Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Still no Aperture 4!

Could not be happier!!!

I was one of the many who came here over the past 2 years looking for any information on an Aperture release. Then I "woke" up and converted to Lightroom 5 late last year and OMG is it awesome! I will NEVER go back there is really no basis of comparison. IMO if you want to work with images, use software made by a company that specializes in image manipulation. I have 10's of thousands of photographs - the conversion was not that hard - just do it.
 
There is no update and now there is no free trial for the current version. I have just moved from Windows to OSX and will either opt for LR or Aperture. Looks like LR will win as at least I can try before I buy. Not so with Aperture.:confused:
 
rebby said:
Then, $29.99, etc, etc. That's the exact reason that I haven't not signed up for CC. If they locked you in at $9.99/mo with no "deadline", I'd have signed up long ago. As it sits though, I'm doing just fine w/Aperture and CS6 so I'm not going the CC route since there is no indication of what future pricing looks like.
Click to expand...

$9.99 is a sweet spot and that's why I bought it, after comparing the prices of CS3, CS4, CS5, CS6, LR2, LR3, LR4.

With all the money I paid for those softwares, I'm better of at $9.99 a month, that's for sure.

If they raise it, I still have the option of going elsewhere.
 
Razeus said:
$9.99 is a sweet spot and that's why I bought it, after comparing the prices of CS3, CS4, CS5, CS6, LR2, LR3, LR4.

With all the money I paid for those softwares, I'm better of at $9.99 a month, that's for sure.

If they raise it, I still have the option of going elsewhere.
Click to expand...

True, BUT, at that point you can't keep what you'd been using previously. Once you go the CC route, there is no going back. I don't use Lightroom but can you open a Lightroom CC library in Lightroom 5? I know that you can't do that with Aperture. The same is true for Photoshop (depending on the exact adjustments that you use). If you use a CC feature in PS, good luck "downgrading" to CS6.

For now anyway, I'm just going to stick w/CS6. I'd rather spend $150/year (about what I was spending on Photoshop upgrades) and OWN the software than give Adobe $120/year and HOPE that they'll let me open my images at some later date if I decide not to extend my subscription. At least when I was buying the software, I could make the decision from version to version, with CC it's all or none.

That's how I'm understanding the current model from Adobe anyway. Is this incorrect? If I buy into CC today and decide to cancel at the end of year, do I get to keep and continue to use whatever version of PS/LR I had when I canceled so that I can continue to open/view my images?
 
rebby said:
I don't use Lightroom but can you open a Lightroom CC library in Lightroom 5? I know that you can't do that with Aperture. The same is true for Photoshop (depending on the exact adjustments that you use). If you use a CC feature in PS, good luck "downgrading" to CS6.
Click to expand...
Adobe CC uses the latest version of the standard Adobe applications. So, yes - stand-alone Lightroom 5 will open Lightroom "CC" (5) libraries. Same is true for PS.

If I buy into CC today and decide to cancel at the end of year, do I get to keep and continue to use whatever version of PS/LR I had when I canceled so that I can continue to open/view my images?
Click to expand...
No. The software will no longer open due to the license check. However, there is nothing stopping you from opening a PSD in another application. And your library of files still contain your original images. Nothing is really lost. It would be best to export the edited images into a format you can open with another application before canceling...
 
What plugins are available for Capture One...Nik, Topaz, OnOneSoftware? At least moving from Aperture to LR you can likely get the same set of plugins for both.
 
rebby said:
True, BUT, at that point you can't keep what you'd been using previously. Once you go the CC route, there is no going back. I don't use Lightroom but can you open a Lightroom CC library in Lightroom 5? I know that you can't do that with Aperture. The same is true for Photoshop (depending on the exact adjustments that you use). If you use a CC feature in PS, good luck "downgrading" to CS6.

For now anyway, I'm just going to stick w/CS6. I'd rather spend $150/year (about what I was spending on Photoshop upgrades) and OWN the software than give Adobe $120/year and HOPE that they'll let me open my images at some later date if I decide not to extend my subscription. At least when I was buying the software, I could make the decision from version to version, with CC it's all or none.

That's how I'm understanding the current model from Adobe anyway. Is this incorrect? If I buy into CC today and decide to cancel at the end of year, do I get to keep and continue to use whatever version of PS/LR I had when I canceled so that I can continue to open/view my images?
Click to expand...

I think you are confused. First, this is no Lightroom CC. It's just Lightroom 5, that comes along in the subscription. If I cancel CC, I can simply buy LR 5 and everything still works. So yes, I'll still be able to open my files.

I'm not sure if you know, but jpeg and tiff files can be opened in many programs. I don't need Adobe to open them if I don't want to use their products anymore.

After I process my RAW, I make an export for a 16-bit .tiff and the full resolution .jpeg. I have no use for the RAW file after that so they just get archived. I'm not the type to keep re-processing RAW files, I have better things to do than sit in front of my computer wondering if I have the right shade of red. I rather be out taking photos.

So again, the file formats I use are universal that are opened and supported by every imaging program. My files aren't held captive by Adobe, as some would have you believe.
 
mydarkroom said:
Rest assured that Aperture is alive. Back in August I wrote a post about that. I would hate to change all my workflow to find a new version just a few months after.
Click to expand...

Good article. I would like to agree, but it is getting harder and harder to keep the faith with every passing month without any new features. Thank goodness for NIK or I would leave Aperture behind. My only fear is that Apple actually does update Aperture, breaks support for NIK in the process, and then NIK either abandons support for Aperture or takes their own sweet time making it work with the new Aperture. Of course, if Aperture actually adopted some of NIKs features, that would be even better, but my hopes for that got flushed when Google acquired NIK.

----------
MCAsan said:
What plugins are available for Capture One...Nik, Topaz, OnOneSoftware? At least moving from Aperture to LR you can likely get the same set of plugins for both.
Click to expand...

If I leave Aperture for Capture One, I would use Photoshop and NIK there for those photos that needed it.
 
I consider Aperture & LR to be DAMs... which primary purpose is to organize my photo library. In my experience... Aperture is miles ahead of LR. So while LR adds minor editing features... it is still a "dressed up pig" when it comes to organization. Just my opinion... as I feel like it is a clunky program.

Then... with either LR or Aperture... any editing capabilities are just "nice to have" features. Both are pretty good. Both require a round trip to an external editor for some (for me, usually a small percentage) of photos. For this, I use NIK for my top ~2% and CS6 for ~0.01% of my photos. That wouldn't change if I was using LR or A3.

So, I would remain with Aperture 3 even if its editing functions were never upgraded. I wouldn't care if LR was up to LR99; I suspect that it would still be a substandard organization program compared to Aperture. From experience, new LR versions seem to focus on editing features... without fixing it basic clunky interface. Of course, this is all my personal humble opinion. YMMV.

Personally, I think A3 is enough reason to switch from a PC to a Mac.

/Jim
 
Razeus said:
Talk about a pointless article. She just regurgitated everything we already knew. Must be slow over at Macworld UK.
Click to expand...

Agree, nothing substantial on that report.

----------
VirtualRain said:
This is getting a bit ridiculous. Both FCPX and Logic X got overhauled recently and some updates in the last couple of days to take advantage of the new Mac Pro hardware. But not a peep about Aperture. Perhaps it's still coming, but I'm really starting to lose faith. :(
Click to expand...

Don't loose faith.
 
Last edited:
flynz4 said:
I consider Aperture & LR to be DAMs...

(snip)

Personally, I think A3 is enough reason to switch from a PC to a Mac.

/Jim
Click to expand...

Exactly my sentiment in all respects, despite cutting out most of the quote for brevity.

That said, I wouldn't mind improved/added editing functions, but that's firmly in the "nice to have" territory. I'd take DAM and workflow enhancements over editing any day...but I also don't have many in mind.

And *that* said, I'm pretty sure that's not the voice of the market. I think the market sees the growing gap in editing capabilities, and that's where Apple needs to shore things up with Aperture.

OTOH, I don't think Adobe will focus on significant DAM changes.
 
While I'm just an amateur and don't make a living with my photography, I guess I don't fully grasp all the hand wringing over this topic. I've been using Aperture 3 for over 2 years and I'm *still* finding new ways to make my pictures look better through it. I'm consistently the champion of, and first adapter for, new technology (particularly software and OSes), but it's taken me so long to get a workflow and storage/organization method that I like for my photos that I'd be hard pressed to usurp it all and switch to another platform just because the knobs are prettier.

I'm sure I'm over-simplifying the differences, but I suppose that's reflective of my point - what, exactly, is LR or a perceived Aperture 4 offering that's so substantially superior to Aperture 3 to warrant this being a consistent complaint from the community? From a philosophical standpoint, ok sure it feels like Apple is neglecting their rather large photography fan base, but from a practical perspective, what is it exactly that we're missing out on? When Aperture 4 comes out, I'll upgrade. Until then, Aperture 3 works great, it keeps my photos organized, I have a workflow with it that I like, and it does a great job with PP on my RAW images.

$.02: deposited.
 
Guessing the issue of people “whining” about an update is they see the majority of Apple’s other software/apps updated. The other Apple Pro apps were updated. Lightroom has updated...and Aperture is “still on Version 3”

One POSITIVE in all this is those still using Aperture have not had to PURCHASE a new version. We still get free upgrades.

I use Aperture 3 (latest) and like it. I suppose reading what Lightroom offers, having things like this added to Aperture would be a good thing. I’ve told my brother about Aperture and told him he should get it...but since it has been so long, surely Apple will release a new Version # with more bells and whistles. So I said maybe hold off...especially since he is going to buy a new Mac (well, that has been a while on the “soon” department too).

So, I like Aperture. I love the way it handles Photo sorting (DAM) and love how I can copy and paste onto multiple images, LOVE the Presets I can use/create; LOVE the fine-tuning of settings as opposed to +1/+2/+3 style of iPhoto.

Now, I would LOVE for Version for to somehow work with the iPad. Perhaps let me view and star/delete/keyword/etc on the iPad. Maybe make adjustments, knowing I can always continue to adjust them on the main computer.
 
kelub said:
While I'm just an amateur and don't make a living with my photography, I guess I don't fully grasp all the hand wringing over this topic. I've been using Aperture 3 for over 2 years and I'm *still* finding new ways to make my pictures look better through it. I'm consistently the champion of, and first adapter for, new technology (particularly software and OSes), but it's taken me so long to get a workflow and storage/organization method that I like for my photos that I'd be hard pressed to usurp it all and switch to another platform just because the knobs are prettier.

I'm sure I'm over-simplifying the differences, but I suppose that's reflective of my point - what, exactly, is LR or a perceived Aperture 4 offering that's so substantially superior to Aperture 3 to warrant this being a consistent complaint from the community? From a philosophical standpoint, ok sure it feels like Apple is neglecting their rather large photography fan base, but from a practical perspective, what is it exactly that we're missing out on? When Aperture 4 comes out, I'll upgrade. Until then, Aperture 3 works great, it keeps my photos organized, I have a workflow with it that I like, and it does a great job with PP on my RAW images.

$.02: deposited.
Click to expand...

I agree that Aperture is not broken... it does work great with what it can do. It's what it can't do that's the problem. For example, How do you correct lens distortion? What about high-ISO noise reduction? These are just a couple of basic capabilities that a lot of photographers need that Aperture lacks. Of course, we have plugins to do these things in Aperture, but they are more time consuming and create extremely large TIFFs in the process.

I don't like Lightroom for a number of reasons, it's UI, the way it renders my 5D3 RAW files out of the box, and it's highlights and shadows sliders, which is why I won't switch to LR (although that hasn't stopped a lot of people).
 
kelub said:
While I'm just an amateur and don't make a living with my photography, I guess I don't fully grasp all the hand wringing over this topic. I've been using Aperture 3 for over 2 years and I'm *still* finding new ways to make my pictures look better through it. I'm consistently the champion of, and first adapter for, new technology (particularly software and OSes), but it's taken me so long to get a workflow and storage/organization method that I like for my photos that I'd be hard pressed to usurp it all and switch to another platform just because the knobs are prettier.

I'm sure I'm over-simplifying the differences, but I suppose that's reflective of my point - what, exactly, is LR or a perceived Aperture 4 offering that's so substantially superior to Aperture 3 to warrant this being a consistent complaint from the community? From a philosophical standpoint, ok sure it feels like Apple is neglecting their rather large photography fan base, but from a practical perspective, what is it exactly that we're missing out on? When Aperture 4 comes out, I'll upgrade. Until then, Aperture 3 works great, it keeps my photos organized, I have a workflow with it that I like, and it does a great job with PP on my RAW images.

$.02: deposited.
Click to expand...

1) new RAW processing engine
2) lens corrections
3) healing brush/spot removal
4) better noise reduction
5) better sharpening settings
6) updated UI (and please stop hiding all the "bars")
7) tuned for outright speed using the GPU

As for as organizing and DAM, the both work pretty much the same, just named differently.

I do like the way Aperture handles RAW+JPEG and choosing which one serves as the "Master" that you see. Sometimes, my Fuji files look great in JPEG, but sometimes, I need some RAW editing. Lightroom really needs this, as my workflow forces me to have 2 separate sub-folders for RAW and JPEG.

I also like Aperture's M button for seeing the processed photo or the edited photo.
 
kelub said:
While I'm just an amateur and don't make a living with my photography, I guess I don't fully grasp all the hand wringing over this topic. I've been using Aperture 3 for over 2 years and I'm *still* finding new ways to make my pictures look better through it. I'm consistently the champion of, and first adapter for, new technology (particularly software and OSes), but it's taken me so long to get a workflow and storage/organization method that I like for my photos that I'd be hard pressed to usurp it all and switch to another platform just because the knobs are prettier.

I'm sure I'm over-simplifying the differences, but I suppose that's reflective of my point - what, exactly, is LR or a perceived Aperture 4 offering that's so substantially superior to Aperture 3 to warrant this being a consistent complaint from the community? From a philosophical standpoint, ok sure it feels like Apple is neglecting their rather large photography fan base, but from a practical perspective, what is it exactly that we're missing out on? When Aperture 4 comes out, I'll upgrade. Until then, Aperture 3 works great, it keeps my photos organized, I have a workflow with it that I like, and it does a great job with PP on my RAW images.

$.02: deposited.
Click to expand...

My attitude exactly. I'm a relatively new Aperture user, 6 months, and it's handling everything I want it to do. It was an easy upgrade from iPhoto. It will probably take me another year to get over half the power out of it.

The one feature that I think would be very welcome is a multi-user version so a family could share a consolidated library.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back