apple aperture?

back alley

back alley

IMAGES
Local time
3:12 AM
Joined
Jul 30, 2003
Messages
41,289
what can you tell me about aperture 3?

starting with...why is it so much cheaper than lightroom3?

it's even cheaper than pse...
 
It has a lot less features then Lighroom, it's slower (memory pig) and well, you're better off using iPhoto
 
Tom is right, the price is an App Store thing, everything is cheaper now, partly for promotional reasons, partly because the overheads are so much less than retail sales.

LR has some nice stuff, but I use Aperture, its less complicated, less quirky and generally more pleasant than Lightroom. It easily worth the money.

MT
 
back alley said:
what can you tell me about aperture 3?

starting with...why is it so much cheaper than lightroom3?

it's even cheaper than pse...
Click to expand...

I run a business based around Aperture.
If you want to organise your library there is nothing better. There are many programs that can change a raw to a tif or jpg, but not many that come close to Apertures ability to organise and keep track of images in so many ways. It will take some time to get your head around Aperture and it's features and a bit of imagination to figure out how to best use them in your workflow. I tried all the other DAM applications at great cost to myself. Aperture has been without doubt the best software I have ever purchased, I have made many thousands with Apertures help over the years. Yes it takes up memory and can be sluggish on some machines, but there is bo other sensible choice for DAM I have come across.

Kevin.
 
For library organization aperture is the best. It's okay at RAW conversions, but not anywhere near as good as LR3 in terms of high ISO noise from RAW files. It's interface is great and very flexible, better than light rooms IMO.

The biggest thing about aperture is that it's an absolute memory hog, and basically doesn't run smoothly or quickly on any mac under 3K, and possibly doesn't run quickly on 99% of all macs. I really wanted to like it, but it's just an absolute drain on computer power and (if you look it up) even the newest iMacs struggle with it.
 
Oh, and you can download a free trial from Apple.com, so do that and make sure you import a decent amount of photographs into it, and sort between them so that you can judge it's performance - it won't be so slow with only a few files in it...
 
omg!!

i just tried aperture on my 4gig macbook...runs like me in the winter, with my boots on, in a deep snow!!

how can people work like that? i don't care how cheap it is!
 
Back alley -- too bad! I was thinking of trying it out, but it sounds like it might not run so well on my 2007 model MacBook Pro. :confused:
 
Off the top of my head:

LR3 lacks:
Scopes coloring.
8bt vs 16bt vs 32bit
Metadata: Too simple, search functions are not as tailerable or detailed.
Effects
Camera calibration

and again it's a memory pig, which is the real killer for me.


tom.w.bn said:
Ok. Then I apologize. Wouldn't it be nice if you could name the main features you were missing in AP3 compared to LR3?
Click to expand...
 
It runs, if not very quickly, on my 2yr old Mac Mini 4GB RAM. In fact on RAW files it works just fine. But when it comes to 60MB and bigger 50Mpix TIFF scans its a pig. But I keep with it because its intuitive to use, it´s non-destructive, and I like the way you can build your library, and since I use it mostly for scanned film, I can delete my scanned files once imported to Aperture.
 
I think I'll download the trial anyway and give it a go. Most of my film scans are not very large, since I mostly just post-to-web.

I've got a 2007 MBP with 3GB RAM, but slower bus speed (667MHz) and a 5400 RPM drive. We'll see how it goes.
 
I use Aperture too, and it's by far the best for organizing your library. It does everything I need for image corrections also, with perhaps good noise reduction being the feature lacking the most, but there are plugins that can be added. Most of the time, noise isn't the the problem I'm having with the image (although I can blame it on noise :) )

Is LR on the same machine really any faster ?
 
When Apple cut the price of Aperture to $79, I bought it just to use it for the spot healing tool. That tool is so much more useful and easy in Aperture than LR3 (in my opinion). I especially like the ability to quickly fix scratches on scanned negatives with a single long cursor swipe, rather than hundreds of little circles in LR3. I will export from LR3 just to use that function in Aperture, and then reimport into LR3.

Beware, if you scan film as DNG using Vuescan, these files can NOT be viewed in Aperture. Something about the DNG file structure, and the fact that of the two different DNG file structures Aperture only reads the other kind (I'm not a technical expert on this, but that is my understanding). If this wasn't the case, I probably would have switched to Aperture.

Cheers,

Jeff
 
The fastest program I have ever used is PhotoMechanic, and it allows me to organize my files the way I want to. It eats through my 60 MB TIFF files from the CoolScan 4000 and blows through my 5D classic photos like they are nothing. The interface hasn't really been updated (still looks like an OS 9 program in some ways) but even though it isn't pretty it's pretty much fast!
 
Its a great application, plenty of editing features. Basically anything you want to do except layers.
My best advice is to set it up with a "Referenced Library" meaning that you store the originals in a regular folder structure. Set the preview size to the screen resolution of your computer.

Its a great app. Get a good Manual and sign up with Lynda.com for a month or so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom