Hello. Is anyone here a "non-professional" using Aperture? Someone where photography is just a hobby? I've been getting more and more into photography for the past few years and have been using iPhoto quite a lot. This morning I took some time to really research Aperture and I am thinking about making the move sometime in the near future. Photography is strictly a hobby for now. I can, however, see it becoming something a little more than a hobby in the future. Would it be wise to buy Aperture (I'm a student so the student discount would be used)? I want photography to be a serious hobby and I am very impressed with Aperture and how easy it seems to be for a complicated/powerful program. I don't think I would be overwhelmed by it...
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Aperture for "non-professional"?
- Thread starter D34th
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm a amateur, and I bought Aperture -- But I've really not been able to use it yet, mostly due to lack of free time for the last several days.
I'll try to check in after I use it to sort through 400+ RAW photos I have to sort/correct/print and let you know how I feel about it.
I'll try to check in after I use it to sort through 400+ RAW photos I have to sort/correct/print and let you know how I feel about it.
When I get my mbp tomorrow i'm going to try out the lightroom beta. I can't afford aperture, but I think iphoto is pretty lame for editing. My friend uses the lightroom beta all the time and is always raving about it 
My question to those of you who use Aperture is...
...I still don't see how it fits into the scheme of things.
My current workflow is open my raw files into photoshop, edit the initial image with the raw converter, then finish pulling it into photoshop for any gritty work. Export as a psd. The raw file remains untouched, aside from the .xmp file that appears in the folder beside it after the raw conversion.
I've messed around with lightroom but just end up going back to my usual method.
What benefits are there to using aperture over the workflow I just described? Is it the convenience, or is there something much bigger that I'm missing?
Thanks...
...I still don't see how it fits into the scheme of things.
My current workflow is open my raw files into photoshop, edit the initial image with the raw converter, then finish pulling it into photoshop for any gritty work. Export as a psd. The raw file remains untouched, aside from the .xmp file that appears in the folder beside it after the raw conversion.
I've messed around with lightroom but just end up going back to my usual method.
What benefits are there to using aperture over the workflow I just described? Is it the convenience, or is there something much bigger that I'm missing?
Thanks...
It depends how much photoshopping you actually do. I find that batch processing changes, tagging metadata to 600 images at a time, creating online web galleries, general organization, and the ease of using vaults makes me use Aperture (as an amateur) over anything else.FrankieTDouglas said:
That said, you do need a hefty machine to get it to run smoothly. Each update of Aperture gives a nice speed boost so I imagine within a year it will be more zippy on any flavor of G5 or Intel.
celebrian23 said:When I get my mbp tomorrow i'm going to try out the lightroom beta. I can't afford aperture, but I think iphoto is pretty lame for editing. My friend uses the lightroom beta all the time and is always raving about it
I'd agree here, I love LR and it's free!
It is much more responsive and I personally enjoy the features and UI over that of Aperture. I think Aperture's Loupe is a neat visual but Loupe idea in LR is the same, it's just not confined to the little viewing circle....it zooms the entire frame which accomplishes the same thing.
Another amateur here who uses Aperture.... I haven't explored Lightroom extensively yet so can't really compare the two programs. For me, Aperture is valuable for viewing and ranking my images prior to post-processing them and editing them in Photoshop. I don't shoot in NEF so haven't really exploited Aperture's handling of RAW images. One thing that Aperture does which I really don't care for is that it puts all the images into its own library; I actually prefer my own system and so create two separate collections, one a folder on my hard drive and then the other a "library" in Aperture.
FrankieTDouglas said:
Organization is part of it. Let's say you have a project to shoot photos of all the wildflowers that grow in you area. So you go out hiking and when you see a flower you've not shoot before or a better example of one or one in better light you shoot it. But you have many other things going on too as the flow project will take a couple years to complete. After a while you find fewer and fewer flowers you don't already have good imges of so the project slows down. OK now it is 2009 and you are ready to make you "local wild flower web site" Can you FIND all images of a specif species of flower? Or images of a given person or those taken at some specific location and for the flower project could you know where each image was taken? iPhoto is very good at this kind of thing but is not and image editor. Photo shop is a good image editor but it is not an assest manager.
The best plan might be to use Aperture and PS together.
I'm waiting to see how Nikon's "NX" will work. It looks like it will be the best of both and much lower priced then either.
Clix Pix said:
You should really checkout Lightroom then, it allows you to reference files in existing location or import directly into the library (ie make a copy into Lightroom's space). I have all of my images referenced so I maintain a single copy on my hard drive in a location that I choose (which preserves my folder structure).
I find that for ranking/sorting/deciding of images LR is amazing, it works fast and allows you to easily rank images and filter galleries by ranking (like sorting music in iTunes by ranking). Since it is free you can all try it out....it works a lot faster, in my experiences, than Aperture.
Thanks, efoto! I've got LR installed in this machine, so it's just a matter of sitting down with it and seeing how it all works instead of automatically jumping into Aperture....
vgoklani said:
WHAT! Is it the native version? If it is, and it does run slow, whats the point of buying a professional notebook if you can't run professional apps?
Clix Pix said:
Let me know what you think. Alternate opinions are great so I'm eager to hear your thoughts, pros/cons, for both Ap and LR.
I really admire your work by the way, wonderful images
ChrisA said:
If iPhoto is good at all those things, and Photoshop is the best editor, then surely the best plan is to use iPhoto and PS together?
FleurDuMal said:
That's my solution. I like iPhoto especially when I have to upload a specific picture to the web or need to fix it in some way. Just drag the pic to the desktop. I use PS to alter anything else that can't be fixed through iPhoto.
marissaaa said:
Not ever having experience with Aperture, it seems to me that people only really use it as a more advanced version of iPhoto for organisation and selection. Aperture only really seems to be useful if you have a big workflow. Given that when I've gone out before I've ended up taking 100's of photos of one subject (when at the beginning I only intended taking a few), I'm thinking of getting Aperture when I get my Macbook. Although I'll see how iPhoto goes first (£138 is a lot of money!!).
efoto said:Let me know what you think. Alternate opinions are great so I'm eager to hear your thoughts, pros/cons, for both Ap and LR.
I really admire your work by the way, wonderful images
Thank you! I am happiest when I have a camera in hand...
FleurDuMal said:
Aperture's main selling point is RAW handling, as well as size, but mainly RAW. I found that when I imported .NEF files from my D70 (6MP RAW images) iPhoto was awful, completely bogged down and unresponsive. Aperture was better, but Lightroom is even better in my opinion. I have a decently extensive library when you count all my images (all .CR2 Canon RAW files) and Lightroom runs VERY well on my 12" PowerBook, that says something to me....lovely RAW handling is great
Oh, for reference iPhoto did seem to bog down once the given library went over 1k jpg's too, at least I found that.
Clix Pix said:
I'm happy when you have a camera in hand too, or at least once you've had it in hand and then a little time out-of-hand to post the images
efoto said:I'm happy when you have a camera in hand too, or at least once you've had it in hand and then a little time out-of-hand to post the images
I MUCH prefer shooting to post-processing/editing! I am waaay behind on the PP but definitely am happy to share images with people here!I am an...well, I'd say intermidiate photographer and I love Aperture. I plan to purchase it right after I get my iMac as it won't run well on my iBook G4. But that is the only thing holding me back. The RAW image quality is said to be amazing and VERY fast!
Clix Pix said:
WHAT? I have used my own library structure from the beginning. The main reason I use Aperture over iPhoto is that ability (the latest version of iPhoto will let you setup your own directory structure, but it didn't when I bought Aperture). The flexibility of the projects and albums lets you organize your photos anyway you want and you don't have to search through cryptic directories looking for an image if you don't want to open Aperture to find a photo (unlike earlier versions of iPhoto).