Demo version of Apple's Aperture due out today

[jlw]

I just saw this on the MacNN news site:

Apple to release Aperture 1.5.1 today

A senior Apple director today at the PhotoPlus Expo revealed that the company will release Aperture 1.5.1 some time today, as well as a fully functioning demo of the post production photography software that will allow users to try out all aspects of the application. "The update comes from user feedback on our 1.5 release and focuses on performance improvements related to previews," said Kirk Paulsen, Apple's senior director of professional applications product marketing. The update also addresses general stability and reliability of Aperture, according to Paulsen, adding RAW support for the Nikon D80 and Canon XTI cameras. The demo version allows users to purchase Aperture from within the application, requiring only the entry of a serial number before resuming usage of the fully legal application. "We want to get Aperture in the hands of as many photographers as possible," Paulsen added.​

While this will be a big ho-hum to Windows users (Aperture is a Mac-only application) and potentially frustrating to users of all but very recent Macs (Aperture is graphics-intensive and will only run on recent models) the availability of a demo version (finally!) should be interesting to those who have the hardware to run it.

In particular, I hope that the convenient timing of this announcement will enable somebody here to find out whether or not Aperture will handle the DNG files from the Leica M8!

 

[ywenz]

The bad thing I heard about aperature is how resource demanding it is. People with dual G5, gigs of RAM were still experiencing annoying slow downs when processing DSLR sized Raw images.

Has Apple recompiled Aperature for the Intel chips? Seeing how slow Photoshop runs on Intel based Macs compared to paltry G4 based Macs, I can just see how slow this will be.

 

[MarcoS]

Aperture is Universal Binary and it runs much better than Photoshop on Intel macs, but it is based on CoreImage, hence the videocard is very important to run it smoothly.
Anyway almost any current Intel mac has a decent GPU, so this is not a problem.
The real issues with Aperture are:
1. Conversion quality: very good color rendering, but still sub-par details/microcontrast rendering.
2. Internal database: you need to import files in its internal database and I really don't like its "closed" system.

I know they continue to improve on Raw quality.
If they added a "reference to existing location" for file management, I could be tempted again.

 

[pesphoto]

I just downloaded Lightroom has anyone tried that?

 

[kaiyen]

I was going back/forth between Lightroom beta 4 and Aperture 1.1 for a while. Lightroom on both PC and mac. I'm actually quite impressed with Lightroom and if it added just a few more RAW development controls it would be right up against Aperture. Now that Aperture is on 1.5, I'm using Lightroom only. It's just easier, and I can use it on my PC, too.

allan

 

[ywenz]

I have a P4 3.2GHZ HT with 1GIG of RAM Lightroom runs very slow compared to RawShooter Pro.

What are your system specs?

 

[pesphoto]

Im on a MAc Dual 2 Ghz PowerPC G5
4GB RAm

 

[lifevicarious]

No longer closed system

No longer closed system

2. Internal database: you need to import files in its internal database and I really don't like its "closed" system.

I know they continue to improve on Raw quality.
If they added a "reference to existing location" for file management, I could be tempted again.

It no longer requires an internal database. From Apple's website...


1. Flexible Library Management

With Aperture 1.5, you decide how and where to store your images. Import them into a managed Aperture library and let Aperture take care of keeping track of your images. This option lets you keep all your images in one location and offers a simple backup mechanism via the Vault.

Or store your photographs wherever you’d like — on any number of hard drives, network volumes, CDs, or DVDs, and have Aperture “reference” them. No need to copy the entire collection into a single managed library, simply point to them and let Aperture catalog them in place. You can even reference the images in your iPhoto library, using them in Aperture without having to move or copy them anywhere.
However you store your images, Aperture 1.5 keeps track of all the metadata you add and versions you create. And because your RAW originals don’t have to be online for you to browse or search through them, you can take your entire library with you wherever you go. On your MacBook, for example.

 

[jlw]

I've been using the Lightroom beta because it handles Epson R-D 1 files and Aperture doesn't (so far.) Lightroom is okay (although it gets slower and clunkier as you get more images into it) but it doesn't have the editing and shot-selection features that Aperture has.

I hope Adobe will improve Lightroom's performance and polish its interface before they get to the final release. (It's important to remember that this is a beta, so features and stability are not intended to be of final release quality.)

The great thing about Apple releasing a demo of Aperture (it does require registration to get a trial serial number, btw) is that now people won't have to rely on what they've "heard" about it -- they can try it out (assuming they've got the hardware) and compare it to the Lightroom beta for themselves.

For everybody who wants to say, "It's not as fast as program X" or "It's harder to use than program Y" -- keep in mind that Aperture and Lightroom are different from what else is out there. There's already a good selection of cataloging programs and raw-conversion programs and image-browsing programs.

What Apple and Adobe are trying to do here is produce a single tool that will let a serious photographer catalog, manage and present his/her entire collection of images -- without having to inventory anything except raw files and without ever having to make an irreversible edit. Nothing else quite covers all those bases yet. Since this is a new flavor of product in the photo arena, it's not surprising that both have some rough edges and that there's no consensus on what's the best way to implement some of the features needed to do all these jobs.