Aperture - Useful for more than RAW?

[goMac]

So disclaimer here... I work in the video industry with Final Cut Pro and After Effects, but I've traditionally done very little work with photos...

I picked up a very nice point and shoot camera, and I was thinking about picking up a copy of Aperture for home (I have it at work.) The thing is, my camera isn't a RAW camera, so I'm wondering if it would just be a waste of money... iPhoto has been working fine for me kind of... but in since I'm more in the pro industry, I thought I might feel more at home in Aperture.

Is Aperture a complete waste to use with a point and shoot? I've got a PowerShot SD970, so while it's no DLSR, it's still on the high end of point and shoots.

 

[gr8tfly]

I don't think it'd be a waste at all. Everything works the same for non-RAW (except, of course, those adjustments which are confined to RAW). You still get all the non-destructive editing, and all of the organizational features. I use it for my DSLR, point & shoot, and even iPhone.

 

[pdxflint]

You can use all those Nik software plug-ins with Aperture for some nifty editing of your images... having said that, I'm also trying to figure out which advanced photo (above iPhoto or Picasa) applications to use, and am having some trouble understanding what the "winning" points of Aperture are when compared to Lightroom, and with the plug-ins, why would I need Photoshop, since I'm only a photographer, not a graphic artist/designer.

 

[Ruahrc]

Photoshop can still be of use beyond Aperture/Lightroom if you have need of more advanced manipulations. For example, PS has the ability to correct perspective on images, as well as stitch Panoramas or create HDR merges. Its control of local editing is still much greater than AA (Apple Aperture) or LR. Also if you become more advanced it also has the ability to do things like work in LAB color space, and work in layers which is great when compositing or blending exposures, etc. I don't use PS often but sometimes I do require the more advanced editing capabilities of PS even though I don't use it at all for graphic design type of things either.

FWIW I use LR instead of AA. I tried both out and found I liked the workflow and UI of LR much better. Neither program is "better" than the other really, but instead you will just have to see which one fits your workflow/workstyle the best not too unlike choosing a camera brand.

Ruahrc

 

[goMac]

Is anyone really missing some of the iPhoto features like facial recognition?

 

[FrankieTDouglas]

Is anyone really missing some of the iPhoto features like facial recognition?

Just because you work in the professional video/film industry, does not automatically advance you beyond the amateur still market.

If you're just wanting to keep your files organized, iphoto is fine.

 

[iTiki]

I started using Aperture before taking photos in RAW. The tools were very useful with JPEG and the organizational system works very well. It was then a very easy transition to using RAW for more advanced editing. I now use PS as a plugin to Aperture for the tools Aperture does not yet offer. Be sure to check out the Topaz Labs plugins for Aperture, too. They also work on JPEGs.

 

[ChrisA]

So disclaimer here... I work in the video industry with Final Cut Pro and After Effects, but I've traditionally done very little work with photos...

I picked up a very nice point and shoot camera, and I was thinking about picking up a copy of Aperture for home (I have it at work.) The thing is, my camera isn't a RAW camera, so I'm wondering if it would just be a waste of money... iPhoto has been working fine for me kind of... but in since I'm more in the pro industry, I thought I might feel more at home in Aperture.

Is Aperture a complete waste to use with a point and shoot? I've got a PowerShot SD970, so while it's no DLSR, it's still on the high end of point and shoots.

Aperture is a lot like iPhoto. But it allows more kinds of Meta data to be entered and stored and it allows more kinds of adjustments.

Both iPhoto and Aperture can handle RAW and JPG files. Both of them try and treat these file type the same. So you can do the same things to your jpg as your raw files. But of course there is lless range for adjustment inthe jpg files.

You can download a free 30-day evaluation of Aperture and try it out. Aperture will directly import an iPhoto library. But note that the imported library will not be organized the same as if you have downloaded from the camera. The importer keep iPhotos "events".

 

[anubis]

Aperture has a 30 day free trial, as well as lots of tutorial videos that explain how it works. Try it for 30 days. If by that point you're still not seeing or understanding the benefits of Aperture, then you are not Aperture's target audience and you should stick with iPhoto.