Apple Releases Aperture

[deanwaterman]

Late to the discussion...

Let me know if im guessing correctly, Aperture is sorta like an iPhoto on steroids. For RAW format. But not meant to replace Adobe Photoshop.
???

I wouldn't even throw iPhoto in the conversation since this is so much more. Apple might not say you should replace PhotoShop, but I think it's hidden between the lines. With everything you can do on it, why have PhotoShop? Probably only for cutting and pasting. That being said you can export out of Aperture to PhotoShop and back in when finished.

 

[mvc]

Mistake I think..

According to their list of supported cameras, the Canon 350D / Digital Rebel XT is not on the supported list.

Capture One Pro supports it, Photoshop CS2 supports it (after Plug-in update).

Bad show, Apple.

According to this page they do support the Rebel XT and the 5D, but the list they link to on the same page mentions neither, which just suggests to me that they haven't sorted out their website info yet.

There is no way on earth they will fail to include the Canon 350XT, one of the largest selling DSLR cameras in existence, or the hot new Pro Canon 5D. More likely some newbie web jockey can't distinguish between a Rebel and a Rebel XT.

All Aperture needs is vignetting and lens correction and suddenly Photoshop will get a lot less use from many photographers. Go on Apple, allow plugin filters and all the hacker/photographers out there will add the missing features for you! They do it for iPhoto already!

Gosh, they certainly can make beautiful 'wares at Apple, I'd love to see what they could do with an Office Suite if they really tried (and don't mention Pages)

 

[NickFalk]

Brand new computers that unfortunately are built on aging technology.
They have to draw a line somewhere. And the person just on the wrong side of the line will always be pissed. If your iBook ran Aperture, but the iBook one step down from yours did not would you still have made the same posts?

Never mind those iBooks. What about users with dual G4 Powermacs?!!! Hey, they're machines run circles around the powerbooks any day, but still they're left out of the loop. This is just cynical b*ll from Apple's side to "force" people to upgrade. People considering to buy new hardware should keep in mind that they might pull a similar trick when they go Intel...

 

[morespce54]

Look at this picture. It says it all. A Quad G5 with dual 30" displays and Aperature. If you are a professional photographer that works with digital how could you resist that setup? All it takes is money.

What is funny although is that in the minimum hardware requirements, they say you can use a "17- or 20-inch iMac G5 with a 1.8 GHz or faster PowerPC G5 processor" but the graphic-card that is shipped with the iMac dosen't respond to the minimum specs...

* ATI Radeon X800 XT Mac Edition
* ATI Radeon X850 XT
* ATI Radeon 9800 XT or 9800 Pro
* ATI Radeon 9700 Pro
* ATI Radeon 9600 XT, 9600 Pro, or 9650
* ATI Mobility Radeon 9700 or 9600
* NVIDIA GeForce 6800 Ultra DDL or 6800 GT DDL
* NVIDIA GeForce 7800 GT

 

[MacManDan]

they say you can use a "17- or 20-inch iMac G5 with a 1.8 GHz or faster PowerPC G5 processor" but the graphic-card that is shipped with the iMac dosen't respond to the minimum specs...

This has been mentioned before in this thread - the Radeon x600 is the PCI-E version of the Radeon 9600 so it should be more than covered.

 

[movabi]

Could the os do this?

i just don't see anything in apeture that is a paradigm shift... It would be if it was part of OS X and did more than photos... Someone said they want less programs... I agree, so why not incorporate this in the system. People work and play on their computers at the same time and apps mesh... why not mesh on the system level? I would gladly pay more for OS X if it had functionality that didn't require massive amounts of utilities, hacks and programs. That would be revolutionary. I could do without all the bells and whistles of Apeture if i had an excellent way of dealing with massive amounts of images, video, text, fonts etc... If you get a quad machine, you barely have enough to buy the software to run on it. In a future operating system will this technology be incorporated? Its just a thought.

 

[Epicurus]

I wonder how Aperture would run on one of the new 15" PowerBooks if I topped out the RAM at 2GB. The screen might be a little tight, but I could always add on an external 23" or even 30" display. What I'm worried about is the processor/GPU/RAM/HDD being too slow to get this app to move nicely. I'm no pro photographer, but I do take several thousands of pictures whenever I travel and I've yet to find an app that satisfies my needs. Aperture looks amazing, and I now know I have to have it. The thing is, I want to have it run on a PowerBook.

Any idea how well this might work (Aperture on a new PowerBook)?

 

[CalfCanuck]

If you get a quad machine, you barely have enough to buy the software to run on it. In a future operating system will this technology be incorporated? Its just a thought.

That's why this is labeled a PRO app - it's for people who aren't concerned about a few hundred dollars if it helps them do their job better.

If you go back to the 1990's, photographers would spend thousands of dollars just on film and film developing every year. While there are additional costs to digital, there are also real cash savings from digital. For us PROs who've saved the film expenses, the last thing on our minds is saving a bit of cash, particularly when we've spent $20,000 on photo gear!

As to the "integration in the system", this is not for iPhoto users. A pro might easily shoot 500 images a day, and over 100,000 a year. Using a 12-16 MB RAW for each (1.5 TB per year), and you begin to see the data needs are more industrial

 

[CalfCanuck]

I wonder how Aperture would run on one of the new 15" PowerBooks if I topped out the RAM at 2GB. The screen might be a little tight, but I could always add on an external 23" or even 30" display. What I'm worried about is the processor/GPU/RAM/HDD being too slow to get this app to move nicely. I'm no pro photographer, but I do take several thousands of pictures whenever I travel and I've yet to find an app that satisfies my needs. Aperture looks amazing, and I now know I have to have it. The thing is, I want to have it run on a PowerBook.

Any idea how well this might work (Aperture on a new PowerBook)?

Under system minimums, they list a Powerbook G4 1.25 GHz. So the new PBs should do fine, although they will understandably be more sluggish than the new DoubleDouble!

http://www.apple.com/aperture/specs.html

 

[andysmith]

File Formats

sorry, looks like minoltas aren't supported.
wow, this one app makes me sorry i got a pc instead of a power mac...even though my cheap camera doesnt shoot raw

Just had another look on the site - this page says it supports it!

Konica Minolta

* Maxxum 7D

Hurrah!
/opens wallet

 

[efoto]

Lets see here, after a late entrance and four full pages of reading I have a few comments:
Pt.1:

Ya know, apple really burns my hide sometime.
So I've got a brand new ibook. G4 1.4 - 1 gig ram etc
I can run programs like motion, final cut pro, dvd studio - etc.
yadda yadda
(I don't wanna hear how it's a "pro" app either - to me that term doesn't mean squat. - I do all the "pro" things with my ibook just fine)
RAR
<br>
Actually yes I am running Motion 2, and it runs great actually, rarely does it bog down, except maybe when you've got tons of particles and replicators run on the same frame then the FPS does go down....
yadda yadda
I know of very, very, very few photographers (graphic designers to) that run those kinds of systems AND would intersted in a program like that.
Come on apple..
<br>
Excuse me? It's my fault?
No sir. I purchased the ibook because for the money it was the best deal. There is not nearly enough diffrence between the powerbook and ibook.
.2 more processor speed and only a slightly better graphics card (more memory I know)? Due monitors is great, but 90% of the time my computer is moblie not tied to a desktop. Sorry, not worth the money.
You totally are misunderstanding.
I ALREDY use the following programs: FinalCut Studio, DVD Studio Pro, Motion 2, Photoshop, Illustrator and Indesign CS.
Don't tell me it's my fault for buying a "consumer" machine. I bought this computer because the powerbook is NOT worth the money.
yadda yadda
If they do it for one, they should do it for all. I should be able to run all pro apps or no pro apps.
<br>
No but they shouldn't leave out brand new computers that already run "pro" applications.

As many others have said, your iBook wasn't designed to run Pro apps. The fact that you have had success doing so is just a benefit to Apple because they can dip into the iBook user market as well, but the apps are by no means designed to run efficiently on consumer level hardware. If you are happy with your success running FCP and Motion 2, then give Aperture a try and see what you think, but don't complain here or to Apple that the latest Pro app doesn't run smoothly on your iBook.
As far as it being your fault, I would say yes because no one forced you to purchase an iBook and if you required the use of Pro apps then you should have purchased hardware accordingly. The Pro apps do not speak of supporting consumer level hardware (save for specific cases).

HA! Except a professional photographer would NEVER use a LCD as their color correction display. They use the LCD to browse, but most pros have a very expensive CRT that has a much better contrast ratio. Even I can tell the difference on a LCD. The contrast just isn't there.

Interesting, but on Apple's web site they have a video of a professional sports photographer and in the background of his lab it sure looked to me like he was using Apple cinema displays. Besides, Apple's cinema displays are SWOP certified, so I think you a bit behind the times.

The photo department here switched over to dual-23" Cinema Displays recently with the purchase of their new PowerMac (bastards ) and they love them. With regular color calibration they work wonderfully and give quite accurate representation of the prints we receive back. Everyone I know loves them, although they do admit to some shortcomings in comparison to nice CRTs, but everyone knows that. Currently I think the benefits outweigh the shortcomings as long as you calibrate your stuff and run proofs to get your colors tuned in.

 

[efoto]

Pt. 2:

I'm obviously missing something. What does it offer that Photoshop CS2 and Bridge don't?

I was wondering the same thing but then I read a little more and saw a few of the answers, which I don't fully understand yet. CS2 and VersionCue/Bridge has the right idea but half-assed implementation. Bridge is a wonderful idea to collaborate all your programs and projects in one place, but its so slow and cumbersome that it is hardly worth using. Apparently Aperture is not, so the QT movies show. We shall all see soon enough.

Slick, but what cameras it supports is still somewhat fuzzy. It lists only a handful of newish cameras as having an "optimized support": What exactly is non-optimized support? While I presume Nikon "K1X" is really my D1X (it had better…), where is my Canon PowerShot G2 (which I am NOT intending to retire anytime soon) or my father's Pentax *ist?

I saw someone found a page showing more camera support, but if you already have PS you could always convert all of your RAW images to DNG images since we are to believe that is the new standard and Aperture does support those. I believe PS supports all camera RAW formats, so the RAW->DNG does solve your issue (assuming PS) although it adds another step to the workflow which sucks.

i just don't see anything in apeture that is a paradigm shift... It would be if it was part of OS X and did more than photos... Someone said they want less programs... I agree, so why not incorporate this in the system. People work and play on their computers at the same time and apps mesh... why not mesh on the system level? I would gladly pay more for OS X if it had functionality that didn't require massive amounts of utilities, hacks and programs. That would be revolutionary. I could do without all the bells and whistles of Apeture if i had an excellent way of dealing with massive amounts of images, video, text, fonts etc... If you get a quad machine, you barely have enough to buy the software to run on it. In a future operating system will this technology be incorporated? Its just a thought.

The problem with this idea is that if they do this with photos, then you want it done with movies and then with audio and then with , but the point being your license for OSX is going to be $1000 plus if all of this is included and for a lot of people, professionals included, they don't want all of those programs integrated if they specialize in only one aspect of the listed arts. I doubt Apple would make separate OSX installs for photographs, motion picture-ers, audio-ers, etc., just doesn't make a lot of business sense to me. Not to mention the install size , and if I don't use 60% of those new features, I want their space for sure.

 

[movabi]

Pt. 2:

The problem with this idea is that if they do this with photos, then you want it done with movies and then with audio and then with , but the point being your license for OSX is going to be $1000 plus if all of this is included and for a lot of people, professionals included, they don't want all of those programs integrated if they specialize in only one aspect of the listed arts. I doubt Apple would make separate OSX installs for photographs, motion picture-ers, audio-ers, etc., just doesn't make a lot of business sense to me. Not to mention the install size , and if I don't use 60% of those new features, I want their space for sure.

Well if you buy a $3300 machine, your obviously not a novice. File and data management is one part of the system. With Terrabyte drives around the corner the size of the OS is miniscule in comparison with everything else that goes on a drive. Yes, maybe this is a pipe dream now, but in the future i hope that when you buy and invest in a system, it does more right out of the box than what a system does today. People have media they use. Its audio, video, images or software/archives. One solution across the board native that integrated seamlessly would impress the pants off me. I really don't know that many people who buy macs that mainly surf the web and word process... most of those people buy pcs... and who can blame them. They're cheaper and you get more... so when you buy a mac you expect some sort of kick ass power horse.

 

[efoto]

Well if you buy a $3300 machine, your obviously not a novice. File and data management is one part of the system. With Terrabyte drives around the corner the size of the OS is miniscule in comparison with everything else that goes on a drive. Yes, maybe this is a pipe dream now, but in the future i hope that when you buy and invest in a system, it does more right out of the box than what a system does today. People have media they use. Its audio, video, images or software/archives. One solution across the board native that integrated seamlessly would impress the pants off me. I really don't know that many people who buy macs that mainly surf the web and word process... most of those people buy pcs... and who can blame them. They're cheaper and you get more... so when you buy a mac you expect some sort of kick ass power horse.

I can't fully agree with that, especially since Apple has drawn such a definitive line between the "i" and "Power" lines. I think that the consumer models have a ton of bang-for-buck potential and warrant themselves for use in a lot of apps because they have a lot of power. That said, the Power models are the workhorses that are meant to really crunch numbers and do serious work.

I think Apple has created a wonderful thing because it is quite obvious, in most cases, to know which model hardware to get based on your uses/needs. I know a fair number of people who want a stylish, lightweight, portable web/email/chat solution that prefer a 12" iBook to anything the pc world can currently offer for that price. I do see your point, but I don't think that the correlation of Mac=performance is a rule. When you buy a Mac you expect style and ease of use, you may get power but that is not the main purpose to all of the Mac models.

 

[jayb2000]

ohh Man

Aperture looks sweet. I wish I had a system I could run it on.
I want to get into photography more, but not into debt. So I have sworn to not buy anything over $100 until I earn that much from photo's I have sold.
Unfortunately, with buying a house, moving, pending layoffs from work, and other dump excuses, I missed the whole summer of good weather to try and sell stuff.


Anyway, back on topic, I think the way this handles the photo editing is great. I think Photoshop is good to mess with photos, this lets photos "just work". There are times it would be nice to edit out a powerline or similar, but for me, I just want the photo to tell the story.

 

[artifex]

Artifex,

The only limitation to the Student version of FCP is that it's not upgradable...other than that, there are no limitations and no watermarks. Whoever told you that was a moron.

Man, now I'm annoyed It was someone on MR, too, I'm sure of it. I don't have my student discount any more, either

 

[slick316]

Do they have a "lite" version of this software for those who don't use badass digital cameras

I want to check this out, I never got into PS so I have no "preference" software wise, $500 is a lot though, I wish they made trial versions.

 

[jaw04005]

Do they have a "lite" version of this software for those who don't use badass digital cameras

I want to check this out, I never got into PS so I have no "preference" software wise, $500 is a lot though, I wish they made trial versions.

Aperture Express at Macworld SF.

 

[slick316]

Aperture Express at Macworld SF.

Really? Or is that a wish you are making for me

I really want an app that will allow me to easily resize a pic I have taken, and do some simple editing and effects to it (I've seen pictures that have the main object focused, but the background "blurred", just simple things like that). I don't think I need $500+ apps to do it, like Aperture and PS, but iPhoto is a little too simple, great for organizing pictures, thats about all.

 

[efoto]

Aperture Express at Macworld SF.

Really? Or is that a wish you are making for me

I really want an app that will allow me to easily resize a pic I have taken, and do some simple editing and effects to it (I've seen pictures that have the main object focused, but the background "blurred", just simple things like that). I don't think I need $500+ apps to do it, like Aperture and PS, but iPhoto is a little too simple, great for organizing pictures, thats about all.

I think he was joking but probably meant it to. It isn't unlikely to expect something like that....who knows on the timeframe though. You could probably look back at other Pro apps that have Express versions and see which came out first and how long a delay was seen between releases. Either way, I think it will come....but who knows when.

 

[slick316]

I think he was joking but probably meant it to. It isn't unlikely to expect something like that....who knows on the timeframe though. You could probably look back at other Pro apps that have Express versions and see which came out first and how long a delay was seen between releases. Either way, I think it will come....but who knows when.

I see, it makes sense though. Maybe they will see how well Aperture sells before releasing an Express version. Would be nice though, or iPhoto 6 will more editing tools built in.

 

[efoto]

I see, it makes sense though. Maybe they will see how well Aperture sells before releasing an Express version. Would be nice though, or iPhoto 6 will more editing tools built in.

Based on the somewhat close relationship between Aperture and iPhoto (mainly that they both deal with photographs) I think that we might see a hybrid of sorts, a mix of what could be named Aperture Express or iPhoto 6....perhaps they are different of sorts so Apple has more apps but either way, I think one of the two, or a meld of both, is inevitable.

 

[stuuke]

This software is meant to compete with C1 which is about $500 and other RAW converters that are much cheaper. They added a bunch of nice features for organizing and the backup feature is great. Professional photographers typically go for quality first followed by workability and then speed. The program looks great but until the quality of conversions and speed of conversions are demonstrated I wouldn't expect everyone to run out and buy it. The price seems a bit high but as a professional photographer if it gives my clients the best image then I will buy it. The extra features will be great for organizing, sharing with clients and storing but I would still use Photoshop every day.

 

[jaw04005]

What is funny although is that in the minimum hardware requirements, they say you can use a "17- or 20-inch iMac G5 with a 1.8 GHz or faster PowerPC G5 processor" but the graphic-card that is shipped with the iMac dosen't respond to the minimum specs...

* ATI Radeon X800 XT Mac Edition
* ATI Radeon X850 XT
* ATI Radeon 9800 XT or 9800 Pro
* ATI Radeon 9700 Pro
* ATI Radeon 9600 XT, 9600 Pro, or 9650
* ATI Mobility Radeon 9700 or 9600
* NVIDIA GeForce 6800 Ultra DDL or 6800 GT DDL
* NVIDIA GeForce 7800 GT

Most iMac users don't know what video card they have, so it's easier for Apple just to specify by processor speed. The only problem would the people that purchased a 1.8Ghz 20" iMac that had the NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 card. I don't think the 5200 is going to cut it for Aperture.

 

[jaw04005]

the main object focused, but the background "blurred", just simple things like that...

That's done with the ISO settings on your digital camera. On my Canon Rebel, to soften the background and leave the main object in focus I use a 400 ISO setting.