Alternatives to Aperture (What are your plans?)

[OreoCookie]

Brushing aside the use of "when" vs "if" there is still the question of the quality of the conversion. And lenses. And although some of that can of course be compensated for in other ways via editing, it sure is nice to have a better image to start with.

Like I said, I'm extremely happy with the results of Apple's RAW converter. I vastly prefer my Fuji's colors than my Nikon's colors -- but that's not something I attribute to Apple, rather Fuji and Nikon, respectively. Maybe there are RAW converters which offer better performance in some situations, but I never found myself yearning for more.

I understand (fully justified) disappointment about the tardiness of RAW converter updates, especially if the cameras use identical or virtually identical sensors. And for a long time it looked as if Apple was never to support another Fuji camera again -- that was a major con against getting a X100s. But as luck would have it, two weeks before I found an offer for an X100s that was too good to pass up, Apple added support for it in its RAW converter. This is an area where Apple should act more professional and work actively with the camera manufacturers to release support for new cameras in a timely fashion -- especially if the underlying sensor is identical to earlier models.

 

[swordio777]

there is still the question of the quality of the conversion.
[SNIP]
it sure is nice to have a better image to start with.

THIS!!! For me, raw image conversion is probably the single biggest factor when considering a DAM.

It's exactly the reason I switched from Lightroom4 to Aperture3 a couple of years ago and haven't looked back.

Lightroom has some great editing features, but its raw conversion is terrible. (to be fair, only the 2012 algorithm is terrible. The 2010 one is still poor, but not quite as bad as 2012. Really don't understand why Adobe developed it for 2 years only to make it worse).
To be clear though - I'm haven't had a reason to upgrade from Lightroom4, so if there's a new conversion algorithm (2014?) I'd be interested to learn more.

Capture's raw conversion is good, but still not quite as good as Aperture's. In capture the black point is too high and the image is over-saturated when all sliders are set to 0.

I get why so many people love Lightroom, but those looking for quality raw conversion are left wanting.

If you want quality, Capture is definitely a better starting place, but the lack of photoshop integration makes it a no-go for me.

For now, I guess I'm sticking with Aperture & waiting to see what the future holds.

 

[deeddawg]

THIS!!! For me, raw image conversion is probably the single biggest factor when considering a DAM.

Exactly why it's a disservice IMHO to have Raw conversion co-mingled with Digital Asset Management. It muddies the waters between selecting the best tool to manage your digital assets and selecting the best tool to covert RAW files.

Unfortunately that's the world we live in now for the most part.

 

[maflynn]

It muddies the waters between selecting the best tool to manage your digital assets and selecting the best tool to covert RAW files.

Unfortunately that's the world we live in now for the most part.

Well, I'd rather have one app that can import my images, from where I can the cull, categorize and edit them. I'm not jazzed up about importing them in C1, culling, editing (maybe adding some keywords) and then exporting them out, only to add them into LR.

I think a single tool makes the most sense - at least it does to me.

 

[MCAsan]

If you want the LR DAM catalog and other modules (books, slideshows..etc.) but prefer to use DXO for raw conversion and lens correction.......can do now with DXO 9,5. DXO will act as a plugin to LR. So here is 2 out of the three 3 main contenders interworking. I don't that is possible between LR and C1.



http://www.dxo.com/intl/photography/dxo-optics-pro/features
Interaction with Lightroom

DxO image quality for all your images

DxO Optics Pro v9.5 offers a non-destructive and completely integrated workflow Lightroom.

Transfer your RAW images from Lightroom to DxO Optics Pro in just one click. Use DxO’s high-quality tools to process your images and then return them to your cataloger using the Export to Lightroom feature: the processed images are automatically stacked with the original images.

You can preserve the flexibility of a raw file if you choose the DNG output option.

DxO Optics Pro v9.5 also offers total compatibility with the XMP standard: your star rankings and your keywords are perfectly preserved.

http://www.dxo.com/intl/photography/dxo-optics-pro/working-adobe-photoshop-lightroom

 

[deeddawg]

If you want the LR DAM catalog and other modules (books, slideshows..etc.) but prefer to use DXO for raw conversion and lens correction.......can do now with DXO 9,5. DXO will act as a plugin to LR.

VERY interesting....

Well, I'd rather have one app that can import my images, from where I can the cull, categorize and edit them. I'm not jazzed up about importing them in C1, culling, editing (maybe adding some keywords) and then exporting them out, only to add them into LR.

That's fine provided you're not having to compromise on either the DAM capabilities or RAW editing capabilities. Conceptually I'm referring to a model such as the DXO one presented above, where you can choose the best tool for each category. One tool is used to import, preview, rank, tag, cull, categorize, etc. The actual processing of the RAW files then occurs (potentially) in another tool if the photographer deems that the other tool is better suited.

 

[MCAsan]

I just downloaded the DXO trial and set up it as a plugin to LR. You can turn on the dual view and get a before and after side by side.

I suggest using several different raw files with edits in LR and edits in DXO and see if you think it is worth the extra cost of having the DXO capabilities. Their lens corrections seem to be better than in LR.

 

[maflynn]

That's fine provided you're not having to compromise on either the DAM capabilities or RAW editing capabilities.

I'll not contest that, and perhaps that's why I've not entirely dismissed C1.

 

[MCAsan]

I'll not contest that, and perhaps that's why I've not entirely dismissed C1.

I did and DXO optics also. At least DXO gives the photo back to LR so you can use other plugins in an organized workflow.

Using M43 I get lens corrections in LR (and Aperture) without needing a 3rd party app. I just don't see anything magical about DXO conversions that makes me want to spend major dollars on it. I will make far more impact with my images using the right LR presets and a judicial use of Nik and OnOneSoftware plugins I already own.

I will stick with LR unless Apple delivers magic in Photos next year and/or Adobe starts selling LR only as part of their photography cloud.

 

[flynz4]

DxO Optics Pro v9.5 offers a non-destructive and completely integrated workflow Lightroom.

I am not sure I understand the workflow from the diagram:

Assuming a normal left to right workflow... you start in LR... and there it says you do cataloging and editing. Editing? Before you do raw conversion?

Then you follow the arrow over to DxO for Raw conversion, optics correction, noise reduction... etc. It is backwards... you want to do noise reduction as the first step, not post editing.

Finally you round trip back to LR for publishing.

Is it only me... or do others consider this to be a backwards workflow?

/Jim

 

[MCAsan]

Download the free DXO trial and try the workflow for yourself for 30 days.

 

[flynz4]

Download the free DXO trial and try the workflow for yourself for 30 days.

I am just commenting on the order of the workflow that is indicated on the diagram.

/Jim

 

[maflynn]

Download the free DXO trial and try the workflow for yourself for 30 days.

I keep playing with C1 but I keep going back to Lr, because of the vast superiority of its DAM and other tools. I think maybe DXo may be a nice compromise, where I can use a better RAW engine, but keep everything in LR.

 

[MCAsan]

Fully agreed. I just did not see enough benefit in DXO's raw handling to be worth at extra $199 (July sale price) for the Pro Elite package which I have to have for a M43 body. They basically want more money for their Elite package than I paid for all of LR. That is not going to happen.

 

[seadragon]

I have the LR/PS CC photography plan and I'm really liking the workflow experience so far.

I also have a 60 day trial going of C1P7 and although I like the initial photo that comes from it, I just can't get into it. Something just seems "off" to me. Even after customizing the screen to my taste, I find the app clunky and slower to move around in.

I've only had LR for 3 weeks now but I've become quite fluent in working in it already. Plus I really like having the powerhouse app PS at my fingertips and round-tripping to it is so easy.

Still going to give C1 some time to grow on my but so far I don't think I'll be buying into it.

 

[benoitgphoto]

I am probably one of the lonely out there but I tried Corel AfterShot Pro 2 and I like it very much. It has all the processing features that I need : lens correction, local adjustments with layers, non destructive plugins, etc and I like the results I am getting out of it and it is speedy fast. Actually, I prefer the results of ASP than Aperture ones. The import process would need some revamp though as it is clunky and it would benefit to have more sharing features. But it's the results that count and again I like what I am getting.

I am also trying Capture One 7 Express and even though the default results look good, I just can't get to the UI and it is slower.

Yep, Corel AfterShot Pro 2 is a great surprise for me, I was not expecting to like it that much. And I am using it with Pixelmator but Corel ASP has all the features needed with some added plugins that I don't use Pixelmator very often.

 

[CausticPuppy]

I was originally going to stay with Aperture for editing, but after spending time with the LR trial I ordered the standalone version. But I'm also going to keep using Aperture for library management (after exporting finished JPG's from lightroom). I'm not converting my Aperture library either, just using Lightroom for new projects except for a select few photos that I'm re-processing.


I have a Fuji X100S that I use primarily along with an older Olympus XZ-1.

LR is taking some getting used to, but I've found that I can get great results more quickly with LR compared to Aperture, even though I can do pretty much everything in Aperture that I'm doing in LR. It's just a matter of efficiency.

LR renders the Fuji RAWS a little more sharply than Aperture, although green foliage is still a little wonky if you inspect at 100% (Lightroom still can't decode X-trans as capably as other RAW converters can).

However, the Fuji camera profiles more than make up for it IMO, they work fantastically and do a good job of matching the camera's own JPG engine.

Also LR cleans up my old Olympus RAW's far better than Aperture can, primarily due to the better noise reduction.

A year or two down the road there will likely be some great editing tools built on top of Apple's new platform as well. So I'm adding a couple extra steps to my workflow, keeping the RAW's organized in Lightroom with the finished JPG's in Aperture for iCloud sharing and photo books.

In the future, either Adobe will play nice with Apple's new DAM platform, or some other new editor will.

My only complaint about LR: it's not optimized for retina macbook pros. On my top-spec Haswell rMBP 13", switching modules is laggy, scrolling around a photo is laggy, toggling the various panels is laggy. Aperture is very smooth so this is a software issue not a hardware issue. Adobe doesn't even seem to be using 2D acceleration available by the OS and doing everything within software. It's not a deal breaker, just not as smooth as I'm used to with Aperture.

Switching to a non-hiDPI mode helps a little but not much.... Adobe just can't make snappy UI's.

 

[maflynn]

Also LR cleans up my old Olympus RAW's far better than Aperture can, primarily due to the better noise reduction.

I'd say this was primarily due to apple ignoring aperture for so many years. Adobe kept tweaking and improving the app including NR.

I'm pleased with how LR's processing of my Olympus RAW files. I was debating C1 for a while because the RAW rendering was better, but in the end, the lack of tools and DAM options in C1 made the decision for me.

 

[silvetti]

My workflow:
RAW files -> DxO Optics Pro -> Pixelmator -> iPhoto

This way I will wait to see what Photos will look like and not make a rushed decision and waste money.

 

[maflynn]

My only complaint about LR: it's not optimized for retina macbook pros. On my top-spec Haswell rMBP 13", switching modules is laggy, scrolling around a photo is laggy, toggling the various panels is laggy. Aperture is very smooth so this is a software issue not a hardware issue. Adobe doesn't even seem to be using 2D acceleration available by the OS and doing everything within software. It's not a deal breaker, just not as smooth as I'm used to with Aperture.

Switching to a non-hiDPI mode helps a little but not much.... Adobe just can't make snappy UI's.

Is it the preview rendering or overall performance? I'm on a 2012 rMBP and I'm not seeing the lag you're reporting. I have rebuilt my previews in my test catalog and found the performance good. W/O the previews I do see the lag, as it generates the preview on the fly.

I'm like 99% sure I'll be going with Lightroom myself. I've looked at other options and none provide the same level of features as LR. Sure one may do one thing better like Capture One, but it lacks some feature that is important to me.

 

[The Bad Guy]

This thread is hilarious.

You guys be extra careful as to what you choose now. It's of utmost importance.

 

[maflynn]

This thread is hilarious.

You guys be extra careful as to what you choose now. It's of utmost importance.

It is, many of us care a great deal about our images. Others make money on their images so finding the right tool is important. Just because it may not matter to you, doesn't mean its unimportant/

 

[The Bad Guy]

It is, many of us care a great deal about our images. Others make money on their images so finding the right tool is important. Just because it may not matter to you, doesn't mean its unimportant/

Workflow is important. I've found mine. Straight to Lightroom, into Photoshop, back to Lightroom and then to publish. Nothing exciting. No need for fan fair.

Most of "our" images are ****. "We" have a massively over inflated sense of self worth here. 99% of "our" photos should be deleted.

iPhoto is more than enough for most. Photoshop elements will suit a good portion of the rest. Aperture became rubbish (I used it for awhile) long before it was abandoned. Software doesn't matter.

1% (at most) of us here at MacRumors are making money from our shots (I do occasionally, if I'm lucky).

The rest just like to pretend their photos are important. They're not.

Off the top of my head, there's only four or five people here that take 'good' photos. The rest of us are just talking ****.

 

[realitystops]

Germ of Truth

Workflow is important. I've found mine. Straight to Lightroom, into Photoshop, back to Lightroom and then to publish. Nothing exciting. No need for fan fair.

Most of "our" images are ****. "We" have a massively over inflated sense of self worth here. 99% of "our" photos should be deleted.

iPhoto is more than enough for most. Photoshop elements will suit a good portion of the rest. Aperture became rubbish (I used it for awhile) long before it was abandoned. Software doesn't matter.

1% (at most) of us here at MacRumors are making money from our shots (I do occasionally, if I'm lucky).

The rest just like to pretend their photos are important. They're not.

Off the top of my head, there's only four or five people here that take 'good' photos. The rest of us are just talking ****.

I repeat - Germ of Truth.

However I think that enjoyment can be gained in many ways with photography.

Having a reason to get up in the morning, self promotion and positive responses (no matter how few). Having your work/hobby/obsession looked at and commented on gives the right to do likewise.

Some how I do not seem to be able to put it into a few words so you will have to form your own opinions from those so far written.

As for what is good or bad - Only you can say for yourself - but we all need a bit of encouragement now and then.

Even if some think its **** there are enough out there who will disagree - THANKFULLY!

 

[flynz4]

1% (at most) of us here at MacRumors are making money from our shots (I do occasionally, if I'm lucky).

The rest just like to pretend their photos are important. They're not.

So from your logic, photos are only important if they generate revenue.

My photos are a journal of my life... totally irrelevant to their economic value.

/Jim