# Aperture Review



## hawki18 (Dec 5, 2005)

Aperture review is not kind to Mac's new photo software.

http://arstechnica.com/reviews/apps/aperture.ars


----------



## wnowak1 (Dec 6, 2005)

Yeah ... I expected more. Have to test for myself though


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Dec 6, 2005)

it's not kind, but it's not harsh either. it's fair and level, for the most part. it's true.

it is only version 1.0 after all. photoshop is at version 11.0  think of any other pro-level apps that were this good at version 1.0?


----------



## fryke (Dec 6, 2005)

9. Photoshop is at version 9. But you're right of course about it being version 1. The question for me is: Will they fix/add stuff in free updates or will pros have to wait for at least version 2 (i.e. NOT buy now...)?


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Dec 6, 2005)

i remebered that while in town. it just flicked through my mind. it's illustrator thats at 11. except it's not any more. so i wasn't even halfway right....

and apples leaps from 1 to 2 are rarely good anyway.  itunes added ipod support. grargeband allows you to use your keybaord as a keyboard (which it should have been able to do much earlier), jaguar got osx up and running etc.


----------



## Thank The Cheese (Dec 6, 2005)

I just ran the Aperture Checker and it can't be installed on my iMac G5! pfft! That's bollocks!


----------



## mindbend (Dec 7, 2005)

Glad to see Ars Technica is as thorough as ever. It almost seems as though Aperture is so fundamentally flawed (on purpose for speed?) that it may never be fixed.


----------



## lilbandit (Dec 7, 2005)

Very disappointing, was seriously considering making the investment for the advertised RAW capabilities. Version 1.0 or not, the application will surely live or die by the quality of the RAW conversion. I use Camera Raw with CS2 at the moment, it's slow, bulky and feels like what it is ie. a bolted on capability, yet the image quality is good. Aperture images in the review were full of noise


----------



## symphonix (Dec 7, 2005)

I was a little disappointed to read this review. Admittedly, the reviewer brought up some interesting points. But at the same time, they completely failed to recognise that Aperture is fundamentally different to Photoshop and was never intended to be a replacement for an image editing program. I certainly would not expect to see anyone using just Aperture and not Photoshop.

The program is intended as a smart way of managing RAW files, with all of the camera meta-data and so on, and it achieves this task pretty well. It automatically stacks items that were taken in meter-bracketing mode or burst mode. It can adjust white-balance points and so on easily. It would not surprise me to see professional photographers using Aperture to import and manage their photos, Photoshop to perform higher level tasks, and Adobe RAW export for conversions.

RAW conversion has always been a sore spot for photographers; there are many options and all of them give different results, and while some people will swear by Bibble and say they hate Adobe RAW conversions, others will say the exact opposite. So this reviewer preferred the Adobe convertor to Apple's; fair enough then.

As a first release, I think Apple have done well. It isn't for most of us - only the sort of photographers who have to deal with hundreds or thousands of shots each day would be likely to benefit from it. But for this demographic, it is a very useful tool.


----------



## lilbandit (Dec 7, 2005)

How does Aperture rate in comparison to Final Cut Pro 1? Were there concerns around image/video quality? I realise it's a 1.0 release but looking at the images in the review there are serious issues with noise that go beyond a personal choice of ACR2 or Bibble. The list of filters is fairly barren, underlining it's role as a companion to Photoshop but I was hoping that I could use it to replace Adobe Bridge. The stacks feature combined with native RAW support are what attracted me in the first place. Yes, pro photographers will deal with thousands of images but there is an upper limit of 10,000 images per catalogue in Aperture and an enthusiastic amateur will fill a couple of 1Gig CF cards with RAWs very quickly. The ability to convert and work with these images more efficiently initially attracted me to Aperture. Also, if the RAW conversion is poor, will your entire imported RAW library will be poor as the whole thing revolves around a central database? Any info appreciated.


----------



## mindbend (Dec 8, 2005)

The early FCP reviews were excellent actually. Image quality in general for FCP isn't so much an FCP thing as it is a codec thing. DV is DV. However, the way FCP handles (handled) the post processing, color space, scaling in particular was not as good in FCP 1 as it is now.

Course, I say DV is DV, but then I thought RAW was RAW!


----------



## fryke (Dec 8, 2005)

Just wanted to add your last line, but then you did that yourself.  ... I think FCP was also different in that it actually came at a much lower price than "comparable" professional products, whereas Aperture has its price and should thus deliver professional quality. Not to say that FCP was/is free, but the market was different there.


----------



## garymum4d (Dec 8, 2005)

Thank The Cheese said:
			
		

> I just ran the Aperture Checker and it can't be installed on my iMac G5! pfft! That's bollocks!


There's a solution for this  
I have it running on an iMac G5 (PM Me)


----------



## fryke (Dec 8, 2005)

There's a solution to this in the System & Software forum. http://www.macosx.com/forums/showthread.php?t=264319


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Dec 8, 2005)

apples written requirements say imac G5 17 or 20" 1.8ghz or higher.

plus there's images of it on a powerbook, and they are hardly cutting edge are they?


----------



## garymum4d (Dec 8, 2005)

Lt Major Burns said:
			
		

> apples written requirements say imac G5 17 or 20" 1.8ghz or higher.
> 
> plus there's images of it on a powerbook, and they are hardly cutting edge are they?



Yes .. But it does not list the nVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 that came in the first gen iMac G5 like mine.


----------



## fryke (Dec 8, 2005)

My PB checks out fine with the Aperture Checker app. So I guess it _is_ cutting edge, then.  ... The important thing _is_ the graphics card.


----------



## garymum4d (Dec 8, 2005)

I don't understand why Mac's with the nVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 are excluded from using this. It work absolutly fine after having a hack applied.
This stupid decision from Apple only encourages people (who are willing to pay for a genuine version) to download hacked versions from torrent sites. therefore encouraging software piracy. 
I know a semi pro photographer who uses an imac. isn't he the market this application is aimed at?? and yet he can't because his graphic card is also a nVIDIA GeForce FX 5200.


----------



## Thank The Cheese (Dec 8, 2005)

garymum4d said:
			
		

> I know a semi pro photographer who uses an imac. isn't he the market this application is aimed at?? and yet he can't because his graphic card is also a nVIDIA GeForce FX 5200.



exactly! And he is not the only one, I know of two more myself, and there are plenty more. There are even a lot of photography and design _businesses_ that use iMacs too.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Dec 8, 2005)

you appear to have two VERY powerful mac in your signature, both running panther.


----------



## gwynarion (Dec 8, 2005)

I've been using Aperture for almost a week now and I have found it to be a truly excellent application.  I'm not a professional photographer&#8212;more of a prosumer&#8212;and I'm only just getting into RAW.  That said, as a workflow application, Aperture replaces iPhoto, 75-85% of Photoshop and one or two other things for me.  I have found only one or two things to be disappointed in with the software and they are incredibly minor.  I look forward to 1.0.x or 1.x, but what we have now is pretty good.


----------



## mdnky (Dec 9, 2005)

gwynarion, what camera (brand/model) are your RAW files coming from?


----------



## gwynarion (Dec 9, 2005)

mdnky said:
			
		

> gwynarion, what camera (brand/model) are your RAW files coming from?


Canon EOS Digital Rebel (300D).


----------



## hawki18 (Dec 15, 2005)

I started this thread and for the price they are getting for it.  I think it should be a all around programs for photo's no just handling raw format.  I think I would better off getting cs3.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Dec 16, 2005)

isn't it?  does it not support JPEG?  i thought the RAW support was support, not dedicated.


----------



## fryke (Dec 16, 2005)

Well: It's certainly not seen as a competition to Photoshop CS2 (if that is what you mean by 'cs3'), it's seen as an extension. I hear good things about Aperture. The main 'beef' people have with it is the RAW support. - Although in a semi-pro environment, this might even not be as bad.


----------



## lilbandit (Dec 16, 2005)

Most crucial issue is poor RAW conversion. Noisy images result.


----------



## fryke (Dec 16, 2005)

Yes, that's what the linked article said.


----------



## gwynarion (Dec 17, 2005)

hawki18 said:
			
		

> I started this thread and for the price they are getting for it.  I think it should be a all around programs for photo's no just handling raw format.  I think I would better off getting cs3.


It is an all around program for photos, more so than Photoshop is.  RAW support is one of the touted features, but it handles any formats a digital camera can take.  If you're expecting it to be a replacement for Photoshop stop.  Photoshop is a graphics design program, despite what its name contains, which incorporates photo tools in with its overall set of features.  Aperture is a digital photography workflow application, which puts it in a different group of software.  Think of it as the photographic version of Final Cut or as iPhoto all grown up.


----------



## fryke (Dec 17, 2005)

Then again, if I'm thinking "iPhoto grown up", then I'm thinking 99 or 199 USD.  But I'm not a pro photographer, anyway.


----------



## gwynarion (Dec 18, 2005)

I guess it just depends on how grown up it is   You could say that Final Cut is just an improved iMovie, in the same way that Aperture is an improved iPhoto.  It all depends on scale.  I think that it's really a matter of how much you think the software will be worth to you.  Aperture is easily worth its $499 USD price tag, whereas Final Cut Express is in no way worth the $299 USD to me.


----------



## hawki18 (Dec 20, 2005)

Over 500 usd is to much for me.  I like taking photo and testing all the features with the programs.  But mac just charges too much for the programs.  I use cs2 got it discount for 300 usd and if you do not need all the features of photo shop there is all elements and around a 100 bucks.  So there is no way apple can make me believe that  Aperture is wortth the price.


----------



## mdnky (Dec 20, 2005)

Not sure where you got the belief about the charging too much for the other apps&#8212;you might want to compare AVID Studio HD ($2500) with Final Cut Studio ($1300).


----------



## hawki18 (Dec 21, 2005)

this thread is talking about photo software not video and for the price of Aperture I will take phot shop any day


----------



## Shookster (Dec 21, 2005)

hawki18 said:
			
		

> this thread is talking about photo software not video and for the price of Aperture I will take phot shop any day



I seem to remember reading somewhere that Aperture is designed as a complement to Photoshop, not a replacement.


----------



## fryke (Dec 21, 2005)

If what you _want_ is Photoshop and you get it at a nice price and you think Aperture does not cover your needs as a photographer, then YES: Aperture's too expensive for you. Clearly. BUT Aperture covers the needs for many photographers, it seems. Only: It's not quite there yet. But to lower the price would be wrong. Rather, they should (and quite probably will) be working on the next version, so that the outstanding bugs can be fixed and the reviewers can appreciate that, so that in the _future_ the price doesn't seem too much. This way, they can continue to ask 500 USD for it, instead of having to lower the price. (To go up with the price later often proves more difficult, i.e. you lose more customers than you've won with lowering the price...)


----------



## mindbend (Dec 21, 2005)

Aperture is clearly aimed at professional photographers with very specific needs. If you watch the demo videos, that's a world that most of us (even in the creative industry) simply don't live in. 

Aperture is very different from Photoshop, though I still stand by my initial claim that Photoshop, Exposé and Bridge do a LOT of what Aperture does, and according to this review, does it "better" in terms of quality.

Aperture seems geared toward a very specific workflow and presumably is very good at catering to that model. Since most of us are not professional photographers, it really doesn't matter what we think, it only matters what they think. $500 could be a bargain paid for in half a day if it streamlines their workflow enough. Or it could be a ripoff if the RAW format gets compromised as is implied.


----------



## gwynarion (Dec 22, 2005)

hawki18 said:
			
		

> Over 500 usd is to much for me.  I like taking photo and testing all the features with the programs.  But mac just charges too much for the programs.  I use cs2 got it discount for 300 usd and if you do not need all the features of photo shop there is all elements and around a 100 bucks.  So there is no way apple can make me believe that  Aperture is wortth the price.


Aperture is $499 USD while Photoshop is $649 USD.  The fact that you go Photoshop for less is really pretty meaningless except to say that you can get discounts on Aperture too, provided you are an educational buyer.  But the real point is that if you don't feel that Aperture is worth either amount you have the excellent recourse of *not buying it*.  Carping over how much you think it costs and how it doesn't seem worth it to you hardly seems to be contributing to this thread in a meaningful way.


----------



## hawki18 (Dec 22, 2005)

I know Aperture is suppose to be a work along for photoshop but I am not paying $500.00 for a add on for photoshop


----------



## Shookster (Dec 23, 2005)

hawki18 said:
			
		

> I know Aperture is suppose to be a work along for photoshop but I am not paying $500.00 for a add on for photoshop



Get it off eBay then


----------



## lilbandit (Dec 23, 2005)

Anybody get a chance to try out the update?


----------



## fuzz (Dec 27, 2005)

shoot, i paid about $300 for a photoshop plug-in for green/blue screen ... i must be an unreasonable person, u think?


----------



## lilbandit (Jan 2, 2006)

My brother bought me a copy of Aperture as a late Christmas present!! Been trying it out for a few hours today. Very different from CS2. Feels like there is less control over the images. No curves, only sliders. Crop sizes are limited, no metric system, no way to change (or find out) the image/crop resolution. I'm assuming it's 300dpi but not sure. Raw conversion is not on a par with ACR but low to mid ISO results seem good. Early days yet but the workflow is a huge improvement over Photoshop. Browsing is quick and the image comparison tool is probably the best kept secret. Press return with an image selected and the display immediately splits in two, displaying selected photo on the left and the next image on the right. You can select images for comparison using arrow keys. There is a bug in the export options. Exporting to tiff means that you lose the file's metadata, it's the same if you export to Photoshop and back to Aperture. Print otput still feels a little inflexible. Borderless printing (A4) relies on upscaling an 11 x 8.5 inch crop whereas Photoshop can custom crop an image to A4 (or whatever you want) at any given resolution. It does have occasional flashes of brilliance, the versioning system means that you never ruin the master image, the lightview table allows you to preview albums and groups of images. Importing files is simple and the stacks facility is very useful. Lots of promise for the future but it will take more to fully prise me away from Photoshop.


----------



## mdnky (Jan 2, 2006)

lilbandit said:
			
		

> Lots of promise for the future...



I stopped by the Apple Store in Cincinnati right before x-mass and played with it on a Quad/30" Cinema (wow...wow...wow [the machine, that is]) and a 15" PowerBook (ran good, better than expected on it).  Based on what I saw during that, its definitely something I'd use and I think they got a good idea going...but I have to agree it definitely needs some improvements.  Reminds me of the Keynote 1 vs. Keynote 2 differences.  

So it'll be an app I buy in the future...but not until the next version or possibly the one after that.


----------

