Takkun
Ian M.
Hey all,
been a while; been busy working, and a good part of that has illuminated that while my 10-year-old iMac is still going strong, Aperture isn't. A good number of features are broken (search and grid view, specifically), and I've been putting off a dreaded OS update until I figure out what's what.
Haven't been any recent posts on the topic here, and internet searches aren't turning up too much hands-on experience on anyone who hasn't jumped to LR. Like many others, I'm not a huge fan of the subscription pricing, or really the software itself. Used it extensively back in 2012 or so at a publication I worked for, and have found newer versions just plain sluggish on the computers I tested it on, which were far newer than my own.
Looking at a few options. Of course there's the gold-standard Capture One. Easy to migrate, powerful (too much so?), pricey. Looks like a steep learning curve.
DXO PhotoLab is intriguing, especially since I already use their plugins extensively—Silver Efex and ViewPoint mostly. I've been demoing it and reprocessed RAWs look fantastic. No real DAM to speak of, though, and no ingest function.
Then lastly there's just switching over to Photos. It's hugely improved from when I first used it, but not terribly flexible. Exporting to plugins is just as wonky as Aperture was.
After using Aperture for nearly 15 years, its daunting to make the switch, and have a lot of cleanup to do. I have work spread out into dozens of libraries, shot of a mix of different cameras, RAW, JPGs from the early days, and scanned TIFFs. Those last two are important, since I'm looking for something that works equally well as a non-destructive editor to ditch PS entirely.
Thankfully, I didn't rely too heavily on metadata in my catalogs, just a lot of projects/folders/albums to sort everything. But losing my edits is a pain.
So far I've downloaded demos of C1 and DXO PL to get a feel of them before the dreaded task of consolidating and organizing my work. I'm leaning toward DXO, but I'll definitely need some sort of 3rd-party file manager. I do enough volume-type work that hand sorting everything is a no-go. Conversely, C1's seems almost too geared toward studio shooting.
Lastly—I've looked at a few other options, and not super thrilled. None of the free/low-cost options have the flexibility I'm looking for. Luminar looks too point-and-clicky for me, and ON1 just might kill my computer. But I'm open to suggestions.
So, a tl;dr: Other than LR, what've people switched to?
been a while; been busy working, and a good part of that has illuminated that while my 10-year-old iMac is still going strong, Aperture isn't. A good number of features are broken (search and grid view, specifically), and I've been putting off a dreaded OS update until I figure out what's what.
Haven't been any recent posts on the topic here, and internet searches aren't turning up too much hands-on experience on anyone who hasn't jumped to LR. Like many others, I'm not a huge fan of the subscription pricing, or really the software itself. Used it extensively back in 2012 or so at a publication I worked for, and have found newer versions just plain sluggish on the computers I tested it on, which were far newer than my own.
Looking at a few options. Of course there's the gold-standard Capture One. Easy to migrate, powerful (too much so?), pricey. Looks like a steep learning curve.
DXO PhotoLab is intriguing, especially since I already use their plugins extensively—Silver Efex and ViewPoint mostly. I've been demoing it and reprocessed RAWs look fantastic. No real DAM to speak of, though, and no ingest function.
Then lastly there's just switching over to Photos. It's hugely improved from when I first used it, but not terribly flexible. Exporting to plugins is just as wonky as Aperture was.
After using Aperture for nearly 15 years, its daunting to make the switch, and have a lot of cleanup to do. I have work spread out into dozens of libraries, shot of a mix of different cameras, RAW, JPGs from the early days, and scanned TIFFs. Those last two are important, since I'm looking for something that works equally well as a non-destructive editor to ditch PS entirely.
Thankfully, I didn't rely too heavily on metadata in my catalogs, just a lot of projects/folders/albums to sort everything. But losing my edits is a pain.
So far I've downloaded demos of C1 and DXO PL to get a feel of them before the dreaded task of consolidating and organizing my work. I'm leaning toward DXO, but I'll definitely need some sort of 3rd-party file manager. I do enough volume-type work that hand sorting everything is a no-go. Conversely, C1's seems almost too geared toward studio shooting.
Lastly—I've looked at a few other options, and not super thrilled. None of the free/low-cost options have the flexibility I'm looking for. Luminar looks too point-and-clicky for me, and ON1 just might kill my computer. But I'm open to suggestions.
So, a tl;dr: Other than LR, what've people switched to?
madNbad
Well-known
Check out RAW Power from Gentlemen Coders, the same group that was involved with Aperture. It can be used as a plug in for Apple Photos or as a stand alone. It's non destructive and easy to reset. I'm not sure if there is a PC version but it works well for the price.
Takkun
Ian M.
I have downloaded that demo too, and it's a nice product for what it does. Unfortunately, not having clone/retouch is a bit of a non-starter—between editing scanned images and architecture work, it's a huge part of my workflow.
I'd be interested to see how it progresses, though, with future versions. Glad someone's working on it.
lawrence
Veteran
Well I'm sort of going through the same issue although I'm a Windows user and not sure if any of it will be relevant to you, anyway here goes:
Lightroom Classic
I use this as a DAM but have never much liked the editing facilities. It's not too good with Fuji-X files and particularly bad with the RAF files from my little X30 (yes, yes, I know it's not a 'pro' camera but I like it anyway).
DxO
I bought Photolab 2 a while ago then didn't use it and then discovered that while it's great for my NEF files it can't handle anything Fuji. So my Nikon's covered but I need something else for the Fuji files. Also, I was annoyed to see that while they used to support my Fuji S5 Pro files they dropped that a while ago. I know the camera's old but so what?
Capture One 20 Fujifilm Express
Solves the problem with RAF files from the X30 and it's free.
Silkypix
The X30 RAF output is not as good as that from C1, it's painfully slow and the UI sucks.
So what I've decided on (for the moment!) is to stick with LR as the DAM and for quick and dirty edits, DxO for NEFs (it integrates nicely with LR) and C1 Express for RAFs. Not the most elegant solution but as far as I can see there's no magic bullet. Good luck!
Lightroom Classic
I use this as a DAM but have never much liked the editing facilities. It's not too good with Fuji-X files and particularly bad with the RAF files from my little X30 (yes, yes, I know it's not a 'pro' camera but I like it anyway).
DxO
I bought Photolab 2 a while ago then didn't use it and then discovered that while it's great for my NEF files it can't handle anything Fuji. So my Nikon's covered but I need something else for the Fuji files. Also, I was annoyed to see that while they used to support my Fuji S5 Pro files they dropped that a while ago. I know the camera's old but so what?
Capture One 20 Fujifilm Express
Solves the problem with RAF files from the X30 and it's free.
Silkypix
The X30 RAF output is not as good as that from C1, it's painfully slow and the UI sucks.
So what I've decided on (for the moment!) is to stick with LR as the DAM and for quick and dirty edits, DxO for NEFs (it integrates nicely with LR) and C1 Express for RAFs. Not the most elegant solution but as far as I can see there's no magic bullet. Good luck!
Capture one currently has a 25% promotion through the end of the month.
I continue to use Aperture, as it will still work even on OS Catalina with all but a couple of minor functions, just download the Retroactive patch.
I continue to use Aperture, as it will still work even on OS Catalina with all but a couple of minor functions, just download the Retroactive patch.
Takkun
Ian M.
Oh, that promo takes a little bit of the sting out. DXO's I think is until tomorrow, but that's a little soon to decide. I love DXO's U-Point adjustments, and the NR is something else, but it's not reading all of my scanned files as TIFFs, so I'm giving C1 a slight edge. It's a more mature product at this point.
I did read about that patch, and gives me some solace if things go sideways. As it stands though, search, grid view, and a few other critical browsing functions are broken on my end, so I'm looking to decide and switch sooner rather than later.
I did read about that patch, and gives me some solace if things go sideways. As it stands though, search, grid view, and a few other critical browsing functions are broken on my end, so I'm looking to decide and switch sooner rather than later.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
I love Aperture. My situation is a bit similar: I'm running a 2009 imac and a 2009 13" Macbook, both with Aperture. And a 2013 Macbook Pro 15" with a later version of Aperture I don't like as well. It does funny things my other ones don't do.
I know I'm living on borrowed time. These computers won't last forever. I have LR installed on the iMac. I don't like it. I don't like the storage and cataloging method. The controls don't seem as comprehensive as those of Aperture. With Aperture, I can zip a Leica or Nikon raw file into shape in nothing flat. I bought an extra disk copy of Aperture for when I buy my next mac. While I still could.
I also have Capture One. Mine must be an early version. I think it came with my Leica M8.2. I couldn't even get it to do anything. ANYTHING. Maybe I should try it again. I think it was Chris Crawford who wrote that Capture One is very good.
I think we should exert pressure on Apple to keep Aperture Alive, no matter what. You know, because of the bond that is supposed to be there between Apple and its loyal supporters. My first Apple was a IIe. My stepson has it now. How do we put pressure on Apple. Anybody know?
Ian, thanks for starting this thread. I'll be following it.
Rob
I know I'm living on borrowed time. These computers won't last forever. I have LR installed on the iMac. I don't like it. I don't like the storage and cataloging method. The controls don't seem as comprehensive as those of Aperture. With Aperture, I can zip a Leica or Nikon raw file into shape in nothing flat. I bought an extra disk copy of Aperture for when I buy my next mac. While I still could.
I also have Capture One. Mine must be an early version. I think it came with my Leica M8.2. I couldn't even get it to do anything. ANYTHING. Maybe I should try it again. I think it was Chris Crawford who wrote that Capture One is very good.
I think we should exert pressure on Apple to keep Aperture Alive, no matter what. You know, because of the bond that is supposed to be there between Apple and its loyal supporters. My first Apple was a IIe. My stepson has it now. How do we put pressure on Apple. Anybody know?
Ian, thanks for starting this thread. I'll be following it.
Rob
Sounds like the system needs some cleanup, maybe delete preferences, etc. This should eradicate those glitches.
Takkun
Ian M.
Rob— I hear ya on that, having a lot of emotional investment in addition to work invested in it. I was still in school when both Aperture and LR came out, and was tasked with testing them out for our publication to replace Extensis Porfolio + PS. I didn't get on with LR so much (and had to grit my teeth when I later worked for a publication that used it exclusively), but Aperture was a dream. All the essentials of Photoshop at the time, with the organizational simplicity of iPhoto. Non-destructive edits. Real-time previewing and editing in the same app. It's really hard even imagining switching after using it nearly half my life.
As an aside, I remember when Final Cut X came out and my videographer friends freaked out over the switch from the old tape-based capture/logging workflow. To me, it just made sense to update it to a project-based system, like Aperture.
(Another aside: Your stepson has your old IIe? I held on to our family's old 6300 for too long, but that's dedication!)
Anyway. In playing around today with some older files, mostly to see how much DXO's PRIME could save some of my old M8 files, I ran into a pretty critical issue: that camera, along with my current M262, isn't supported in the least. Can't even read files from them—"Corrupted or unsupported format". Considering that's what I've mostly been shooting for the last 6 years, that's a bit of a problem.
This week I've been testing these various apps mostly with a 5D Mk III (a story for another thread!) and had satisfactory results with the top two contenders, but if I can't open anything I've shot since 2014, that's, in the words of Seinfeld, a big matzo ball hanging out there.
splitimageview— where did you find the promotion for C1? I've found a few sites with tutorials offering coupons on the Sony/Fuji-specific Express versions only so far.
As an aside, I remember when Final Cut X came out and my videographer friends freaked out over the switch from the old tape-based capture/logging workflow. To me, it just made sense to update it to a project-based system, like Aperture.
(Another aside: Your stepson has your old IIe? I held on to our family's old 6300 for too long, but that's dedication!)
Anyway. In playing around today with some older files, mostly to see how much DXO's PRIME could save some of my old M8 files, I ran into a pretty critical issue: that camera, along with my current M262, isn't supported in the least. Can't even read files from them—"Corrupted or unsupported format". Considering that's what I've mostly been shooting for the last 6 years, that's a bit of a problem.
This week I've been testing these various apps mostly with a 5D Mk III (a story for another thread!) and had satisfactory results with the top two contenders, but if I can't open anything I've shot since 2014, that's, in the words of Seinfeld, a big matzo ball hanging out there.
splitimageview— where did you find the promotion for C1? I've found a few sites with tutorials offering coupons on the Sony/Fuji-specific Express versions only so far.
madNbad
Well-known
If you follow the link for Capture One, the offer is For All Cameras at $20 a month or a one time perpetual for $448. There are offers for both Fuji and Sony specific.
Looks like the 25% off is just for Fuji or Sony.
The version for all cameras is:
Subscription: $20/mo for an annual plan, $24 month-to-month, $180 prepaid for the year
Perpetual license: $299 (the $448 option includes 2020 styles.)
The version for all cameras is:
Subscription: $20/mo for an annual plan, $24 month-to-month, $180 prepaid for the year
Perpetual license: $299 (the $448 option includes 2020 styles.)
Larry Cloetta
Veteran
Ian,
If you Google pairs of choices such as “Aperture vs. Photos”, “Aperture vs. Lightroom”, “Lightroom vs. Luminar”, “Photoshop vs. Capture One” etc, and many many etceteras you can come up, eventually with a vast amount of knowledge along with some misinformation. And, I assume you have already done that.
Needs differ, which is why it is hard to translate one person’s preferences to someone else. When Aperture came out in 2005, I weighed it vs. Lightroom and chose to devote what I imagined would be the rest of my digital photographic life to Aperture. Big mistake, though I could not have known at the time that it would be. Aperture was originally billed as a Lightroom/Photoshop competitor aimed at capturing the business of “pros”. Photos is something else entirely, and specifically aimed at “not pros”. Though that description fits most of us, if we’re honest.
Here’s my actual point: learning one system and having to switch to another system of programs for editing, processing, and digital asset management is a huge pain and possibly the biggest time waster you can imagine. For me, hundreds and hundreds of hours, to get it right, not as simple as described here and there, not if you want to do it cleanly and end up with the database result you want.
You are young enough that you are going to be doing this a long time. When choosing a software suite going forward here’s the end game you absolutely want to avoid: Macpaint, Paintshop Pro, FileMaker, Pagemaker, Lotus 1-2-3, Corel Draw!, Corel Custom Photo, etc. Abandonware, in other words.
Those are all gone for one reason, the companies or groups who made them didn’t make enough money. They did not charge enough for their product to keep them viable. In today’s world, the only two companies which are most likely to be around to serve your needs 20 years from now are Adobe and the Company behind Capture One, and Capture One is the more questionable of those two. The only reason Adobe is the most likely to be around to serve you in 20 years is because they turned the company totally around and put it on a sound financial footing, by introducing the subscription model, which people love to hate.
I am not saying that the future viability of the company making the software is the only thing to consider, only that it seems to be something that people don’t consider in these discussions, and that might be a mistake, especially for younger photographers.
Just a suggestion.
FWIW, I have the latest versions of Aperture, Photos, LR, PS, Luminar, C1 Pro, DxO, and most of the freeware things installed. Which one of those is the “best”? I could not begin to tell you, or untangle that. Advantages and disadvantages all around. Most capable, well rounded, comprehensive and mature suite of editing processing and DAM for the longest list of cameras? Adobe, hands down. How many people actually need all that capability? Not many, but it’s there. The others, a long story.
Good luck on your search for the final solution to your personal photo editing and asset management problem, but do give some thought, given your youngish age, to the solution which is most likely to be there for you “forever.”
If you Google pairs of choices such as “Aperture vs. Photos”, “Aperture vs. Lightroom”, “Lightroom vs. Luminar”, “Photoshop vs. Capture One” etc, and many many etceteras you can come up, eventually with a vast amount of knowledge along with some misinformation. And, I assume you have already done that.
Needs differ, which is why it is hard to translate one person’s preferences to someone else. When Aperture came out in 2005, I weighed it vs. Lightroom and chose to devote what I imagined would be the rest of my digital photographic life to Aperture. Big mistake, though I could not have known at the time that it would be. Aperture was originally billed as a Lightroom/Photoshop competitor aimed at capturing the business of “pros”. Photos is something else entirely, and specifically aimed at “not pros”. Though that description fits most of us, if we’re honest.
Here’s my actual point: learning one system and having to switch to another system of programs for editing, processing, and digital asset management is a huge pain and possibly the biggest time waster you can imagine. For me, hundreds and hundreds of hours, to get it right, not as simple as described here and there, not if you want to do it cleanly and end up with the database result you want.
You are young enough that you are going to be doing this a long time. When choosing a software suite going forward here’s the end game you absolutely want to avoid: Macpaint, Paintshop Pro, FileMaker, Pagemaker, Lotus 1-2-3, Corel Draw!, Corel Custom Photo, etc. Abandonware, in other words.
Those are all gone for one reason, the companies or groups who made them didn’t make enough money. They did not charge enough for their product to keep them viable. In today’s world, the only two companies which are most likely to be around to serve your needs 20 years from now are Adobe and the Company behind Capture One, and Capture One is the more questionable of those two. The only reason Adobe is the most likely to be around to serve you in 20 years is because they turned the company totally around and put it on a sound financial footing, by introducing the subscription model, which people love to hate.
I am not saying that the future viability of the company making the software is the only thing to consider, only that it seems to be something that people don’t consider in these discussions, and that might be a mistake, especially for younger photographers.
Just a suggestion.
FWIW, I have the latest versions of Aperture, Photos, LR, PS, Luminar, C1 Pro, DxO, and most of the freeware things installed. Which one of those is the “best”? I could not begin to tell you, or untangle that. Advantages and disadvantages all around. Most capable, well rounded, comprehensive and mature suite of editing processing and DAM for the longest list of cameras? Adobe, hands down. How many people actually need all that capability? Not many, but it’s there. The others, a long story.
Good luck on your search for the final solution to your personal photo editing and asset management problem, but do give some thought, given your youngish age, to the solution which is most likely to be there for you “forever.”
Good post, Larry.
The time investment over many years is a major reason why I still use Aperture even though technically-speaking it’s not ‘supposed’ to work with the 64 bit OS Catalina. But after the patch, all the functions I require work just as they always have. And it should continue with OS versions well into the future, since those will also be 64 bit.
The time investment over many years is a major reason why I still use Aperture even though technically-speaking it’s not ‘supposed’ to work with the 64 bit OS Catalina. But after the patch, all the functions I require work just as they always have. And it should continue with OS versions well into the future, since those will also be 64 bit.
Larry Cloetta
Veteran
Thanks, Robert.
Honestly, Aperture would probably have been good enough for me, forever; it was simple to understand, and I knew where all the d..n files were actually located, but I have delusions of file processing grandeur so I jumped ship a few years ago in search of skin tone nirvana.
Takkun
Ian M.
Larry—
As always, I appreciate the detailed and thoughtful posts.
You're correct, I definitely have been doing my homework; hours and hours of searching forums and the like, probably as much time as I'll spend converting my library! Much of what I've found are from commercially oriented blogs, ie the type to hawk affiliate links, or much older forum threads from when Apple first announced the discontinuation. Not here asking for people to decide for me, but wondering how people are getting a long five years in. Hope it didn't come off as another tedious 'Nikon vs Canon'/'film vs digital' thread!
But you do have a very good point. Aperture was the future then, and very quickly wasn't. Adobe has been the standard for decades in other fields and that gives me hope, but reports of LR tending towards bloatware has me apprehensive. Regardless, I didn't stop to consider that the software-as-service model isn't just a money grab, but what's keeping them in steady business.
(FWIW, CaptureOne is developed by Phase One, the successor to Mamiya and Leaf. I have a feeling they'll be around for a while, and have a vested interest in the software as a compliment to their hardware)
At least with reading digital files, it's a matter of shuffling around bits and bytes (provided someone was entrepreneurial enough to code converters); it can be a painful time-suck, but not outside the realm of possibility. Another ongoing archival project I'm doing involved working through a couple decades of VHS-C, Hi8 and MiniDV tapes, and equipment is getting scarce on that front.
Anyway. I think DXO is out of the running for a number of reasons, and your thoughts give me pause (beyond the fact that it can't open several of my cameras' files). It certainly looks like promising software, but isn't right for me now, not without several other auxiliary software suites, and the proprietary sidecar files worry me slightly.
C1 is pricier and probably overkill, but I really appreciate that they have made the effort to make Aperture libraries compatible; saves me time both in archiving and moving forward. With my number of paid jobs increasing, time is money, as they say, and I'd rather spend it out shooting rather than piecing together a perfectionist workflow (but kudos to those post-processing whizzes that have).
As always, I appreciate the detailed and thoughtful posts.
You're correct, I definitely have been doing my homework; hours and hours of searching forums and the like, probably as much time as I'll spend converting my library! Much of what I've found are from commercially oriented blogs, ie the type to hawk affiliate links, or much older forum threads from when Apple first announced the discontinuation. Not here asking for people to decide for me, but wondering how people are getting a long five years in. Hope it didn't come off as another tedious 'Nikon vs Canon'/'film vs digital' thread!
But you do have a very good point. Aperture was the future then, and very quickly wasn't. Adobe has been the standard for decades in other fields and that gives me hope, but reports of LR tending towards bloatware has me apprehensive. Regardless, I didn't stop to consider that the software-as-service model isn't just a money grab, but what's keeping them in steady business.
(FWIW, CaptureOne is developed by Phase One, the successor to Mamiya and Leaf. I have a feeling they'll be around for a while, and have a vested interest in the software as a compliment to their hardware)
At least with reading digital files, it's a matter of shuffling around bits and bytes (provided someone was entrepreneurial enough to code converters); it can be a painful time-suck, but not outside the realm of possibility. Another ongoing archival project I'm doing involved working through a couple decades of VHS-C, Hi8 and MiniDV tapes, and equipment is getting scarce on that front.
Anyway. I think DXO is out of the running for a number of reasons, and your thoughts give me pause (beyond the fact that it can't open several of my cameras' files). It certainly looks like promising software, but isn't right for me now, not without several other auxiliary software suites, and the proprietary sidecar files worry me slightly.
C1 is pricier and probably overkill, but I really appreciate that they have made the effort to make Aperture libraries compatible; saves me time both in archiving and moving forward. With my number of paid jobs increasing, time is money, as they say, and I'd rather spend it out shooting rather than piecing together a perfectionist workflow (but kudos to those post-processing whizzes that have).
IanForber
Member
Hi, hope you don’t mind me resurrecting this thread but I was wondering how you were getting on with C1. I am wrestling with the same issue and am getting myself ever more confused!
I was happy with Aperture but eventually gave up and moved to LR about a year after Apple stopped supporting it. Never really liked LR and for the past couple of years I’ve been using Luminar (currently Luminar 4). It’s ok but I’ve just bought a Leica Q2 and am keen to get the best out of the files, hence me thinking it all through again.
So how has C1 been?
Ian
I was happy with Aperture but eventually gave up and moved to LR about a year after Apple stopped supporting it. Never really liked LR and for the past couple of years I’ve been using Luminar (currently Luminar 4). It’s ok but I’ve just bought a Leica Q2 and am keen to get the best out of the files, hence me thinking it all through again.
So how has C1 been?
Ian
DougK
This space left blank
Ian, I'd also like to hear about your experiences with C1 as I'm in the same boat.
Takkun
Ian M.
Totally forgotten I'd posted this, thanks for the reminder!
As I said, I ended up buying C1. I really liked DxO; In concept, the feature set (Clearpoint, Smart Lighting, etc), was appealing, and the U-Point editing interface was fairly easy to figure out once you understood that paradigm versus masks/layers. I'd been using some of their older standalone apps and appreciated their integration to a full-size editor.
In practice though, I wasn't really getting great results. The noise reduction seemingly had no effect, and the Smart Lighting just looked like I cranked up the Shadows slider. U-point worked well except when it didn't, and wasn't easily repeatable across images. And the fact that I couldn't easily edit DSLR scans of negatives was a disappointment. Ditto for the complete lack of importing and asset management. I've also shot with a large number of cameras over the years and not everything was supported.
Considering when I first wrote this I was doing some amount work-for-hire and dealing with large batches of images, I wrote it off. Looks like they released DxO PL4 and fixed a lot of it, but it's definitely geared toward more low-volume creative work, whereas C1 obviously has a commercial pedigree.
Of course, COVID ended that, and instead of taking the time off to read the freakin' manual, I occupied myself with things other than photography much of this year, so I can't give a full picture, but so far: I love it.
It's definitely a steep learning curve. The asset management side of things is folder-based rather than the iPhotolike internal organization of Aperture, but that gives you a lot more flexibility outside the Catalog/Project/Folder hierarchy. As I understand it, Catalogs store originals in a Finder folder system and previews/adjustments in one master file, and Sessions stores edits in sidecar files alongside images. It works with external drives much more effectively and that's great for backing up, something I'm notoriously bad at and not alone.
What I haven't figured out entirely is an effective way of using one other the other, or migrating all of my Aperture work over. You're not beholden to catalogs vs sessions and can import the latter into the former. So far with my older work I've been working in small chunks on a separate hard drive to see what breaks and what doesn't. Admittedly my Aperture catalogs are a mess and I could probably start from scratch. C1 does recognize a number of Aperture's adjustments and metadata, so you do have a starting point when migrating. Honestly, I'm going through and re-editing a lot of my work anyway, and finding a lot of forgotten images that look much better reprocessed (which makes me regret purging a large number a few years ago, but thats a different story). One thing worth noting: it supports most RAW/DNG files, JPG and TIFF, but decidedly NOT Grayscale TIFF. That leaves out much of my BW scans from labs or VueScan, but as I've said, I'm re-scanning everything with a DSLR to much better results.
As for editing: a lot of the same basic controls, but far more powerful, especially when it comes to color editing—there's the basic channels, white balance, etc, but also a 3-way grading panel akin to what you'd find in a video editor. Actually a lot of what C1 bills itself on is color editing. And for whatever reason, you can apply those preset picture controls newer cameras have retroactively. Wanna see what Nikon's Vivid mode looks like on a 5D? Go ahead.
I certainly miss the simple dodge/burn tools, but that's made up for with the versatility of layers. You can make as many adjustments on a layer as you want, like one for each specific section you're masking off, or put each on separate layers. It's a lot less cumbersome than having several Exposure panels each brushed in and figuring out what is masked where. This really eliminates the need to export out to Photoshop for tricky work.
Another tool I've found indispensable is perspective control. Align two dotted lines with the sides of buildings and click Apply, and boom, they're parallel. The lens correction is supposed to be very good. I don't have any coded lenses so it's not the most useful. The Voigtlander lenses in the database are supposedly the mirrorless versions, but they make a bit of a difference (I can tell which are the CV lenses, because they're the crazy wide shots.)
There's more tools, which means more ways of doing the same thing. Got a color cast in the shadows? You could selectively change the hue, adjust your levels in RGB (does anyone still do that?) or use the grading wheels, or create a new layer and do any of the above. That's what makes it a steep learning curve, but gives you more flexibility and ways to work quickly than trying to do things the way the software wants you to.
Working with DSLR-scanned negatives really helped push me toward it. It's not natively supported in the non-Cultural Heritage edition, but someone made an app, Analogue Toolbox, that will run script commands to flip the levels and adjust color balance across a roll. It's clunky but not at all possible with some of the other editors. The tricky part is figuring out which adjustments are applied pre-Levels (i.e., reversed) or post. But you get into a groove, and it takes me about half an hour to scan and flip a whole roll. Take a look at my newer work on my IG—almost everything since summer was MF film scanned and edited this way. The prints look amazing.
The interface is vast and endlessly customizable. That makes it a bit daunting, but just because a tool is there doesn't mean you have to use it. The export function ("Process") lets you set a number of 'recipes' (ie, presets), and lets you sort your output into different folders automatically. Useful for client work, or for my uses, batch uploads to the printer.
A lot more could be said, but essentially it does a lot more than Aperture, and better. Much better pulling out detail and noise reduction, and supports newer digital bodies (I shot a bunch of work a few years ago with a D850 and and some others Aperture wouldn't read). There's a lot more tools than I need on a daily basis, but the nice thing is that they're there when you need them, and a lot less need to go into an external editor for most purposes.
Another one of my signature lengthy posts, but I hope that helps. Definitely made the right choice here, especially over patching and continuing to work with Aperture moving forward. Looking at DxO 4 I'd say it is a close second, but the DAM is still a pretty glaring weakness.
As I said, I ended up buying C1. I really liked DxO; In concept, the feature set (Clearpoint, Smart Lighting, etc), was appealing, and the U-Point editing interface was fairly easy to figure out once you understood that paradigm versus masks/layers. I'd been using some of their older standalone apps and appreciated their integration to a full-size editor.
In practice though, I wasn't really getting great results. The noise reduction seemingly had no effect, and the Smart Lighting just looked like I cranked up the Shadows slider. U-point worked well except when it didn't, and wasn't easily repeatable across images. And the fact that I couldn't easily edit DSLR scans of negatives was a disappointment. Ditto for the complete lack of importing and asset management. I've also shot with a large number of cameras over the years and not everything was supported.
Considering when I first wrote this I was doing some amount work-for-hire and dealing with large batches of images, I wrote it off. Looks like they released DxO PL4 and fixed a lot of it, but it's definitely geared toward more low-volume creative work, whereas C1 obviously has a commercial pedigree.
Of course, COVID ended that, and instead of taking the time off to read the freakin' manual, I occupied myself with things other than photography much of this year, so I can't give a full picture, but so far: I love it.
It's definitely a steep learning curve. The asset management side of things is folder-based rather than the iPhotolike internal organization of Aperture, but that gives you a lot more flexibility outside the Catalog/Project/Folder hierarchy. As I understand it, Catalogs store originals in a Finder folder system and previews/adjustments in one master file, and Sessions stores edits in sidecar files alongside images. It works with external drives much more effectively and that's great for backing up, something I'm notoriously bad at and not alone.
What I haven't figured out entirely is an effective way of using one other the other, or migrating all of my Aperture work over. You're not beholden to catalogs vs sessions and can import the latter into the former. So far with my older work I've been working in small chunks on a separate hard drive to see what breaks and what doesn't. Admittedly my Aperture catalogs are a mess and I could probably start from scratch. C1 does recognize a number of Aperture's adjustments and metadata, so you do have a starting point when migrating. Honestly, I'm going through and re-editing a lot of my work anyway, and finding a lot of forgotten images that look much better reprocessed (which makes me regret purging a large number a few years ago, but thats a different story). One thing worth noting: it supports most RAW/DNG files, JPG and TIFF, but decidedly NOT Grayscale TIFF. That leaves out much of my BW scans from labs or VueScan, but as I've said, I'm re-scanning everything with a DSLR to much better results.
As for editing: a lot of the same basic controls, but far more powerful, especially when it comes to color editing—there's the basic channels, white balance, etc, but also a 3-way grading panel akin to what you'd find in a video editor. Actually a lot of what C1 bills itself on is color editing. And for whatever reason, you can apply those preset picture controls newer cameras have retroactively. Wanna see what Nikon's Vivid mode looks like on a 5D? Go ahead.
I certainly miss the simple dodge/burn tools, but that's made up for with the versatility of layers. You can make as many adjustments on a layer as you want, like one for each specific section you're masking off, or put each on separate layers. It's a lot less cumbersome than having several Exposure panels each brushed in and figuring out what is masked where. This really eliminates the need to export out to Photoshop for tricky work.
Another tool I've found indispensable is perspective control. Align two dotted lines with the sides of buildings and click Apply, and boom, they're parallel. The lens correction is supposed to be very good. I don't have any coded lenses so it's not the most useful. The Voigtlander lenses in the database are supposedly the mirrorless versions, but they make a bit of a difference (I can tell which are the CV lenses, because they're the crazy wide shots.)
There's more tools, which means more ways of doing the same thing. Got a color cast in the shadows? You could selectively change the hue, adjust your levels in RGB (does anyone still do that?) or use the grading wheels, or create a new layer and do any of the above. That's what makes it a steep learning curve, but gives you more flexibility and ways to work quickly than trying to do things the way the software wants you to.
Working with DSLR-scanned negatives really helped push me toward it. It's not natively supported in the non-Cultural Heritage edition, but someone made an app, Analogue Toolbox, that will run script commands to flip the levels and adjust color balance across a roll. It's clunky but not at all possible with some of the other editors. The tricky part is figuring out which adjustments are applied pre-Levels (i.e., reversed) or post. But you get into a groove, and it takes me about half an hour to scan and flip a whole roll. Take a look at my newer work on my IG—almost everything since summer was MF film scanned and edited this way. The prints look amazing.
The interface is vast and endlessly customizable. That makes it a bit daunting, but just because a tool is there doesn't mean you have to use it. The export function ("Process") lets you set a number of 'recipes' (ie, presets), and lets you sort your output into different folders automatically. Useful for client work, or for my uses, batch uploads to the printer.
A lot more could be said, but essentially it does a lot more than Aperture, and better. Much better pulling out detail and noise reduction, and supports newer digital bodies (I shot a bunch of work a few years ago with a D850 and and some others Aperture wouldn't read). There's a lot more tools than I need on a daily basis, but the nice thing is that they're there when you need them, and a lot less need to go into an external editor for most purposes.
Another one of my signature lengthy posts, but I hope that helps. Definitely made the right choice here, especially over patching and continuing to work with Aperture moving forward. Looking at DxO 4 I'd say it is a close second, but the DAM is still a pretty glaring weakness.
DougK
This space left blank
Thanks, Ian, appreciate the detailed reply. You've provided a lot of information to digest.
Darthfeeble
But you can call me Steve
I adored Aperture, when Apple announced that they were orphaning it I started looking around and didn't like most of what I saw including Lightroom. I settled on PSE for a while but after a couple demonstrations of Lightroom's abilities I moved to it. It's very similar to Aperture and in just a few weeks I was getting what I wanted from it. Now after several years of using it, I'm finally starting to learn the organizing features. I have done C1, DXO, each of the Mfr programs for the various cameras I've owned, Topaz Studio and several others that I can't remember and find Lightroom the easiest to get what I want. YMMV.