# Apple releases "Aperture" software for pro photographers.



## symphonix (Oct 19, 2005)

Apple has just released a new pro-app called "Aperture" which is a photo management power-app similar to iPhoto, but clearly aimed at professional photographers... and it looks SWEEEET. Its fast, handles RAW files in a non-destructive way and applies corrections to RAW instantly, also handles EXIF data in new and powerful ways. There won't be a self-respecting professional photographer who won't be tempted by this offering, and I think quite a few amateurs will consider splashing out on it too.

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


----------



## RGrphc2 (Oct 19, 2005)

It's nothing like Photoshop like i first saw, its for manipulating RAW camera images using Core-Image

Starting to dream that i had a dSLR camera and a Powermac or iMac G5....anybody care to spot me $3500 ???   ::ha::


----------



## CreativeEye (Oct 19, 2005)

the demos look really cool. love the menu sounds. and the uk price point is very good.

i can see colleagues of mine ditching their 'real' light boxes and loops - also, its one more reason for them to go digital. selecting / and editing images for designs etc should be much much easier as a creative team with this.

i dont think this is any sort of 'competitor' to adobe's suite of apps - they are very different things.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Oct 19, 2005)

yes. photoshop is now more for complex bitmap image editing/creation, a counterpart to illustrators complex vector creation.

Aperture is far more focussed on the photographer, a place where i always thought photoshop lacked (contact sheets are very awkward in photoshop, for example).  these two will go hand in hand, not head to head.


----------



## nixgeek (Oct 19, 2005)

My wife just bought the Rebel XT and I got the iMac G5.  I sent her a link to Aperture over IM and she liked it a lot.  Unfortunately, it's out of our price range.  She's looking to do professional photography and that would help her out as well.


----------



## fryke (Oct 19, 2005)

If she's looking to go professional with photography, I guess Aperture would be really worth its money soon. I'd think about it if I weren't just using my Sony DSC P-150 for snapshots.


----------



## mindbend (Oct 19, 2005)

Actually, CS2 pretty much covers everything I saw in the Aperture demos. Granted, I haven't taken advantage of CS2's features along this path, but when I was playing with it, it looks almost identical to Aperture to be honest. 

What I'm really talking about is CS2's Bridge, which is the organizational tool much like what you see in Aperture's demos. It has all the same search, filtering, keywording, star ranking, etc. Plus, CS2 is very RAW aware.

From what I can see, Aperture's only advantage over CS2 is the Core Image stuff, which isn't that big a deal if you've got a fast Mac anyway.

I'm not dissing Aperture, I'm sure it has more to offer if I dig into it, but CS2 and Bridge are pretty much there from what I can tell.


----------



## fryke (Oct 19, 2005)

Well, I don't think they're in direct competition. Rather I think that even if you're using CS2, Aperture can add to the workflow. Actually, it can become the center...


----------



## RGrphc2 (Oct 19, 2005)

it's like an iPhoto Pro really...


----------



## mindbend (Oct 19, 2005)

Fryke,

What I'm suggesting is that the Bridge already IS the center for CS2. Aperture wouldn't really add much of anything.

Admittedly, I haven't looked deep enough to Aperture to find more advantages/differences to CS2/Bridge, so I may change my mind down the road.

I did, however, try to implement the CS2/Bridge workflow but it just really wasn't worth the trouble for our workflow. I think it would really shine in an environment with a lot more staff. With just a few of us, it's not as critical.

And for $500 I'm going to need to see something really freaking impressive. So far I'm not seeing it. I'm just seeing a nice photo management/editing tool that doesn't have a fraction of Photoshop's depth (but doesn't have Photoshop's bloat and purpose, either).

I'm anxious to see more and see how people integrate it in to their work environments. I'll be curious to see if my photographer colleagues are stoked or not. Where I suspect Aperture will really shine is with, well, Photographer. Obviously it's targeted directly at that audience. While Photoshop has become a much more diverse app than pure photo editing, Aperture appears to really focus, no pun intended, on what high volume photographers need to do day in and day out. Apple's been very good lately at focusing an app at a very target audience (or purpose) as opposed to trying to make an app that does all things to all people.


----------



## symphonix (Oct 19, 2005)

> Admittedly, I haven't looked deep enough to Aperture to find more advantages/differences to CS2/Bridge, so I may change my mind down the road.



I'd suggest visiting the Apple site for Aperture and watching the demo there (a rather tight and easy to follow QuickTime demo). You'll see that while it does sort-of take the place of Bridge, it is by no means the same, as it is about managing your RAW photos in a non-destructive way, quickly comparing a large number of similar photos, and so on. The good thing about Core Image, aside from its astounding speed, is that if you apply a string of a dozen effects it actually only alters the image once. That is to say, when CoreImage has a number of adjustments in play, it adds them together into one calculation and applies that to a copy of the original. That means there is less error due to interpolation or quantising, even after applying hundreds of adjustments.

I've just ordered in my first D-SLR camera last week, and while I probably won't be getting this for budget reasons, I know from flicking through photography web-sites and magazines that there are hundreds of people in every major city who would by a Mac just to run Aperture. You only have to look at the number of people who own 10 different telephoto lenses for bird-watching photos - at $1000+ each - not to mention the users for media, advertising, wedding and commercial photography.


----------



## Jason (Oct 19, 2005)

Personally I have no need or interest in this application, mostly because I already have all these features in CS2...

That being said, if this hits a price point that is cheaper than CS2, I can see it being a good option for a lot of people.

So it's cool, I just wont be needing it


----------



## fuzz (Oct 20, 2005)

symphonix said:
			
		

> I've just ordered in my first D-SLR camera last week, and while I probably won't be getting this for budget reasons, I know from flicking through photography web-sites and magazines that there are hundreds of people in every major city who would by a Mac just to run Aperture.




Just curious, what dSLR did you get and what lens?


----------



## mdnky (Oct 20, 2005)

RGrphc2 said:
			
		

> Starting to dream that i had a dSLR camera and a Powermac or iMac G5....anybody care to spot me $3500 ???   ::ha::



Do your really need to spend $3500 though?  A camera half (or less) the price of that is more than capable enough for most (note: most, not all) uses.

Personally I'd grab a good one in the lower price range and then keep a 35mm or medium format (or large format) one the side for the really important or "large" stuff.  Anything the D50 can't handle is probably outside the use of even today's top digital cameras to begin with...that is until we start to see 30 to 50MP cameras arriving.  Of course that depends on the use of the image and other factors...I'm just generalizing here.

I wound up buying a Nikon D50 after a week or so of debating this summer and narrowing it down to three cameras:  Nikon D50, Nikon D70s, and Canon Rebel XT.  The D50 and D70 shot pretty much the same (couldn't justify the extra $300 difference) and the XT's images were blurry and color wasn't as good, even though it has 2MP more.  If it's something I need a lot of info from (which is very rare), then I can always borrow a 120/220 camera my father has (or possibly use a Nikon 35mm SLR) and do a film scan.


----------



## CreativeEye (Oct 20, 2005)

what you have to remember is that this is for PRO photographers.

i work with some of them - and most that have have CS2 dont use more than 15% of whats there - its not within their remit to have it or use it. most have some version of photoshop - and for what they would need to do (i.e. - view / manage / group / organise / edit / comp / present / etc / etc) photoshop just doesnt cut it.

from what ive been reading about aperture - it blows adobe bridge out of the water for what it does at its core - and as a 'one-stop-shop'.

if your not the type of photographer who's going to take 500 / 600 / 700 / etc+ pictures in a days photoshoot and need to see QC on the fly etc then this app won't be for you - Bridge will suffice - and its a great hub for CS2.

also - its almost half the price of CS2.


----------



## RGrphc2 (Oct 20, 2005)

mdnky said:
			
		

> Do your really need to spend $3500 though?  A camera half (or less) the price of that is more than capable enough for most (note: most, not all) uses.
> 
> Personally I'd grab a good one in the lower price range and then keep a 35mm or medium format (or large format) one the side for the really important or "large" stuff.  Anything the D50 can't handle is probably outside the use of even today's top digital cameras to begin with...that is until we start to see 30 to 50MP cameras arriving.  Of course that depends on the use of the image and other factors...I'm just generalizing here.
> 
> I wound up buying a Nikon D50 after a week or so of debating this summer and narrowing it down to three cameras:  Nikon D50, Nikon D70s, and Canon Rebel XT.  The D50 and D70 shot pretty much the same (couldn't justify the extra $300 difference) and the XT's images were blurry and color wasn't as good, even though it has 2MP more.  If it's something I need a lot of info from (which is very rare), then I can always borrow a 120/220 camera my father has (or possibly use a Nikon 35mm SLR) and do a film scan.



Really the D50 came out better?  I have worked with Several Canon Digital's before (Powershots) and was still debating on what Digital SLR i was gonna get, i was thinking either a D50 or a Rebel XT.  I can't find too many good package deals on it though...(extra lenses, case, cleaner, memory card, etc)

The 3500 was $1,000 for a Digital SLR and $2500 for a Powermac +Monitor and some RAM


----------



## symphonix (Oct 20, 2005)

> Just curious, what dSLR did you get and what lens?



A Pentax *ist DL with a Sigma 18-50 lens. $999 Australian, at least $400 cheaper than an equivalent Canon or Nikon.
It's identical to the *ist DS but a LOT cheaper, uses a Pentamirror viewfinder in place of Pentaprism, and doesn't have TTL (Through The Lens flash metering). It does have a bigger display, though. The viewfinder is great, in spite of being cheaper, and its lighter anyway.
There was a similar kit for $200 more with an 18-125 lens, but it is both bigger, bulkier, and I simply preferred the feel of the 18-50. 
All the reviews show it coming up pretty well against the Canon and Nikon's in image quality, and I am on a very tight budget so I'm not spending $500 more for a difference that only a studio photographer would notice. Its auto-mode is friendly and easy. Since I *love* to muck around with camera settings and techniques, and my wife really only wants a camera that can point-and-shoot, the DL should keep us both happy.


----------



## mdnky (Oct 20, 2005)

RGrphc2 said:
			
		

> Really the D50 came out better?...........The 3500 was $1,000 for a Digital SLR and $2500 for a Powermac +Monitor and some RAM



Oh...ok, well then.  That makes a bit more sense...I saw the thing in your sig about wanting a Rebel XT and I was tying to figure that out...figured maybe you decided to go with one of the higher end ones.

The last review I saw on the D50 had it recommended over the XT (by a hair) and the Pentax *ist DS (by alot).  Note:  The Pentax's quality wasn't on par with the others...even when you took RAW images with the Pentax and JPG ones with the others.  Not sure if this DL model symphonix is talking about has had that issue fixed or not.

As far as the Nikon to Canon debate...the images I saw back in July between the two at DPReview and elsewhere showed an advantage to the Nikon.  The ones from the Canon seemed blurry...which most people attributed to the lens included in their "kit" being of lesser quality.  Since then I've seen more images which show the gap closing a bit, but not enough for me to worry or even consider the Canon if I was buying again.  With a 2MP difference I would expect a noticeably better image...which isn't the case right now.  Besides...if I bought another digital I'd want to get a top of the line one now...which would probably be a Hasselblad H2D.  Advantage: 22MP -- Disadvantage:  Cost (I didn't win the $340mil PowerBall...someone in Oregon did)

-----

After looking at Aperture a bit more...I'm tempted to buy it.  Especially considering the Academic version is $249.


----------



## fryke (Oct 20, 2005)

Just a side note on MP: Some makers are pushing too hard - and 2 MP more can mean actual less image quality. Resolution isn't everything. I'd go by price range first and then by image quality (tests, tests, tests) and then handling. (Some cameras are still simply awful to handle...)


----------



## mindbend (Oct 20, 2005)

I go to this site for ridiculously in-depth camera reviews.

www.dpreview.com

I have a Canon EOS 20D. My colleague has a Nikon D70. I'm not a photographer, so I don't know enough to get into the nitty gritty, but I do know that we did a side by side of both cameras on a shoot. I found the 20D to be considerably more color accurate (just used the room's built-in flourescent lighting) and "cleaner". My colleague's personal photos of macro flower work on the D70 are wonderfull, however. Both are very good cameras, but I would trust dpreview.com more than me.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Oct 20, 2005)

although no-where near pro yet, i can vouch for frykes statement. two of my friends have comparable price-range cameras to me (all compact camera's in the the £250 range).

they both have far superior output resolutions (5.2mp and 6.1 mp compared to my 3.2mp ixus), but my ixus beats all their photos hands down, becuase it has a FAR superior lens.  i will never buy another olympus (my first camera, and both of theirs are olympus, and all show the same traits: very grainy images, awful depth of field and focal distances, and slow to take. bulky too.)

my ixus 30 is just a tiny camera that takes incredible shots. it's just hampered by the low res images it produces (just stretches to a4 print quality)


----------



## chevy (Oct 20, 2005)

Ah... I love my Canon 300D (European name for the Digital Rebel).


----------



## symphonix (Oct 20, 2005)

> I go to this site for ridiculously in-depth camera reviews.  www.dpreview.com



Hear Hear! dpreview.com is, in my opinion, one of the best digital camera review site around. Their reviews of most cameras run 10-20 pages, weighing up what every function and button is capable of, and their optical tests are extremely thorough. Their forums aren't bad either, if you want to learn a bit about photography equipment and techniques then they're the place to go.




> i will never buy another olympus (my first camera, and both of theirs are olympus, and all show the same traits: very grainy images, awful depth of field and focal distances, and slow to take. bulky too.)



Yes. My first digicam was an Olympus D-150, and it has just recently died. It had a shockingly short battery life. No, make that embaressingly short. The sort of camera where you'd take it out, put in batteries, ask your subject to say "cheese" and then say "ah, drat. Batteries just died."
The shutter delay was pretty awful too, as well as the power-up time. Yes, I know its a low-end camera, but this one was just ridiculous. Its sitting on my desk now and my only regret is that its not worth getting it repaired. Maybe I can hack it to do something really nifty.
Oh, and my Mum ended up buying the same model - I would have advised her not to had she asked my opinion. The sliding lens cover broke off. And I discovered that the Windows software for the Olympus cameras (Camedia master) is quite simply awful.


----------



## Robn Kester (Oct 20, 2005)

If anyone here who does semi-pro or rabid hobby photos gets Aperture, please let us know what you think of it.

I keep hoping for the Apple "Photoshop" to be announced so I can start selling my organs to buy it.


----------



## mdnky (Oct 20, 2005)

I definitely agree on the MP thing...my brother thought his 5MP was so much nicer than the 3.2MP Nikon 3200 I had bought (costed more) for the real estate gig 2 years ago.  The Nikon blew it away as did his buddies 3.xMP Canon.  So yea...I'll take quality any day over quantity.

Someone complained about Olympus and I have to agree it's sad to see they've gone downhill.  The first digital I had was a 1.5MP D-320 and it produced absolutely amazing pictures...when I went to replace it I looked at Olympus's offerings in the 4 to 5 MP range and was put off by the low quality of their build and materials used, as well as the low quality images they took.  So I bought the more expensive Nikon 3200.

I think a big difference in the Rebel XT and the D50 is the "kit" lens...Nikon is known for having good quality optics and it showed in the look and feel when I compared those two side by side at CompUSA (I know...but they were the only ones who had the D50 in stock) as well as from reviews and comparison images online.  I'm sure the Canon is a capable camera...it's just I didn't want to spend a ton of money on replacing the lens, which I didn't have to do with the Nikon; and the Nikon felt better in my hand.  Had I bought the Canon as a body only and bought a high-quality lens on the side, I would have wound up spending $500 more than the Nikon kit costed.


----------



## RGrphc2 (Oct 21, 2005)

Thanks for the advice with the Digital Camera, a lot of people recommend the D50 to the Rebel.  mdnky, i'll have to stop by CompUSA and play around with both camera's hopefully the one by me has them out as a demo.


----------



## lilbandit (Oct 21, 2005)

The Canon is easier to use. A decent lense (not the kit lense) is a must. Wonderfully sharp pictures, easy navigation of menus and well laid out controls. In this price range the Canon (350D/Digital Rebel XT) is hard to beat. I'm also seriously considering Aperture. It looks amazing. Good colour correction tools, RAW workflow, Stacks, Loupe tool and best of all non-destructive editing. Only thing that is holding me back is lack of real-world printing results with specific printers (mine is an Epson R2400). The best way to get accurate colours when printing is to set everything (camera, printer, display and CS2) up for Adobe RGB (1998) and ignore coloursync. I currently use CS2 but Bridge is awful and RAW support is bolted on. Any more than a handful of high resolution pics and Bridge slows down to a crawl. I don't have a huge number of plugins for CS2, only a few actions and those could easily be automated in Aperture. It also looks a lot snappier than CS2, watching those raw files blaze past brought a tear to my eye


----------



## Jason (Oct 21, 2005)

parb.johal@ante said:
			
		

> what you have to remember is that this is for PRO photographers.
> 
> i work with some of them - and most that have have CS2 dont use more than 15% of whats there - its not within their remit to have it or use it. most have some version of photoshop - and for what they would need to do (i.e. - view / manage / group / organise / edit / comp / present / etc / etc) photoshop just doesnt cut it.
> 
> ...



I hate to constantly nay-say, but I doubt Aperature will be able to handle 500-700 Raw files from professional cameras "on the fly"

And its not half the price of CS2.

And I still say Bridge does the job that Aperature looks like its supposed to do but with a lot less flash 

That being said, I'll wait and see, I'm not sold yet.


----------



## symphonix (Oct 21, 2005)

> I hate to constantly nay-say, but I doubt Aperature will be able to handle 500-700 Raw files from professional cameras "on the fly"



Did you even watch the live demo on the Aperture site? Its very clear that Aperture is phenomenally fast.


----------



## mdnky (Oct 21, 2005)

Fast yea, but then when you look at the requirements and figure they most likely had it running on a loaded Quad...that has to explain part of it.  

As far as the speed thing with that many images...500 RAW images from my D50 is 2.6GB of info (5.2MB each on average); which is a lot of info to work with.  Someone trying that with a RAW from a D2X (17.5MB each on average, for a total of 8.75GB) or similar camera would be really testing it out at those counts.  Unless you were running high amounts of RAM I would expect a slow down...at least a bit of one.

The more and more I've looked at it recently, the more I want to grab a copy when I finally get my new desktop.  It's looking to be everything I've wanted.


----------



## Jason (Oct 21, 2005)

symphonix said:
			
		

> Did you even watch the live demo on the Aperture site? Its very clear that Aperture is phenomenally fast.



Yes I have.

I watched it once again just to be sure of what I'm looking at. And the *only* thing that I think is new and worthwhile over CS2/Bridge is the loupe function.

I'm not saying Aperature sucks by any means. I just dont see a reason to spend money on it, when one already has CS2. If I were choosing from a blank slate? I'd prolly still go with CS2 purely because it has many more options as an overall program. 

I'm wondering what camera those raw files came from and what the system specs the computer running the demo is.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Oct 21, 2005)

"Aperture makes RAW as easy as jpeg."

Apple have blatantly done some SERIOUS work optimising both the code, and with Core Image.  maybe this is the potential of Core Image, making RAW files as fast and efficient as any other image.  regardless of the data, it's just imagery at the end of the day.  maybe it just thinks it's much smaller, until you actually use it at full size.

at the end of the day, it is supposedly LIGHTNING fast, i t looks so good, and  one of the main tag lines is to do with eerily fast file opening/image viewing.

'RAW as fast as JPEG. Aperture. makes CS2 Bridge look like windows software.'


----------



## symphonix (Oct 22, 2005)

> I'm wondering what camera those raw files came from and what the system specs the computer running the demo is.



Can't speak for the system, but if you look at the EXIF data that comes up on the lower-right corner, you'll see the camera in use is a Nikon D1.


----------



## CreativeEye (Oct 22, 2005)

also-  pro photographers / studios will tend to have maxed out dedicated machines just for a single task - running the likes of Aperture.

the issue of performance for them is therefore pretty moot.

as a designer i know that i 'have' to have a lot off apps stored / open - juggling which are open at any one time to have peak performance from my mac - so its an issue 'for the rest of us' - not for those running their machines to perform singular tasks.

btw - CS2 (prem) £999 / Aperture £349 (prices from UK applestore)


----------



## fryke (Oct 22, 2005)

But you'd buy the whole Creative Suite, not just Photoshop, probably. And I wouldn't really compare the pricing of Adobe's whole CS to "Aperture", which really is for a very specific group of people...


----------



## lilbandit (Oct 22, 2005)

The education price is very competitive, only 320.


----------



## Jason (Oct 22, 2005)

symphonix said:
			
		

> Can't speak for the system, but if you look at the EXIF data that comes up on the lower-right corner, you'll see the camera in use is a Nikon D1.



Nikon D1 is a 2.6 megapixel camera.


----------



## mdnky (Oct 22, 2005)

In the video tour the picture of the Tibetan woman (in the red dress) is from a Nikon D2X, which is a 12.4MP camera (the file-size on that NEF says 19.11MB).  There's probably pics in there from various cameras either supplied by their manufacturers or grabbed from stock photo sites.


----------



## symphonix (Oct 23, 2005)

Hehe, need to get my eyes checked then.  Yes, in the bit I was looking at it was a Nikon D2.


----------



## Jason (Oct 23, 2005)

Thats a bit better


----------

