Aperture Review

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?
 
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...)?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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!
 
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.
 
Thank The Cheese said:
I just ran the Aperture Checker and it can't be installed on my iMac G5! pfft! That's bollocks!
Click to expand...
There's a solution for this
I have it running on an iMac G5 (PM Me)
 
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?
 
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?
Click to expand...

Yes .. But it does not list the nVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 that came in the first gen iMac G5 like mine.
 
My PB checks out fine with the Aperture Checker app. So I guess it _is_ cutting edge, then. :p ... The important thing _is_ the graphics card.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top