Sadimmock
Newbie
I aggree with the recent sentiments posted in this thread. Aperture doesn't seem to be a competitor for Photoshop (the editing and retouching tools seem pretty rudimentary; it is perhaps more a photoproject management tool. I'd guess that it is aimed directly at proffesionals and agencies who have to deal with thousands of raw files at a go and as such could be very useful. For this reason i'd be suprised if a PC version appeared all that quickly because a) Apple totally dominates the high-end imaging market and b) they make several other very successful pro apps that are Mac/Unix only (i.e Shake, Logic and Final Cut Pro) and do quite well out of them!
Regards
Simon
Regards
Simon
dogbunny
Registered Boozer
Just some random thoughts/ comments.
OS X is a unix based operating system and I rarely have any trouble getting a linux program to compile.
As stated above Macs are making the change to intel processors, which, in theory, would mean that OS X will have to be made to run on any computer type.
Apple has always made it a mission statement that new operating systems will run faster on existing software. Something I experienced first hand with my recent software upgrade. This is something that has never been promised nor delivered by MS.
Maybe I'm just lucky, but I've never had a problem with the company, except a defective iPod that they replaced without question. Never a crash, never a blue screen of death, never a virus.
All that BS aside, for me any how, Macs are just more intuitive. I'm really not a computer guy and I have little if any trouble figuring out a new program and usually the more I use them the niftier little things I figure out. That alone makes me want to check out the new program.
my two cents
OS X is a unix based operating system and I rarely have any trouble getting a linux program to compile.
As stated above Macs are making the change to intel processors, which, in theory, would mean that OS X will have to be made to run on any computer type.
Apple has always made it a mission statement that new operating systems will run faster on existing software. Something I experienced first hand with my recent software upgrade. This is something that has never been promised nor delivered by MS.
Maybe I'm just lucky, but I've never had a problem with the company, except a defective iPod that they replaced without question. Never a crash, never a blue screen of death, never a virus.
All that BS aside, for me any how, Macs are just more intuitive. I'm really not a computer guy and I have little if any trouble figuring out a new program and usually the more I use them the niftier little things I figure out. That alone makes me want to check out the new program.
my two cents
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
The Apple-vs-Adobe "war" has been going on ever since Final Cut first appeared. Adobe got all huffy that Apple was derailing their gravy train by selling a superior competitor to Adobe Premiere (at that time a rather lame product that Adobe had neglected.) Adobe's response was to start neglecting development of its other products for Apple, and to start recommending Windows and telling the authors who write guides to its products to start doing the same (the how-to books written by Adobe-captive authors of this era are full of introductions stating that Windows-whatever is "the ideal platform for running _____.")
The software-neglect side of the strategy petered out after a while, but Adobe is still huffy and I expect Aperture will make them even more huffy and vindictive.
Which is a shame, because it looks to me (a graphics-industry professional) as if Aperture isn't really going to take away anything from Adobe's product line. If anything, it enhances it.
It's obvious that Aperture is NOT intended as a competitor for Photoshop. It's an organizing tool. From the specs, it appears to include a good selection of rough-cut editing tools -- but if you need to do any serious retouching, compositing, etc., you'll still need to go into Photoshop (and Aperture includes features to make this easy.)
If Aperture competes with anything in Adobe's product line, it would be Bridge -- which only comes with Creative Suite applications and doesn't earn Adobe any money. I like Bridge a lot -- it's great to be able to see rendered previews of raw files and do non-destructive cropping and levels adjustments.
But Bridge still goes only partway: You can't do any other prep work on raw images without converting them to another format, and you can't save catalogs of images to store offline without using another application (I've been using iView MediaPro.) Even the cataloging applications that support raw image formats such as DNG don't really catalog the raw image itself -- you're looking at low-res JPEG previews, so you can't (for example) zoom in to check the sharpness of a detail without reloading the original media and launching an application such as Bridge.
A seamless, all-in-one solution that lets you prep and catalog original raw images will be a huge productivity booster for photographers who shoot a lot of raw files. For those people, it will pay back its $500 list price in a matter of days.
If Adobe had marketing sense, it would be cutting a deal with Apple right now to offer a "pro photographer bundle" of Aperture, Photoshop CS2, and Acrobat Professional. But as I said, I expect they'll stick with being huffy and defensive instead. Too bad.
PS -- The one unanswered question about Aperture that's relevant to this forum: Will it support Epson R-D 1 raw files? The R-D 1 isn't on the list of cameras with "optimized" raw-file support -- but I don't know whether this means there's no support, or just basic support.
The software-neglect side of the strategy petered out after a while, but Adobe is still huffy and I expect Aperture will make them even more huffy and vindictive.
Which is a shame, because it looks to me (a graphics-industry professional) as if Aperture isn't really going to take away anything from Adobe's product line. If anything, it enhances it.
It's obvious that Aperture is NOT intended as a competitor for Photoshop. It's an organizing tool. From the specs, it appears to include a good selection of rough-cut editing tools -- but if you need to do any serious retouching, compositing, etc., you'll still need to go into Photoshop (and Aperture includes features to make this easy.)
If Aperture competes with anything in Adobe's product line, it would be Bridge -- which only comes with Creative Suite applications and doesn't earn Adobe any money. I like Bridge a lot -- it's great to be able to see rendered previews of raw files and do non-destructive cropping and levels adjustments.
But Bridge still goes only partway: You can't do any other prep work on raw images without converting them to another format, and you can't save catalogs of images to store offline without using another application (I've been using iView MediaPro.) Even the cataloging applications that support raw image formats such as DNG don't really catalog the raw image itself -- you're looking at low-res JPEG previews, so you can't (for example) zoom in to check the sharpness of a detail without reloading the original media and launching an application such as Bridge.
A seamless, all-in-one solution that lets you prep and catalog original raw images will be a huge productivity booster for photographers who shoot a lot of raw files. For those people, it will pay back its $500 list price in a matter of days.
If Adobe had marketing sense, it would be cutting a deal with Apple right now to offer a "pro photographer bundle" of Aperture, Photoshop CS2, and Acrobat Professional. But as I said, I expect they'll stick with being huffy and defensive instead. Too bad.
PS -- The one unanswered question about Aperture that's relevant to this forum: Will it support Epson R-D 1 raw files? The R-D 1 isn't on the list of cameras with "optimized" raw-file support -- but I don't know whether this means there's no support, or just basic support.
djon
Well-known
It's important (and hard) to remember that there's a tremendous amount of wealth out there, as well as poverty.
Whatever you think is too expensive is only half as expensive as it could reasonably be, and still sell.
Certainly most graphics-oriented companies rely on Macs, but hardly any other type of business does. Much of the time Mac coasts on its wonderful legacy, most of which was established with the old Mac Classic type...the little portable TV-looking unit that was infallible. But Mac introduced several technical disasters, which inspired distrust in businesses.
Additionally, Mac didn't understand certain biological basics about human beings and the way they think/behave. Their failure to understand those basics explains why they only have a tiny minority of the market for which they have yearned for twenty years. But the basics that they DO understand explain why they have such a strong grip on their tiny market segment. The basics? #1 That we have two brains, one of which demands linear information and one of which is a space cadet/artist/valley girl
#2 That we come in two species: men and women
Whatever you think is too expensive is only half as expensive as it could reasonably be, and still sell.
Certainly most graphics-oriented companies rely on Macs, but hardly any other type of business does. Much of the time Mac coasts on its wonderful legacy, most of which was established with the old Mac Classic type...the little portable TV-looking unit that was infallible. But Mac introduced several technical disasters, which inspired distrust in businesses.
Additionally, Mac didn't understand certain biological basics about human beings and the way they think/behave. Their failure to understand those basics explains why they only have a tiny minority of the market for which they have yearned for twenty years. But the basics that they DO understand explain why they have such a strong grip on their tiny market segment. The basics? #1 That we have two brains, one of which demands linear information and one of which is a space cadet/artist/valley girl
#2 That we come in two species: men and women
Last edited:
Gordon Coale
Well-known
Maybe Apple totally dominates the high-end imaging market as Sadimmock states but Adobe does sell more PC copies of Photoshop than Apple copies. The high-end imaging market isn't very big. The majority of the imaging market is on a PC, the majority of us that can't afford the overpriced Apple products.
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
Gordon Coale said:
Careful... the SLR-and-compact-using majority likewise thinks our rangefinder cameras are overpriced, and we're not a very big marketing segment either. Yet we're passionately devoted and vocal as heck. Just goes to show that pricing is subjective!
Gordon Coale
Well-known
$23 is overpriced? That's what I paid for my FED 2.
skipc
Hill William
History with Apple suggest the price of Aperture will come down through bundling etc., but price alone will not deter the professional photographer. My experience in providing support for professional photographers is that while all have Photoshop, few have the computer where with all, or time, to achieve more than rudimentary use of the software. Elements would more than satisfy their capabilities
As mentioned above, Aperture is not full featured to date, but it will satisfy many of the requirements of the Pro Digital RAW photographer—with a more intuitive interface. My M2 and CS2 fit my personal style, but I will install and completely learn Aperture so I can $upport it and conduct Work$hops...skip
As mentioned above, Aperture is not full featured to date, but it will satisfy many of the requirements of the Pro Digital RAW photographer—with a more intuitive interface. My M2 and CS2 fit my personal style, but I will install and completely learn Aperture so I can $upport it and conduct Work$hops...skip