers
Cheers
Abstract said:
It doesn't require a Dual G5 system, but that's what you will get the performance from. As for the iBook, sorrry... that's definitely not going to cut it. Apple is recommending 2 GB of RAM, so that has to tell you something.
I want to get Aperture when I get a Power Mac some day. When that will be? No idea.
CmdrLaForge said:
Don't forget Aperture seems to have a lot of output options too, even letting you build your own book layouts and god knows what else.
This is an exciting piece of software and hopefully iPhoto 6 will take a cue from it and get a complete overhaul. Currently I see iPhoto as the buggiest iApp out that and certainly one that should be the second easiest & fastest to use next to iTunes. I pray they've finally made it work with the next rev.
Apple wants you to buy their desktops
This Aperture program looks interesting but how many people can run it? Its a backhanded way of pushing highend desktops. Photoshop handles all my needs and then some. I'm a commercial photographer at an ad agency and Aperture does not appeal to me. I need a proven app like Photoshop that will run on G4s.
Maybe the people that rush out buy the latest apps will find it useful but at $500 plus a dual G5 no thanks.
This Aperture program looks interesting but how many people can run it? Its a backhanded way of pushing highend desktops. Photoshop handles all my needs and then some. I'm a commercial photographer at an ad agency and Aperture does not appeal to me. I need a proven app like Photoshop that will run on G4s.
Maybe the people that rush out buy the latest apps will find it useful but at $500 plus a dual G5 no thanks.
Pushing their higher end desktop? I don't think so.
I don't think Apple made this with the intention of pushing people to buy this $599 program. This program just happens to be a big and complex. It just happens to require a reasonably fast computer to run it.
Agreed. iPhoto is the biggest P.O.S. in Apple's software line-up. For a consumer level program, it sure is fragile, buggy, and full of bloat when it's obviously not needed. I mean, renaming a folder will screw up the entire program? Why don't they tell you this? Just because Apple is dealing with lots of general use Mac owners, doesn't mean they don't know how to change a folder name, and it doesn't mean they don't WANT to. I want to. Lots of people want to.
Finder is just as bad, although stability and bloat isn't the main issue. It just isn't good.
I don't think Apple made this with the intention of pushing people to buy this $599 program. This program just happens to be a big and complex. It just happens to require a reasonably fast computer to run it.
JDOG_ said:
Agreed. iPhoto is the biggest P.O.S. in Apple's software line-up. For a consumer level program, it sure is fragile, buggy, and full of bloat when it's obviously not needed. I mean, renaming a folder will screw up the entire program? Why don't they tell you this? Just because Apple is dealing with lots of general use Mac owners, doesn't mean they don't know how to change a folder name, and it doesn't mean they don't WANT to. I want to. Lots of people want to.
Finder is just as bad, although stability and bloat isn't the main issue. It just isn't good.