Aperture - Useful to you?

[alfarmer]

It appears I made a mistake by pre-ordering Aperture. It appears to

be northing more than a $500 version of iPhoto with some extra eye

candy. Anyone else have a different experience with it?

 

My biggest beef with Aperture is that it doesn't use the existing file

system for storing images. That's perhaps the worst feature of iPhoto

and Apple is determined to keep that design flaw going in Aperture.

 

They easily could have done what Picasa and Photoshop Elements do,

which is create a database that REFERENCES and existing file

structure. But they chose not to and the only reason I can see is so

that they can keep you locked in to using their software and a Mac.

This is counter-productive, though, because those of us who buy

Aperture are ALREADY bought into Macs.

 

I have several computers on my network and it's about half Macs and

half PCs. With regular old file sharing, EVERYONE on the network can

access the master RAW server and build their local database around it.

With Aperture I'm not allowed to have my master RAW files sit on a

network server. And even if I could, only ONE Mac could use them

because it has to be this proprietary, singl-user, custom database

format like in iPhoto. What a waste!

 

It's really sad because I'd wanted Aperture to be THE workflow tool,

but I'm very disappointed in their implementation. Its got bugs &

performance problems that will no doubt be addressed over time, but

the fundamental design is most likely not subject to change.

 

Of course the hilarious part is on top of this their RAW conversion is

rather lacking -- especially when compared to Canon's DPP or Photoshop

CS2. And speaking of Photoshop, Aperture doesn't support layers

properly (if at all). Hopefully they fix these problems soon, but the

RAW conversion process is built into the OS so who knows.

 

Anyhow, I guess I'll be sticking with DPP and Photoshop as my

workflow. I just wish I could get my $500 back...

 

ALF

[andrew_rodney1]

Some users are unhappy about the way it files images and the rest of the data base. It

certainly IS different. Now you can find and mess with any file once you open the package

that is used to store all the data. But why? Lots of data bases do this. When I want one mail

item in Entourage, I can find it IN Entourage. All the other mail data is stored in big

honking data base file. Of course this isn?t unique to Entourage. As you point out, iPhoto

and iTunes use the same method. It is useful to not have to worry about the myriad of files

in this workflow. I understand you and others are put off by it but I think you might want

to give a try see if finding stuff IN the application as opposed to digging it up in the finder

doesn?t work for you.

 

The big downside is you have one huge data base file. But everything is in there and

finding things should be much faster in the database application than looking for it

outside the database.

 

It will be nice when (and I expect it will happen) you can work with various database files

over a network. I can?t imagine that will not come (it will be awesome with Xserves

anyway).

[robert_m3]

If you're looking to dump your copy I'd happily take it off your hands!

[oceanphysics]

<i>But they chose not to and the only reason I can see is so that they can keep you locked in to using their software and a Mac</i>

<p>

That's not the reason. I don't own the application, or use Macs, but from Apple's materials it seems pretty clear that only the original version of an image is stored. Edited versions only exist as a set of instructions for how they can be recreated from the original. Among other things, this means that edited versions take up essentially no additional storage. The originals could be stored in the file system, but edited versions can't, because they don't really exist.

<p>

Software developers have used this sort of version control software to manage code in large projects for many years.

[alfarmer]

>> it seems pretty clear that only the original version of an image is

>> stored. Edited versions only exist as a set of instructions for how

>> they can be recreated from the original. Among other things, this

>> means that edited versions take up essentially no additional storage.

>> The originals could be stored in the file system, but edited versions

>> can't, because they don't really exist.

 

I'm fine with the edited versions (i.e. the "delta" info.) being stored in a database. My problem is with the originals being sucked into the database. As you say, the originals remain untouched -- so why do they need to be sucked into the database? They don't. Picasa and Photoshop Elements (amongst others) build their databases around existing file structures. There's no logical reason why Apple couldn't have done the same.

 

Regarding the earlier post about finding pictures within the application (i.e. Entourage or what-have-you), I'm all for it. The problem is that nobody except me can access the datbase, and I can only access it with Aperture.

 

I need to share master (the untouched ones) images with other people and I need to edit images in multiple applications -- primarily Photoshop CS2 and Noise Ninja. Having everything in a proprietary database makes this cumbersome. I must export images from Aperture, thus taking up more drive space, process the files in these other applications (creating more files), and then somehow re-import them back into Aperture for "master" cataloging and storage.

 

Unfortunately, once they leave Aperture they are no longer "delta" file -- they get re-imported as full files. At that point I've got multiple versions of gigantic files in my master database. Hopefully at that point I can delete the originals in order to mitigate this problem. Otherwise I'm going to need a HUGE hard drive! :-)

 

Regards,

ALF

[alfarmer]

Robert: It can be yours if the price is right! :-)

 

ALF

[Ed_Ingold]

As far as I can tell, Aperture doesn't do anything you can't do with Photoshop and Bridge. Bridge lets you set tags, sort, rank and file RAW files without actually opening them, and Photoshop is a much more powerful editor.

 

So far, I've resisted the temptation to leave the PC world and join the dark side (my kids keep trying to persuade me). However, the i-Pods are out there, waiting for me to fall asleep....

[andrew_rodney1]

->Regarding the earlier post about finding pictures within the application (i.e. Entourage

or ->what-have-you), I'm all for it. The problem is that nobody except me can access the

>datbase, and I can only access it with Aperture.

 

You can get to the original RAW data. It?s in a Package which you can open, then move,

copy etc. If you move it, you?ll hose the database of course. But you can copy it. As for

pointing other app;s, probably not from within that app unless someone has a cleaver way

to open and look inside a Package (can?t be hard to do that). Of course you can back and

forth from this data and Aperture and Photoshop from Aperture.

 

As for layers, well only Photoshop supports it and Aperature really isn?t Photoshop. I see it

as a good way to edit/sort/add meta data and convert RAW data into pixels. From there,

it?s Photoshop time. Photoshop (ACR) doesn?t treat RAWs differently. You never alter the

RAW.

[alfarmer]

Yep, good tip on the "package" thing. Other macs can get at the files that way even though it's kind of a pain, but it doesn't seem to work on Windows machines.

 

ALF

[majid]

I tend to agree with your analysis, Anthony. Actually, I've <a href="http://www.majid.info/mylos/stories/2005/12/01/apertureFirstImpressions.html">written it up here</a>. If you think copying over RAW files is inefficient, wait till you do it with 110MB 16-bit 4000dpi rough slide scan TIFFs...<p>

 

The problem is that there is a Cult of the Mac that raises unrealistic expectations of anything coming out of Cupertino. The hype around Aperture was certainly immense, I am sure Apple was surprised at how positive the response was (after all, they released it at a relatively obscure pro photo show, Photo Plus). They are probably furiously revising plans for the next release right now. I consider Aperture 1.0 more a statement of direction than a finished product.<p>

 

Keep in mind there are two types of pro photographers:

<ol>

<li>Those who try to build up a portfolio of images over their career, where royalties and residual rights will provide them with financial support when they retire. Most fine art, landscape, nature photographers are in this category, and photojournalists could be assimilated (except their employer owns the rights to the archive in the latter case). They need a digital asset management database to retrieve and market their images more effectively (most farm out that work to the likes of Corbis or Getty Images).

<li>Those who do work-for-hire, where they will work intensely on a project, take a lot of photos and show lots of variants to a client for approval. Once the project is done, it is archived and they move on to the next one. Wedding photographers, event photographers, product/catalog and industrial photographers fit in this category. They need a production workflow tool that will streamline the editing and client approval process, the latter via email or password-protected websites.

</ol>

 

Aperture's vaults are a clear indication it is intended mostly for the second type of photographer. Apple did not convey the specialized focus of the product forcefully enough, but the blogosphere's buzz machine bears much of the blame for raising unwarranted expectations about what the product is about.<p>

 

Aperture is good for one thing: let wedding photographers and the like go through the editing (as in sorting through slides on a light table, not retouching an individual image) as efficiently as possible. Most wedding pros simply cannot afford the time to individually edit a single picture beyond white balance, tonal adjustments, cropping and sharpening, and Aperture's built-in tools are perfectly adequate for them. That is also why there is such a slow import process to prepare the images beforehand for very smooth manipulation afterwards — the goal is to have a very smooth virtual light table (not a filing cabinet) where you can move slides around, group them in stacks, toy around with versions, and compare them side by side on dual 30 inch Cinema Displays. The user experience was clearly designed around what the average art director (with his or her loupe surgically implanted...) is familiar and comfortable with.<p>

 

Aperture is essentially a New York magazine art director's wet dream, or the tool that will help wedding photographers sort through their takes and gain more efficiency in their workflow where time is money. The logic behind projects and workflow is not that of a fine art photographer assembling a large portfolio over his or her career, meticulously indexed in Extensis Portfolio or equivalent, it is that of the production-oriented pro who will work on a project, run a burst of furious activity around it, and when that is done, archive it out-of-sight-out-of-mind, most likely never to look at them again.<p>

 

I think what you are probably looking for is <a href="http://www.kavasoft.com/Shoebox/">Shoebox</a> or <a href="http://www.photools.com">IMatch</a>. They are not cross-platform, unfortunately, unlike Extensis Portfolio or Canto Cumulus, but far superior to the latter in terms of classifying power and effectiveness.

[dean_matsueda]

Nice write-up, Fazal, thanks for sharing. I think everyone's been hearing a lot of different

stories about their experience with this 1.0 release but good to read a perspective on what its

real intended audience is and specifically, what kind of pro photographer would really benefit

from it.

 

As an amateur photographer and Apple fanboy, I was certainly drawn by the hype. But even if

I had the beefy hardware to run it, it doesn't sound like it would be very benefical to me.

[andrew_rodney1]

-->The hype around Aperture was certainly immense, I am sure Apple was surprised at

how positive the response was (after all, they released it at a relatively obscure pro photo

show, Photo Plus).

 

With attendance in the 25K range., it IS the largest end user photo show in the US.

 

PMA is a dealer show (and yes, it?s larger).

 

At Photo Plus, Apple had the biggest booth (and it was huge). They also had a huge

amount of attendees there. It was the hit of the party.

[Uhooru]

Excellant Fazal and I think you are right. But even in Apples own website marketing, they

pretty much present the type of functionality you discussed. I mean, I got the distinct

impression from them that it was mainly for digital shooting wedding, event, commercial and

"assignment" type photographers who have a lot of images from a shoot or several shoots/

projects or a trip or etc.. and need to put it toghether efficiantly, run quick adjustments,

quickly sequence and then in very ordered form, allow transmittal to to a client. But what I

was sort of interested in was to organize large documentary projects and I see another use in

that. I can see where production or graphic houses that want to share a database of files at

workstations can feel frustrated, it seems to be geared toward individual users at this point.

[majid]

FYI, Ars Technica has a <a href="http://arstechnica.com/reviews/apps/aperture.ars">detailed review</a> out, and it is fairly damning.

[ellis_vener_photography]

Thanks for that last link Fazal. As of now I am going to pass on Aperture for the time

being.

[Uhooru]

That review is pretty dismal indeed.

[jamesnjohnson]

I was thinking that about it but my 12inch PB won't run it so I will stick with PS Element and Photo-paint.

[vgoklani]

It runs fine on my 15" 1.33GHZ Powerbook - and it is MUCH faster than Adobe Bridge. That

said, it is essentially useful for organizing photos only (and as mentioned above, the photos

have to be in a specific directory). Not worth the cash....

[david enzel]

I bought it and am very disappointed. It is slow even on a dual processor G5. It isn't worth

$500. I feel ripped off by Apple. I have asked for a refund. Apple refused and I've written to

Steve Jobs. Adobe understands digital photography. Apple doesn't.

[vgoklani]

that's funny - after playing around with it for a while, I find it to be really useful. There aren't

any other programs on the mac that take advantage of CORE-IMAGE, and I like the way it

allows you to organize and manipulate images (how you can edit an image, while

simultaneously looking at the original). It is expensive for what you get, but not so bad with

the student discount. btw, I am running it on my powerbook w/ 2Gs of ram

[sparkyphotog]

I have had Aperture for about two weeks. I consolidated me entire library into it, but have only edited one shoot start-to-finish using the Aperture workflow. I read the review ARS-Technica, and as I did so, it made me swallow hard (did I really screw up here?). Here are my observations:

 

1 - My first shoot using the Aperture workflow and RAW files from a D70 went very well. The workflow was FAST (on an iMac G5 2 Ghz no less). The final printed output was stunning. So far I am happy about that.

 

2 - If you did buy Aperture and you are not happy, you can still export your original raw files and not lose any quality.

 

3 - You can use Photoshop with Aperture - the program creates a copy and opens it PS so you still retain your untouched original, albeit you now have another high res file which negates the space-saving idea of NDE (non-destructive editing). However, the database tracks the image as another version of the original, so you never lose it.

 

4 - I have previously had to have two workflows - one for RAW and one for JPEG. The RAW workflow I had before (PhotoMechanic - Nikon Capture - PS) was tedious at best, and I hated using 3 programs. So, mostly I just shot in JPEG. Aperture has the potential to really streamline my workflow, and to me, that makes it worth it.

 

5 - Having two workflows, and not always being good about paying attention the myriad of steps needed to make sure I had a good back-up scheme, has meant that I have lost images. Apertures vaults and simplified workflow have the promise of making that a thing of the past for me.

 

Finally, as with anything in photography, there are trade-offs. Aperture is not for everyone. I think it will be just the ticket for me, but that doesn't mean it will be for everyone.

 

As with any new technology, and make no mistake, this is new technology, there are always issues in the beginning. But Apple has a great reputation in my mind for being on the ball about addressing shortcomings in it's products. There is already a 1.0.1 update for Aperture that greatly improved the RAW conversions, less than 6 weeks after launch. I think Aperture will get very good very fast. As it is right now, it isn't for everyone. But so far, I like it.

 

Bryan