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.
New Aperture 4 announcement for June 10th?
- Thread starter Razeus
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple updated the Aperture SDK. I don't think they would do that unless they were preparing for an update. Probably with the new MaPro release?
https://developer.apple.com/library...w.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40013286-CH3-SW1
https://developer.apple.com/library...w.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40013286-CH3-SW1
Second that!
Well said, and how so true!
Sure, CC doesn't suit me but I am getting Aperture and Lightroom, as stated, if LR goes to CC only, will reassess if that time comes
....Gary
Well said, and how so true!
Sure, CC doesn't suit me but I am getting Aperture and Lightroom, as stated, if LR goes to CC only, will reassess if that time comes
....Gary
But how do we quantify it? Isn't this somewhat subjective?
"...For years Ive said that Aperture and Adobes RAW converters are both good but different. I can no longer say that they are on par. With Lightroom 4.0, Adobe has released a raw converter that does a much better job converting files with low noise and accurate color than does the current converter from Aperture..."
From here.
Yes. It's very subjective. Scott's famous rant aside, in the end it's about getting an image you're happy with. It's illustrative to look at an image through multiple RAW converters, such as C1, DXO, ASP, ACR, Apple's DCR. Depending on the image, you may be happy more with C1 than ACR, ACR than DCR, or whatever.
For example, if I have a tough image with a lot of blown highlights, I like to run it through C1 because I can recover somewhat better there, more easily, for my tastes, than the others. Or another example is I happen to like the skin tones I get from DCR out of the box. Go figure. Others will feel differently.
Subjectivity is a huge part of the equation.
Scott's most recent temper tantrum has been a switch from Mac to Windows. Anyone want to follow him down that road?
FWIW, Apple recently released an updated SDK for Aperture. The major changes to it include the use of XCode 4.4 and support for OS X 10.7.5 (OS X Lion) or later. Apple hasn't updated the SDK since ver. 2.1. Yes, this does mean that Apple is working on an (major) update to Aperture.
Scott's most recent temper tantrum has been a switch from Mac to Windows. Anyone want to follow him down that road?
Scott's somewhat of a cranky, old, blowhard, in addition to being a good photographer. He will change his mind about many things on a whim, and then change back again. I've heard him recommend a certain product one week, swearing it's the best ever, then trash it the next week. He's all over the map, then gets mad when people call him on it. Take this post, for example:
http://photofocus.com/2013/06/16/everyone-is-capable-of-making-photographs-that-matter-if/
All this makes for good drama and a bit of voyeristic fun, but in the end he's just another voice out there with opinions. Consider how many times he uses "I" in his posts. Clearly, it's all about him and his opinions. And that's ok since Photofocus is his blog.
Given his track record, I will bet money that once the new Mac Pro comes out, he will switch back to Apple.
But I digress..... Based on the recent evidence, I believe Apple is working on a new version of Aperture, and I hope it comes out before the end of 2013. The current version works fine for me, but I'd really like to have an update.
Our Scott's tantrums rival my neighbor's two year old, though presumably he doesn't wet his diapers as often. And despite the extreme cost in changing platforms, workflow and the like, his images still retain his normal quality. So it goes to show us what matters and...what doesn't
.
Don't get distracted!
My point was not to inject some "controversial" figure's opinion, into the conversation...
The point was simply that claiming, "For the conversion, Aperture is more accurate, plain & simple" is misleading. There is no standardized metric for "accuracy" of Raw conversion. It's a preference.
For every person that touts the Raw conversion in one app / platform, there's another person that will champion the conversion of another. That's the only thing that's 'plain & simple' about all of this.
My point was not to inject some "controversial" figure's opinion, into the conversation...
The point was simply that claiming, "For the conversion, Aperture is more accurate, plain & simple" is misleading. There is no standardized metric for "accuracy" of Raw conversion. It's a preference.
For every person that touts the Raw conversion in one app / platform, there's another person that will champion the conversion of another. That's the only thing that's 'plain & simple' about all of this.
Hi soulbot. It's a fair question, but accuracy isn't subjective. You take a photo, run the RAW file through each converter on a properly calibrated screen and see which one looks more like the original scene. The important distinction here is that I'm not talking about preference - I'm simply talking about trying to get as close to facsimile as possible, so there's nothing subjective about it.
This doesn't mean the most accurate image will look the best. The less accurate image may have more saturation, contrast, and punch which most people will prefer. That's absolutely fine, however THAT is completely subjective. Similarly, you may prefer a black & white image over the same photo in colour, but there is no question that the colour file more accurately represents what you actually saw with your own eyes. (I realise this is an extreme example, and don't say it to be flippant - I'm just trying to clarify what I meant in my previous post. I don't say aperture's converstion is more acccurate because I prefer it - to suggest one is "better" simply because that's the one I like would be sheer arrogance.)
To say I want an accurate raw conversion is not to say I want the final image that I deliver to a client to be "accurate" - I'll usually retouch it to have more vibrance and contrast than the original scene did. However I want the raw conversion itself to be as accurate as possible so I'm making my Photoshop edits from the best possible starting point.
----------
Hi,
While I don't agree that accuracy is subjective, I think everything else you've said here sums it up perfectly! It's about the end results. Different people want different results and will need different tools to get them. There is no "one size fits all" solution, so we should all just be glad there's such a wide range of amazing software to choose from.
A bit off-topic, but this RAW discussion leads me to wonder: With the ubiquity of Lightroom, why isn't every camera manufacturer building their own camera color profiles for their bodies?
I know it can vary from unit to unit but I would think they would be in the best position to do this.
Watching Lightroom suck the life out my X100S previews makes me sad. Wish there was a better way to keep the film emulation presets but stick with RAW. VSCO helps, but I would just like to match the camera's JPEGs as a starting point rather than start from scratch.
I know it can vary from unit to unit but I would think they would be in the best position to do this.
Watching Lightroom suck the life out my X100S previews makes me sad. Wish there was a better way to keep the film emulation presets but stick with RAW. VSCO helps, but I would just like to match the camera's JPEGs as a starting point rather than start from scratch.
Last edited:
Hi fivedots. Bear in mind that a raw file is not an image - it's simply information about what the camera saw at the time of capture. The raw converters have to then interpret this information to generate a visible image from it.
Personally, I use nikon cameras and I think the only way to get the raw files to appear exactly the same as the jpegs is to use Nikon's own "Capture NX2" software. It would make sense that the algorithm they use to convert the info from the raw file in their software matches the algorithm in the camera so produces the same results. However third party software doesn't have access to the algorithms the camera companies use, and as long as they continue to produce their own raw software, the camera companies are unlikely to share them.
I have also heard rumours in the past that each camera manufacturer hides certain information inside the raw file on purpose that only their own raw converters can access. I don't know if this is true, but it would mean any other raw converters were simply guessing about some of the information while the manufacturer's own software could unlock all the info to create their image.
Have you tried using Fuji's own raw converter / the "Myfinepix Studio" software? That might let you shoot in raw, but keep the liveliness of your camera's film emulation presets.
The problem with that argument is that you don't compare RAW converters this way. In most cases a stock conversion from RAW will look unremarkable and flat. I wouldn't even say »accurate«. Starting from this stock conversion, you have to add your own edits every step of the way. If you compare a stock RAW conversion to an in-camera jpg conversion, you'll notice that the jpg is in almost all cases a lot sharper. That's exactly as it should be, because sharpening is one of the very last steps you do in the RAW development process since if done too early, it can introduce additional artifacts.
How you get from the stock RAW conversion to the output involves a lot of subjective steps, and since different RAW converters have »different sliders«, you can't just use the same settings for different RAW converters. What makes it even more difficult is that every RAW converter handles certain situations better than others.
And I would also add that you don't have to use the same RAW converter all the time. Some photographers use Aperture or Lightroom to organize their photos and get a rough edit, but then switch to the camera's RAW converter for the »final« conversion. For instance, you could use Aperture for organizing, rough editing and making books, but send the RAW file to Photoshop (which uses the same Adobe Camera RAW as Lightroom) for that one critical image. So I don't think people need to switch away from the DAM software of choice just because of the RAW converter.
… and that's really to the detriment of the user. I'd really love if camera manufacturers work with Adobe, Apple and whoever to build better software. I've never heard of a camera manufacturer's RAW converter being a better piece of software than Aperture or Lightroom. I used to regularly curse the people who wrote Sigma's RAW converter software, it's so clunky that it takes significantly longer time to do what I want to do. Handling a single file usually isn't that bad, but they fail big time when you need to edit many files.
Why camera manufacturers think it's advantageous to encrypt RAW files and hide features is beyond me, they should clearly do the opposite. I think Fuji did the opposite to help improve support for its X-trans software I thank them for it, because I can use Aperture to convert my new Fuji X100s' RAW files in Aperture directly!
Hi OreoCookie - great response. I completely agree with nearly everything you've said.
Apologies for the long post guys.
Yes, that's true. I actually want my images to be as flat as possible in the raw converter so I can add contrast & sharpening in photoshop. With regards to "accuracy", I understand that it's a hard word to justify. One example I've come across on several occasions is to do with gradations in skies - often Lightroom creates a colour-shift over areas of very fine gradation (such as a slight yellowing of the sky where it meets the horizon). This was not present in the scene I was looking at and isn't something that I can dial out using sliders. Opening the same raw file in aperture gives a more natural lightening of the blue sky as it nears the horizon with no yellowing - I'm not saying it's perfect, but it's certainly closer to what my eyes saw. Similar anomalies can be seen between highlights and shadows in clothing- occasionally in pastel colours you can notice that the colour actually changes slightly between the light and dark areas (as opposed to simply getting lighter or darker). The issue here is that I can't fix the problems in the programme that created them.
Completely agree! I always turn off sharpening completely in my raw converters because they're ALL awful at it. The masks they use are far too contrasty so it's almost like your sharpening is being applied through the "plastic wrap" filter.
Absolutely! Each raw converter has it's strengths and weaknesses - there isn't one that's the "best". And you've hit the nail on the head regarding all the subjective steps needed to create a final image - that's all part of being artistic with your images. My issue is when Adobe/Apple/Phase1/Nikon/Canon take it upon themselves to be creative on my behalf and then not let me dial out their edits.
Unfortunately, yes, it is. I think competition is a good thing as it keeps each of the developers on their toes, but the camera manufacturers' software is generally regarded to offer a poorer user experience (not my opinion as I don't use them - just the impression I get from the people who do. Some will obviously like the camera makers' software and that's great). I think a happy-medium would be if the camera manufacturers made plugins which could be used inside the main raw converters. That would still give them an income and would mean they didn't have to divulge all their secrets if they didn't want to.
Apologies for the long post guys.
I have several thousand photographs managed under iPhoto and looking to upgrade to Aperture. It's nothing urgent, just a natural upgrade which I would eventually like to do. If I were to buy Aperture now, when the "new" one finally comes out, will it be a "free" upgrade, an incremental "upgrade" charge (i.e. Lion -> Mountain Lion), or a full new purchase? I understand that no one can predict the future, and I'm certainly not asking you to. But, if someone could take a reasonably educated guess based on empirical knowledge or otherwise, that will certainly help my decision of when to purchase. Finally, thanks for anyone who can offer some insight... it wasn't worth creating a new thread, so apologies to anyone who thinks I have hijacked or otherwise
Thanks for the reply! Yes, I am aware of how RAW images work and that the manufacturer's software is likely the best way to extract an image that looks closest to the JPEG previews. But we all know that injected the usually clumsy, slow software into our workflows is like adding razorblades to cereal.
I'm just surprised with how popular Lightroom is that manufacturer's wouldn't embrace it a bit more. They have no incentive to keep us using their proprietary software, we've already given them our money. Would love to see a world where Lightroom can fully interpret the JPEG settings instead of guessing. A guy can dream!
Previously it never bothered me but with the X100S JPEGs being so nice and the film emulation being a lot of fun, it almost seems silly to be spending time in Lightroom to get a RAW image back to where it matches the JPEG.
Right now there is no way for Apple to sell upgrades for apps on the App Store currently. If you're going to use Aperture now buy it, if not, wait until you're ready to use it.I have several thousand photographs managed under iPhoto and looking to upgrade to Aperture. It's nothing urgent, just a natural upgrade which I would eventually like to do. If I were to buy Aperture now, when the "new" one finally comes out, will it be a "free" upgrade, an incremental "upgrade" charge (i.e. Lion -> Mountain Lion), or a full new purchase? I understand that no one can predict the future, and I'm certainly not asking you to. But, if someone could take a reasonably educated guess based on empirical knowledge or otherwise, that will certainly help my decision of when to purchase. Finally, thanks for anyone who can offer some insight... it wasn't worth creating a new thread, so apologies to anyone who thinks I have hijacked or otherwise
There is only one price for OS X because Apple only needs to sell at upgrade pricing.
@swordio777
Thanks for your kind words, I also understood what you're aiming for and if people drop the attitude that »there can only be one« (RAW converter/piece of software/tool), they'll have a much easier time.
@fivedots
I agree with you, if you like Fuji's film simulation modes, you save yourself a ton of work if you just shoot jpg. If you expose properly, the camera produces stunning results in about any situation.
@theEconomist
There have been indications before that Apple would release a new version of Aperture (e. g. Amazon accidentally »announced«*Aperture 4/Aperture X books), but that was a while ago. To me it looks as if Apple is rewriting Aperture from the ground up similar to Final Cut Pro. This also fits with the release of the new Mac Pro which has a considerable amount of GPU horse power (only one GPU is connected to the graphics ports), computing power most current apps cannot make use of.
So if I were you, I'd just pull the trigger and buy Aperture. I think there is a good chance for Apple to release Aperture together with the new Mac Pro in the fall. That's my prediction anyway.
Thanks for your kind words, I also understood what you're aiming for and if people drop the attitude that »there can only be one« (RAW converter/piece of software/tool), they'll have a much easier time.
@fivedots
I agree with you, if you like Fuji's film simulation modes, you save yourself a ton of work if you just shoot jpg. If you expose properly, the camera produces stunning results in about any situation.
@theEconomist
There have been indications before that Apple would release a new version of Aperture (e. g. Amazon accidentally »announced«*Aperture 4/Aperture X books), but that was a while ago. To me it looks as if Apple is rewriting Aperture from the ground up similar to Final Cut Pro. This also fits with the release of the new Mac Pro which has a considerable amount of GPU horse power (only one GPU is connected to the graphics ports), computing power most current apps cannot make use of.
So if I were you, I'd just pull the trigger and buy Aperture. I think there is a good chance for Apple to release Aperture together with the new Mac Pro in the fall. That's my prediction anyway.
Many thanks to the both of you. I'm leaning towards buying it now. But heck, for the sake of £50... I won't put too much thought into it
Cheers.I'm trying to convince myself to do this. It does seem silly to invest processing time to get an image back to match an image I could already have.
My preference is to use OOC JPEG with my X-Pro 1 when with the family taking candid photos and such. For my art, it's RAW.
Shooting RAW only makes sense to me if you want to use the latitude that gives you during edits. However, if you expose properly and you're happy with the custom film simulation conversion of your choice, shooting RAW gives you no advantages and just yields more work.
Does your camera shoot raw + jpeg? It would mean you'd fit fewer images on a card, but you could just use the jpeg 99% of the time and still have access to the raw file that other 1% when you really want to make dramatic edits.
Last edited: