I figure this is the best place for this post. I just downloaded the free demo, and it works great in my blackbook. I am just starting to get into photography, and I'm not sure how to use the app. I am use to iphoto, and so far, aperture seems similar. Of course it has more options for manipulation. My question is how does it differ from photshop, and what benefits does it serve above what is offered in iphoto?
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.
Test run with Aperture Demo
- Thread starter saga
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Aperture differs fundamentally from Photoshop. Aperture and iPhoto both only allow you to make gross level adjustments to the entire image. You can brighten it, change the color or rotate the image but every command applies to the whole picture.
Photoshop and other image editors (like Gimp) allow you to change selected parts of an image. For example to blur a background or to remove a utility pole or wire.
Aperture vs. iPhoto: Aperture handles metadat much better and ofered much more control over the RAW --> JPG conversion process. It also allows for versions of an image
Do you think for an amatuer photo guy, aperture would be worth it. Or would Photoshop elements be a better choice. As a photographer, I could easily say that I don't want to manipulate the medium by getting rid of part of the pic, but I am usure of what is most beneficial to what I may want to accomplish later.
iPhoto and Photoshop elements is probably better, also check out Lightroom, it's in Beta form and is a free download from adobe, this is pretty much their version of Aperture.
http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/lightroom/
Go with (as the above poster said) Adobe Lightroom + PSE. (Photoshop Elements) That will be most beneficial, having organization/meta software as good as Aperture & the editing capabilities of PS. Download Lightroom, and see if you like it.
From what I hear, its pretty similar to Aperture. (I use Aperture so I wouldn't know
)
From what I hear, its pretty similar to Aperture. (I use Aperture so I wouldn't know
)
A Canon powershot S60. I'm sure I will get a different camera at some point, and I like to grow into what I purchase. I am liking Aperture, and maybe as I learn how to use it more, I may be able to make it useful. We'll just have to see.
If your camera shoots RAW and is not on the Aperture compatible list, then all you need do is use Image Capture to download the images from your camera to a nominated folder on your HDD. You can use Aperture to work with the images in that folder.
I say if you're just going to shoot JPEGs, then the only major benefit you'll get from Aperture or Lightroom is the handling of metadata. If you don't care about metadata or know what it is, then use iPhoto.
I would recommend you stay with iPhoto until you can list some good reasons to change. If you do decide you need to edit a photo (Yes you will want to some day. Maybe just to "tone down" a buzzy background or to clean up some skin problems you model had that day) then you can get Adobe Photoshop Elements.
Aperture requires some serious computer power and, IMO a 20" or larger screen AND some kind of monitor calibration. If you don't know why you would shoot in RAW format and calibrae your screen then you don't need Aperture. Later, Aperture can read up your iPhto library so conversion os not so painfull.
Does the S60 record in RAW format. I think Canon removed that feature from all their non DSLR cameras. To bad really. If you are shooting JPG format then Aperture is not well suited to you. It's main purpose for being to to streamline the RAW workflow for people who shot hundreds or thousands of images. It would be like buying a $500K offset press when what you need is a photocopier. Do you typically come home from a shoot with 200 or 1,000 RAW images? if not you are grossly underusing Aperture while pushing your hardware to (realistically) a Mac Pro and 23" screen. Aperture is dead slow compared to iPhoto on consumer hardware.
True. It seems that Aperture on my G5 iMac runs slower than iPhoto did on my 700 MHz eMac
I appreciate all the input. The S60 does use RAW format, as far as I understand. I have actually been fairly impressed by the way my macbook has handled aperture, and I do have another 25 days until the demo runs out. while running aperture, I have noticed that while doing some intensive work, I am using about 1.25 approx gb ram. I have 2gb. Not bad. I can hear the fans kicking in while using it, and respect that I am taxing the computer. I am still impressed with the way such a consumer notebook is handling the app. Even the graphics are good. I do not do any photo shoots, I am just a novice. I will take 1500 shots if given a week to do so, say on vacation. I love messin' around with the technology, and learning. With all that said, I think it wise to wait until aperture is truly needed, and maybe when I have a machine that will not be so taxed with the app. Thank you all for the input, it is always appreciated.
I downloaded the demo and have been playing with it a bit.
I'm liking it so far, it's nice. I don't know that it will make me start shooting RAW exclusively, but I am enjoying the program.
I still have to export to photoshop to fix blemishes and whatnot however.
I'm liking it so far, it's nice. I don't know that it will make me start shooting RAW exclusively, but I am enjoying the program.
I still have to export to photoshop to fix blemishes and whatnot however.
also been using the demo. it's cool, but I mainly shoot in jpeg as most of what i shoot goes on the web, rarely do i print something off.. and I do almost zero post-processing (manipulation of image)
I've very quickly discovered that the MBP's screen just isnt big enough for this app, you need juicy 30" ACD action....
I've very quickly discovered that the MBP's screen just isnt big enough for this app, you need juicy 30" ACD action....
now that I play with it a little more (had a bash at lunch time).. it's possibly quite useful even if you dont shoot much RAW...
the ability to cycle through hundreds of images from a shoot, and set a master image, compare other images to your master, re-set masters, stacking of images (very cool for burst shooting too)..
and so on and on...
I hope I get time to sit down within the 30 days of trial to decide if I want to buy this or not!
the ability to cycle through hundreds of images from a shoot, and set a master image, compare other images to your master, re-set masters, stacking of images (very cool for burst shooting too)..
and so on and on...
I hope I get time to sit down within the 30 days of trial to decide if I want to buy this or not!
Just so you'll know, printing with JPGs is great. I regularly have 30" prints made from my 5D files that look wonderful - and I've never shot in RAW.
^^Isn't editing a bit of a pain if shooting in JPEG? Not knowing much about the difference, I was amazed at the difference in editing ability that shooting in JPEG gave me. Well, that's not true. When I edited in JPEG in iPhoto, I thought it was great. Then I shot in RAW and used Lightroom, and thought "Wow, editing RAW in a professional level app is great!", but I still didn't notice much difference in editing ability, only that Adobe Lightroom allowed for more editing features without me going into Photoshop CS1. But after I went back to shooting JPEGs at times, I realized how much more I could do with my photos when shooting in RAW.
Apple recommends higher end G5 or CD/C2D Macs for running Aperture. Is someone using Aperture with G4 PB? Is it useable with G4?
I gave it a try for a time on my 1.5GHz Powerbook G4 15". Basic editing, such as levels, contrast, brightness, etc. were actually OK. But many things were painfully slow, such as straightening an image, or just having an image "res in" if that makes sense. Lightroom was actually quite acceptable to me on the Powerbook G4.
I now have a 2.33GHz MacBook Pro 15", and now Lightroom flies, and Aperture (which I just purchased today after a few days of trial) is quite good, performance-wise. I had been a real proponent of Lightroom over Aperture, but as I worked with Aperture more, I realized I was getting used to it, and its versioning, stacks, interaction with Adobe apps (of all things) was far beyond what Lightroom is doing. Granted Lightroom is still beta of course.
Thanks for posting the constructive review on Aperture and Lightroom. I have downloaded Lightroom Beta4 for my PB. I will stay with Aperture 1.5 for my MBP. I have watched the training DVD clips which came with Aperture. It seems it is quite user friendly app.
Just downloaded Aperture as well. I only have 1.5 GB of RAM in my MB, but it's still much much much faster than the previous version I used.
The editing features are horribly non-intuitive when compared to Lightroom, which has the best levels editing tool, and that's not just compared to Aperture. Also, simple things like rotating an image is slow. Even cropping made the machine hiccup. I like the whole "stacking" thing (still). I hate the loupe. I just d/l'ed Aperture 1.5 around 20 minutes ago, but the handling of files is still noticeably more intuitive than Adobe LR Beta 4.1. There just seems to be too many things laid out on the screen, and I think LR actually makes better use of screen space once you get used to using it.
I'll continue to try it out, watch the QT videos and what not. We'll see.
The editing features are horribly non-intuitive when compared to Lightroom, which has the best levels editing tool, and that's not just compared to Aperture. Also, simple things like rotating an image is slow. Even cropping made the machine hiccup. I like the whole "stacking" thing (still). I hate the loupe. I just d/l'ed Aperture 1.5 around 20 minutes ago, but the handling of files is still noticeably more intuitive than Adobe LR Beta 4.1. There just seems to be too many things laid out on the screen, and I think LR actually makes better use of screen space once you get used to using it.
I'll continue to try it out, watch the QT videos and what not.
We'll see.