1066
Member
Is there any benefit using Aperture as primarily a "workflow" program with some minor image adjustments then moving over to Photoshop for more detailed compositing?
Any thoughts?
Thx...
Bat
Any thoughts?
Thx...
Bat
infrequent
Well-known
It can certainly work that way. You can use Aperture strictly as a file manager and do all your raw conversions and other editing in Photoshop as some people prefer the Camera Raw processing. But in such a role Aperture is bit of an overkill and iPhoto would be more than adequate.
Aperture in my opinion is very capable as an organiser and can handle those 20% tasks that you need 80% of the time. Photoshop is suitable for the heavy-handed editing tasks. But the new version of Aperture and the plug-in capability looks very promising (imagine switching RAW converters at will...quite possible now but may not be practical) and I look forward to when I can use it for everything photography related. Actually I do that already. If only there would be an adequate graphics editor on the mac, I would have dumped Photoshop completely.
Aperture in my opinion is very capable as an organiser and can handle those 20% tasks that you need 80% of the time. Photoshop is suitable for the heavy-handed editing tasks. But the new version of Aperture and the plug-in capability looks very promising (imagine switching RAW converters at will...quite possible now but may not be practical) and I look forward to when I can use it for everything photography related. Actually I do that already. If only there would be an adequate graphics editor on the mac, I would have dumped Photoshop completely.
Digital Dude
Newbie
Given the direction that Apple and Disney are heading, I fully expect Apple to offer a plug-in specifically for this purpose. The latest version of Aperture is getting closer to being a one-stop program.
irq506
just curious
For years iView Media Pro was the one stop shop for everything necessary for most newspapers that I worked for, and its how I got into it. Now that Microsoft took it over I think it will probably stay the same but have a lot more bells and whistles which should be optional. Lightroom and Aperture to me are umbrella applications which try to cover too much. Their editing and decoding of raw files is just terrible and the actual use level that you would give to most of the features amounts to probably very little indeed. Im old enough to have used everything on the market and dull enough to know them all thoroughly and the best solution for me is still iView and Photoshop. Even Photoshop Elephants is just fine. iView is such a small application that it runs very well on even the slowest computers, the catalog files are perfect for adding to your folders and dont take up much space.
infrequent
Well-known
Their editing and decoding of raw files is just terrible
maybe not preferable to you but terrible is a bit pushing it, no?!
And the actual use level that you would give to most of the features amounts to probably very little indeed.
funny how that applies to Photoshop as well.
maybe not preferable to you but terrible is a bit pushing it, no?!
And the actual use level that you would give to most of the features amounts to probably very little indeed.
funny how that applies to Photoshop as well.
0bli0
still developing...
i find that now with version 2.1, i use photoshop far less. i'm really looking forward to the new plugins (Tiffen, etc.) to use directly within the program. i have no issues with their raw decoding. way back at version 1.0, it was very maze-like, but now the conversions are done (imho) quite well. the 20x30 prints for my exhibition this week turned out well.
palker
Established
I haven't used Photoshop since I started with Aperture, I'd 100% recommend Aperture, and I think you'll find yourself less interested in Photoshop the more you use Aperture.
Ascender
Established
How do you arrive at this conclusion.....
How do you arrive at this conclusion.....
"Lightroom and Aperture to me are umbrella applications which try to cover too much. Their editing and decoding of raw files is just terrible and the actual use level that you would give to most of the features amounts to probably very little indeed."
I too have looked extensively and painstakingly at the RAW conversion going on between CS3/4, Aperture and LR. Both LR & Photoshop use EXACTLY the same ACR converter with the latest LR beta 2.0 using the very latest ACR. So I don't understand how you on one hand, can say that Photoshop's conversion is the best and on the other, that LR's is terrible.
As for 'Aperture.app', yes, it may be clunky and possibly more than most people need however, having also used it and now with a fully comprehensive understanding of it's strong and weak points, the one thing I will give it is that it's RAW conversion is great, perhaps second only to 'Capture One' which to me is the best of them all.
-charlie
How do you arrive at this conclusion.....
"Lightroom and Aperture to me are umbrella applications which try to cover too much. Their editing and decoding of raw files is just terrible and the actual use level that you would give to most of the features amounts to probably very little indeed."
I too have looked extensively and painstakingly at the RAW conversion going on between CS3/4, Aperture and LR. Both LR & Photoshop use EXACTLY the same ACR converter with the latest LR beta 2.0 using the very latest ACR. So I don't understand how you on one hand, can say that Photoshop's conversion is the best and on the other, that LR's is terrible.
As for 'Aperture.app', yes, it may be clunky and possibly more than most people need however, having also used it and now with a fully comprehensive understanding of it's strong and weak points, the one thing I will give it is that it's RAW conversion is great, perhaps second only to 'Capture One' which to me is the best of them all.
-charlie