Switching from Iphoto to Aperture

[May14th1983]

Hi all
some help needed
i am currently switching from Iphoto to Aperture and would like some tips in getting a few photos onto my "web gallery" on dot mac, straight from Aperture.
I am sure there is a simple way to achieve this, but i am struggling to find it

any tips will be gratefully received

thanks in advance

 

[ups757pf]

In aperture, select the pics in a project you want in the web gallery then choose "new from selection/web gallery" in the file menu. You'll have different layouts to display the gallery.

 

[May14th1983]

Yes, thanks for that, but how do i then get it on to Web Gallery on .Mac

 

[davinche]

Yes, thanks for that, but how do i then get it on to Web Gallery on .Mac

Easiest way I have found to do this is to use the Show Aperture Library in iPhoto and import the album I want to turn into a web gallery and post it through iPhoto. It requires manual updates if you update the album in Aperture but I have found this to be the easiest way. Aperture only posts to homepage.mac.com and not gallery.mac.com.

 

[Digital Skunk]

If you have a .Mac account just export the gallery to .Mac then link it to a page you make in iWeb or in your homepage.

I know that the new iPhoto has Flash galleries and all but that's about the easiest way to do it as far as I know.

Or you could just rebuild your album from what the other poster said.

 

[davinche]

Aperture 2.0 released today does publish to gallery.mac.com, and it is available as a $99 upgrade, or if you purchased Aperture after Jan 1, 2008, you can get the upgrade for $9.95.

 

[rogersmj]

Aperture looks very cool, but I'd appreciate it if someone could explain to me in layman's terms (maybe with an example?) of what exactly it can do for me over iPhoto. I can expense it if I can justify it, but I'm just getting into photography and I don't quite understand how Aperture could improve my workflow.

 

[joseph2166]

Aperture looks very cool, but I'd appreciate it if someone could explain to me in layman's terms (maybe with an example?) of what exactly it can do for me over iPhoto. I can expense it if I can justify it, but I'm just getting into photography and I don't quite understand how Aperture could improve my workflow.

Well it allows you to organise your photos much more effectively (keywords for example are ten times better than in iPhoto. It also allows for much greater editing in terms of what you can do (although its not photoshop and isn't trying to be - Aperture edits photos as in a darkroom as opposed to 'photoshopping' - removing sections of the background etc.).

Personally (as an amateur myself) those are the things that make me use Aperture over iPhoto (although iPhoto IS great). There are also many small things - for example instantly previewing pictures at fullsize with one shortcut, Stacks (groups of similar pictures, or groups of one picture edited in many ways), and also the way Aperture handles pictures (making many copies of a photo will not use up more hard disk space, as the adjustments are done on the fly). Hope this is laymen enough for you!

And as already mentioned Aperture 2 adds lots of stuff, including publishing to .Mac galleries - no more exporting to iPhoto yey!

 

[ftaok]

Just a quick comment ...

You didn't mention what kind of Mac you have, but the Tech Requirements looks like it requires a dedicated video card.

So Macbooks and Mac minis are OUT.

ft

 

[princealfie]

Why switch? Just use both programs

 

[Keebler]

Why switch? Just use both programs

Hi Prince,

Ok...i just posted a msg and now i see this - how do you use both programs? I'm trying to figure out how they integrate and why one would integrate (other than for frontrow)?

Any feedback would be appreciated.

Cheers,
Keebler

 

[147798]

Just a quick comment ...

You didn't mention what kind of Mac you have, but the Tech Requirements looks like it requires a dedicated video card.

So Macbooks and Mac minis are OUT.

ft

This is not true. It makes use of the graphics card for faster processing, but does not require a card. You can download the trial version yourself, and I am running that on a MB 2.2 w/4GB RAM and a 7200RPM Hitachi 200GB drive. Aperture is performing very well w/2000+ jpeg images in the database. So, it does NOT require a graphics card for basic use.

For mrogers --
Aperture has some really cool tools (how it manages key words, the loupe tool, better red eye and other photo adjustments. Also the way it presents full screen edit mode, with the floating inspector is REALLY cool) but most everything you want to do with basic photo development can be done w/iPhoto. I also noticed that the recent iPhoto updates have helped w/performance (especially with iPhoto issues around sharpening, noise reduction, and others).

The real strength with Aperture is in how it handles and manages changes to work shot in RAW. If you are planning on using RAW format, you won't be happy in iPhoto. Download the trials of Aperture and Lightroom to see which you like better (they are designed to do the same thing, but work in very different ways, so you have to try them both).

My take on Aperture 2.0 vs. iPhoto to date (I'm a hobbyist not a pro, and just getting into RAW): if you shoot in jpegs, then iPhoto will work for you BUT if you like toys and have money, Aperture looks like it's ready for anyone to use now and the full screen edit mode is tres cool. If you use RAW, you'll need to move to either Ap or LR. My only caveat with Ap 2.0 is that it hasn't been out long enough to be "stress-tested" in terms of performance with a big database. So, you can always trial, but you might want to monitor forums to see any feedback on performance.

For OP -- By now, you must know Ap 2.0 will do what you are looking for re:.mac, but it requires Leopard 10.5.2 and prefers better, newer hardware.

 

[ftaok]

This is not true. It makes use of the graphics card for faster processing, but does not require a card. You can download the trial version yourself, and I am running that on a MB 2.2 w/4GB RAM and a 7200RPM Hitachi 200GB drive. Aperture is performing very well w/2000+ jpeg images in the database. So, it does NOT require a graphics card for basic use.

I was only quoting Apple's systems requirements. I guess it's good that it will work on a Macbook/mini. I may look into the trial version for our MB.

ft

 

[aristobrat]

I was only quoting Apple's systems requirements. I guess it's good that it will work on a Macbook/mini. I may look into the trial version for our MB.

ft

I thought the same thing you did about the system requirements, but then noticed that it said "Recommended" on top. Weird.

 

[147798]

I was only quoting Apple's systems requirements. I guess it's good that it will work on a Macbook/mini. I may look into the trial version for our MB.

ft

I haven't done any RAW work yet. Maybe it dogs it with RAW without the video card. The tests I've run on jpegs is performing pretty nice, though I am still underwhelmed by Apples red eye tool. Lightroom does a better job a red eye reduction than iPhoto or Ap

 

[ftaok]

I haven't done any RAW work yet. Maybe it dogs it with RAW without the video card. The tests I've run on jpegs is performing pretty nice, though I am still underwhelmed by Apples red eye tool. Lightroom does a better job a red eye reduction than iPhoto or Ap

I went back to check and I did indeed read it wrong. The GMA950 and x3100 are included in the Minimum Specs, but not the Recommended Specs.

ft

 

[princealfie]

Hi Prince,

Ok...i just posted a msg and now i see this - how do you use both programs? I'm trying to figure out how they integrate and why one would integrate (other than for frontrow)?

Any feedback would be appreciated.

Cheers,
Keebler

Hi basically use iPhoto for quick edits and then aperture for fine tuning in fact... iPhoto is awesome for organization in fact lots of pix...

 

[147798]

I'm an iPhoto user. Tried LR and Ap1.5, but I thought they were too expensive at $299 and too hard to use (at least Ap1.5 was) to warrant the buy.

Having played with Ap2.0 since the moment it was announced, I have to say, I've nearly convinced myself to purchase. I can't speak as a Pro, but as an amateur, the interface is great, performance is snappy on my MB2.2, full screen editor with the HUD is fantastic, and even doing things like creating a book is much, much easier. In iPhoto, selecting the page layout in a book (e.g. from 1 pic to 4 on a single page) is somewhat simple, but honestly a little cumbersome and the response a bit slow. In Ap2 it's quick and much easier and intuitive. Additionally, organizing your library is much easier and more flexible in Ap2 than iPhoto.

For instance, in Ap2.0, the ability to mouse over events is now available but it does not FORCE you to use events as a main concept like in iPhoto. Creating folders and projects in Ap2 is much easier than creating folders in iPhoto, and you can organize easier and better in Ap2.

A couple of key tools available in Ap2.0 that aren't in iPhoto: better red-eye (where you can control the level of red eye reduction. w/iPhoto you only get one level), cloning and better spot removal, and stacks (so, if you do, say, 15 pics of the kids for holiday cards, you can stack all 15 behind the best top photo). One thing missing from Ap2 that is in iPhoto is the ability to do simple flags on photos. I use flags to mark pictures from the year that I want to put into a book or calendar. The work-around for me will be to use one start, but I liked the temporary nature of flags in iPhoto.

iPhoto is probably better for beginners, because it limits what you can do w/your photos, and keeps you more out of trouble, but if you are at all an advanced consumer, download the trial of Ap2.

It's running very well on my 4GB 2.2 MB and acceptably well on my 2GB 1.83 Intel iMac (w/ graphics card). A few beach balls on the iMac, but no show stoppers.