Apple Trashes Aperture

<p>Actually I think the sky <em>is</em> falling. I have, by now, thousands of photos stored in Aperture, and I'm very comfortable using it--more so than Lightroom. And the "Photo" program won't have the power of Aperture. It will be more like iphoto, apparently.</p>

<p>I'm very disappointed. I may sell my Apple stock in protest.</p>

<p>Desktop computing has it's days numbered...and so it should. I'd get used to less software being offered...especially by Apple.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I would love to see PhaseOne step up and create a LR-like program that would handle all aspects of the processing chain, from import to organization to non-destructive editing to rendering for output.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Capture 1 (from Phase I) does some of that, and it certainly has quality image processing "guts" but it needs a total redesign of the interface and I'm to used to the LR and even the Aperture RIP type mode. I find it hard to use in terms of the organizing part and even the work flow is difficult for me working the image through the tabs. But there is, I think, quality in the processing part of it.</p>

<p>Barry, not saying that CaptureOne could not be improved, but I actually like it for its interface, and absolutely dislike the crowded bloated interface in LightRoom with its modules - the UI is one of the reasons why I am happy with CaptureOne. The quality of the output being another. And for me, it does handle the entire processing chain, be it that I think the catalog function is implemented half-hearted. If anything, the way to assign keywords etc. should be made much easier and obvious.</p>

<p>Which is just to say: there is no right and wrong in this, and there is ample space for multiple players since UI approached and preferences are plenty.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I'm very disappointed. I may sell my Apple stock in protest.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Unless you think that dropping Aperture will adversely affect Apple's earning, that would be an example of "Cutting off your nose to spite your face."</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Unless you think that dropping Aperture will adversely affect Apple's earning, that would be an example of "Cutting off your nose to spite your face."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't know what will happen to Apple's earnings, but this makes me lose faith in Apple decision making. This would not have happened if Steve Jobs were still in charge. It's hard to be invested in a company I'm disappointed in. I put in an order to sell if it drops below 90 and 1/8.</p>

<p>Wouter, you're not the only one who likes Capture !'s interface and work flow. I personally am not a huge fan, but I've worked with it before and could very easily do so again. I know its a very mature program with a lot of adherents and it does have really good image processing. However, I actually prefer the LR/Aperture "style" interface with the development tools handy in the work flow. It doesn't feel cluttered to me, but that's what familiarity does. i will also say that LR has improved its image quality along with its development. There was a time, I could visually notice a difference between aperture and LR on the one hand and Capture 1 on the other. Not so much now. Also, since I'm comparing I also think LR's local adjustment tools are easier to use than C1, at least for me. With C1, I really need to get in there and learn its image management system. I have friends who tell me its great once you learn it, but I have a total brain block understanding that system. i seem to always end up with duplicates of sets of images, and I know its my laziness in really sitting down and figuring it out.</p>

<p>Barry, I can sympathize. I received Capture One along with some Leica purchase or other. I could not make it do anything at all! That's when I bought Aperture, and have been happy with it. I tried adding Lightroom, but have systematically bollixed it up until it doesn't even work. Aperture has been smooth as silk, as can be expected when a program is designed by Apple, for Apple. I didn't even have to study anything, it is so intuitive, I just started using it.<br>

Thanks, Apple, for trashing the best program I ever got. I plan to buy an extra imac to ensure I will always be able to use Aperture!</p>

<p>"I plan to buy an extra imac to ensure I will always be able to use Aperture!"<br>

<br>

Or until you get a camera not supported by an abandoned application. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Or until you get a camera not supported by an abandoned application.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Convert to DNG should work in Aperture. My copy of Aperture has no issues importing DNG's that I've got cataloged in Lightroom and which converted the proprietary raws to DNG. <br>

You'll need a newer machine that can run a newer version of the DNG converter (or Lightroom).</p>

<p>What an incredible amount of effort to avoid learning superior software</p>

>>> Or until you get a camera not supported by an abandoned application.

 

RAW conversion is provided by and intrinsic to OS X.

Are there a number of forces influencing this?

1. In relative terms Adobe looks like it is here to stay but the pattern is that even the leading companies come to the end of the line a la

Kodak and Nokia. Thus this will continue to happen.

2. At one time there may have been an ethos behind companies that welded them to their customer base and product heritage. Apple,

under Steve Jobs demonstrated that such ethics obstructed growth and profits and so following market trends became far more

important. Thus any modern company with a need to satisfy shareholders must do it best to follow the growth curve. It will maintain cash

cows, such as Aperute, while they deliver profit for little cost but then, when they become dogs, it will dump them.

3. I can almost guarantee that if you take almost any digital image you can, with all the magic tools available make something that many

will consider a good image. What I mean is that I find there is less and less pleasure in taking good photographs that are just that - good

photographs and not images to be manipulated.

4. As most of us realize the iPhone and it's colleagues are undermining the camera industry anyway and it could be that we see some of

the big names start to wobble..

So I look in my cupboard at my Leica R8, Contax TVS, Linhof Technika and a few more and wonder the obvious.

<p>iPhones & colleagues are not undermining the camera industry. They are a part of it. In the process they wipe out the cheap point and shoots. They had to go.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"RAW conversion is provided by and intrinsic to OS X."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>How is that? What is there in OS X that will convert my RAW file even if Aperture or iPhoto has no provision for a RAW file from my X10 or D-Lux 6? What does it convert it to? JPEG? TIFF?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>How is that?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The conversion <em>engine</em> is part of the OS and undergoes updates as such. It's not part of individual Apple products. But if you have no native product that can deal with that engine, you can't process the raw. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>The conversion <em>engine</em> is part of the OS and undergoes updates as such. It's not part of individual Apple products.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

That's cool, I didn't know that.</p>

<p>That's news to me as well. I thought Apple native imaging apps just used the embedded Raw jpeg preview built by the incamera processor to form the initial unedited preview.</p>

<p>I wonder if I'ld get different previews extracting my Raw PEF's embedded jpeg preview using "Instant Jpeg From Raw" plug-in vs viewing the Raw file in any Apple native imaging app like say Preview, iPhoto or Aperture.</p>

<p>I notice the color patches of the CCchart DNG target image opened in DNG PE (v1.0.0.46) are slightly different viewing the DNG file in Apple's Preview. Wonder where each derives their initial previews or what color matrices/tables are being used.</p>

<p>You will notice that software updates include regular "update for digital camera raw files", unrelated to any installed software.</p>