Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Other Raw Converters => Apple Aperture Q&A => Topic started by: Toshanco on January 09, 2017, 07:06:04 am
-
I understand, from the forums and elsewhere, that aperture works on the latest Sierra OS (as it is said to on the previous El Capitan).
I have never used it, but everyone says it is 'simply the best' raw converter available still - despite it having been ditched by Apple!
The problem I have is that I cannot load it.
Whenever I go through the motions of installing the software, I get an error message indicating that I cannot use it.
I am guessing there must be a way of installing it ....... but how!
Any advice and guidance will be appreciated.
Terry
-
I don’t know anyone who thinks Aperture is the best raw converter, it’s easily surpassed in that category by several other converters. What it is, in my opinion, is the best combination converter/editor/cataloger/printer. FWIW.
With that out of the way, how are you trying to install it? It’s not even visible on the App Store at this point, unless you’ve already purchased it and had it installed. And if you’re trying to install from a disc, there aren’t any versions that were released on disc that would run on anything later than 10.7 or maybe 10.8.
-
I don’t know anyone who thinks Aperture is the best raw converter, it’s easily surpassed in that category by several other converters. What it is, in my opinion, is the best combination converter/editor/cataloger/printer. FWIW.
If you want a raw converter that supports every digital file ever made (AFAIK) including medium format cameras like Hasselblad, runs on a server so that you can access the files and catalogue from any machine, edits multiple files simultaneously and has a rock solid DAM, then AFAIK it is the ONLY one.
I am still using it on El Capitan but it does work on Sierra by all reports. I also use Phocus and Photoshop but Aperture exclusively for an asset manager.
It is purchased software though so unless you already have it then it is not available. If you can get a copy then you can contact Apple and they will direct you to a secret place to download V3.6
-
I don’t know anyone who thinks Aperture is the best raw converter, it’s easily surpassed in that category by several other converters. What it is, in my opinion, is the best combination converter/editor/cataloger/printer. FWIW.
With that out of the way, how are you trying to install it? It’s not even visible on the App Store at this point, unless you’ve already purchased it and had it installed. And if you’re trying to install from a disc, there aren’t any versions that were released on disc that would run on anything later than 10.7 or maybe 10.8.
Mmmmm! I now have it installed and it works great with Sierra. The problem was the disc - a compatibility issue.
I was a little surprised by your that you don't know anyone who thinks that Aperture is the best RAW converter though as it is regarded as the 'goto' in all of the forums I belong to - which is quite a lot. It certainly leaves ACR: Lightroom and Capture in it's shadow! I have installed the 'RAWPower' Raw converter, which is just as good (No surprise as it uses the same), but is not as flexible as Aperture. Thanks for commenting anyway.
-
It certainly leaves ACR: Lightroom and Capture in it's shadow!
Yes, but don't tell anyone. It's a competitive advantage.
The problem is not finding another editor or raw converter. These are available.
The problem is finding one with the Asset management capabilities of Aperture.
If there is another one out there advanced keywording that supports all medium format files and can be run on a server I'd like to hear about it.
-
Not a bad raw converter, good in other areas, limited to just one brand of computer, but not the best raw converter - don't believe whatever forums you may have read. Rose tinted spectacles, anyone?
-
Not a bad raw converter, good in other areas, limited to just one brand of computer, but not the best raw converter - don't believe whatever forums you may have read. Rose tinted spectacles, anyone?
Your signature sort of gives away your bias, but that is fine, each their own. Frankly, I find the interface of Lightroom a dog. Raw support also is at the whim of Adobe.
As I said, it is the Asset management and advanced keywording that is the real issue. The ability to create Smart Albums on many criteria.
You can round trip out of Aperture and use any editor that you want. I use Photoshop for that.
If the raw conversion is critical then you use Phocus or whatever to save a TIF and import that to Aperture.
As for only running on one computer, I doubt that 90% of the professional photographers that I know use anything other than Mac. Another competitive advantage.
Cheers.
-
I was a little surprised by your that you don't know anyone who thinks that Aperture is the best RAW converter though as it is regarded as the 'goto' in all of the forums I belong to - which is quite a lot.
If you believe everything you read on the internet… (shrugs).
-
I suppose you need to define where raw conversion ends and raw editing starts. However Aperture uses the raw conversion of the Mac OS system. So does Hasselblad in their Phocus software for Mac. They could use their own which they use for the Windows version, but choose not to. That is why the Mac version of Phocus can read all raw files whereas the Windows version can only read Hasselblad files. So I think the raw conversion must be pretty good in the Mac OS and hence Aperture.
The things it lacks are lens correction and camera profiles, but if you are important you use the cameras native converter (Phocus, DPP etc) and then import.
-
Whether it's bias or experience (though it's both) doesn't really matter when the judgement is even-handed. After all, ever heard the term "Speak no ill of the dead"? So it's fair to pour cold water on the claim that Aperture ever had better raw conversion than its main competitors. It didn't, and its advantages were in other areas - as were its failings.
-
Whether it's bias or experience (though it's both) doesn't really matter when the judgement is even-handed. After all, ever heard the term "Speak no ill of the dead"? So it's fair to pour cold water on the claim that Aperture ever had better raw conversion than its main competitors. It didn't, and its advantages were in other areas - as were its failings.
Aperture may be dead as an application from a development standpoint ... but the RAW converter it used is alive and well and used every day by Finder and every software that relies upon Core Image in MacOS.
In the end, RAW conversion results are purely subjective and users are allowed to voice their personal preference there is no right or wrong answer.
I much liked the default RAW conversion starting point I saw with Aperture over ACR/Lr using any of the canned Camera Calibration profiles that Adobe shipped with any process version including the current offering. I had to create a custom Camera Calibration profile to get the starting point I preferred that more closely match what I received with Aperture by default.
While I do use Lr each and every day for my daily tasks, I still long for Aperture and would gladly return much of my workflow to that app if Apple would ever continue support. Aperture did not fall from grace because it was a dog or a failure ... it fell because Apple stopped it's development.
-
Subjective preference for the results is different from the claim that it was better as a raw converter than its competitors - it never was.
-
Subjective preference for the results is different from the claim that it was better as a raw converter than its competitors - it never was.
Your opinion of what never was is indeed subjective.
-
Your opinion of what never was is indeed subjective.
It was no better than its competitors. FFS.
-
It was no better than its competitors. FFS.
Define "best" or "better"?
Aperture was and still is best for me and that is really all I care about.
As indicated it is the database capabilities that are the key for me.
Lightroom is obviously best for you because you attempt to make money out of people who can't get it to do what they want it to do. So Mr Lightroom Solutions, if you have a Lightroom solution that allows the catalogue and raw files to be on the same external drive on a server and operate from multiple machines then I would like to hear about it. Otherwise ....
Likewise if Capture One ever decided to support all raw files and in particular Hasselblad then I may look at that.
-
Define "best" or "better"?
Aperture was and still is best for me and that is really all I care about.
As indicated it is the database capabilities that are the key for me.
Lightroom is obviously best for you because you attempt to make money out of people who can't get it to do what they want it to do. So Mr Lightroom Solutions, if you have a Lightroom solution that allows the catalogue and raw files to be on the same external drive on a server and operate from multiple machines then I would like to hear about it. Otherwise ....
Likewise if Capture One ever decided to support all raw files and in particular Hasselblad then I may look at that.
So you accuse me of dishonesty, eh? Just because I say your baby isn't the prettiest. Ah, diddums.
-
It was no better than its competitors. FFS.
Yes, you are entitled to hold that opinion. That doesn't relegate your opinion as fact. Merely your personal interpretation of the matter.
Other folks are allowed to have a different opinion. Even if you deem it as unworthy. FFS
-
Highlight recovery, not as good. Noise reduction, not as good. Lens correction, none. Local adjustments, not sure I can remember but they had two bites at it! But no better than its competitors is a pretty fair summary.
-
So you accuse me of dishonesty, eh? Just because I say your baby isn't the prettiest. Ah, diddums.
LMFAO. You sound desperate. Reminds me of an Indian call centre selling SEO.
BTW, you didn't answer the question so I assume, no, Lightroom doesn't do the basic requirement I need.
As for Aperture not having local adjustments? ... Have you ever used it?
I have used Lightroom and in fact pay money every month to have it. It is sometimes necessary to explains thing to those poor people with PCs, clumsy though it is. Sort of a jack of all trades, master of none.
Thank you for telling me what I need, even though I am not asking. (:-)
-
Highlight recovery, not as good. Noise reduction, not as good. Lens correction, none. Local adjustments, not sure I can remember but they had two bites at it! But no better than its competitors is a pretty fair summary.
Of course, you are assuming that all photographers who utilized Aperture were also incapable of exposing their images properly so as to forego the crutch of highlight recovery ... and or excessive NR in the RAW processing pipeline ... or achieve a proper camera angle to reduce the need for excessive lens correction .... and maybe purchasing top line lenses that offer little to no CA out of the box that reduces the need to 'fix it' in post ...and the local adjustments in Aperture, although different than in Lightroom were quite capable.
Notice, I never once said which offering was 'better', though, you seem compelled to prove you are the sole authority on the issue and the planet with shift on it's axis if we don'y heed your word.
-
LMFAO. You sound desperate. Reminds me of an Indian call centre selling SEO.
BTW, you didn't answer the question so I assume, no, Lightroom doesn't do the basic requirement I need.
As for Aperture not having local adjustments? ... Have you ever used it?
I have used Lightroom and in fact pay money every month to have it. It is sometimes necessary to explains thing to those poor people with PCs, clumsy though it is. Sort of a jack of all trades, master of none.
Thank you for telling me what I need, even though I am not asking. (:-)
You remind me of a petulant child. I make an uncontroversial post pointing out your toy is no better than the rest, and you make insinuations....
-
Notice, I never once said which offering was 'better', though, you seem compelled to prove you are the sole authority on the issue and the planet with shift on it's axis if we don'y heed your word.
And neither have I said any other was better. But I have illustrated that it was false to claim Aperture was better as a raw converter than its competitors. It's not exactly a controversial statement that your baby is no prettier than the rest, is it? So save the cod psychology, please....
-
And neither have I said any other was better. But I have illustrated that it was false to claim Aperture was better as a raw converter than its competitors. It's not exactly a controversial statement that your baby is no prettier than the rest, is it? So save the cod psychology, please....
This thread seems to be going nowhere. So why not wade in?
I personally always preferred the look of Aperture's raw conversions to Lightroom's. "Better" is subjective, and technically they may have been worse because they had more "punch" and less dynamic range and certainly couldn't pull as much shadow detail, at least as of 4 years ago.
But there are a couple big problems with using Aperture now on Sierra:
1. The raw converter is provided by the OS, but Aperture is "locked" to using the raw converter from when it shipped. So even though the raw converter in OS X (er, sorry, macOS) has improved a lot in the past 3 years (it can be used in Photos), the one in Aperture has not. And raw converters have improved in the past 3+ years.
2. It is starting to look pretty tired. The UI elements look dated, and some parts (picker boxes, etc.) look terrible, and I believe there is some functionality that no longer works. It's not "supported" on anything newer than Yosemite, so sooner or later it's going to totally break.
I'm currently using Lr, but I've never loved it. I keep trying Capture One, but it's always been a bit slow or wonky for me, though its raw conversions are BEAUTIFUL. I think if your criteria is best raw conversion, it's worth a try to see if you get along with it. If so, you're set. If not, and you need someone to go home with you at 2 AM after you've struck out with everything else... Lightroom (and its Creative Cloud baggage) will be there waiting.
-
You remind me of a petulant child. I make an uncontroversial post pointing out your toy is no better than the rest, and you make insinuations....
So you come onto the Apple Aperture Q&A section, even though you don't use and probably never have used the product, and abuse users, abuse the product and fail to substantiate any of your claims or offer any solutions to people who have a question about your product.
Presumably you are here to try and entice people from this product to Lightroom. Unfortunately you would probably be the last person to be called if that ever happens.
-
So you come onto the Apple Aperture Q&A section, even though you don't use and probably never have used the product, and abuse users, abuse the product and fail to substantiate any of your claims or offer any solutions to people who have a question about your product.
Presumably you are here to try and entice people from this product to Lightroom. Unfortunately you would probably be the last person to be called if that ever happens.
So I have no right to come into a forum I don't often post in? Not many people do nowadays, or ever did, but since when did you make the forum rules, big boy?
You accuse me of abusing others??? Really? Have I initiated any personal comments? You, however, insinuated bias in your very first reply to me and continued to make similar comments.
Next you think you can deny my right to post a contrary opinion because you say I have never used Aperture? You are wrong, for what little it is worth, and for a number of reasons (my own curiosity, book proposals, consulting). I'm not an Apple fanboy though, and never switched my workflow to it - the reasons are in my first post.
Then you accuse me of abusing the product? Abusing? I have simply made the uncontroversial comment that it's no better as a raw converter than its competitors, which was the OP's silly claim, and I pointed out 4 specific aspects of its raw conversion which are noticeably weaker than them.
Trying to entice people away? So you are only posting at LL to sell your snaps? Imaginative business strategy, guru, but have I once mentioned Lightroom? Once? Or have I consistently used the word "competitors" - see that little "s" dangling on the end. Have I once suggested any way to use Lightroom? Er, no, because that's not what the thread is about! And if someone goes ad hominem from the outset, would you volunteer any assistance to that person or take a second to delight in whatever difficulties they have? Ha ha ha.
I don't know what problems you have. Give your head a wobble, it may help. But why not just assume someone posts to a forum because they disagreed with something that was said? So sorry for not changing my signature when I posted in your forum, Snowflake.
-
Snowflake.
The snow is freezing brains in the UK!
-
But there are a couple big problems with using Aperture now on Sierra:
1. The raw converter is provided by the OS, but Aperture is "locked" to using the raw converter from when it shipped. So even though the raw converter in OS X (er, sorry, macOS) has improved a lot in the past 3 years (it can be used in Photos), the one in Aperture has not. And raw converters have improved in the past 3+ years.
Bill, I don’t think that’s true. AFAIK, Aperture has never had it’s own RAW converter, it’s always used what the system provided. I’m not on Sierra yet, still using El Cap, but in Aperture menu -> About Aperture it says it’s using Digital Camera RAW 6.21, which dates from July 2016. And you can dig around using, for instance, the Info button in Activity Monitor, then look at Open Files and Ports and you’ll see the same Camera RAW 6.21 referenced. So what are you seeing that leads you to think it’s not using the latest in Sierra?
As for the rest of the discussion, I’d like to clarify what I said at the top, for whatever it did to send us off in this direction.
1) When I see the term RAW converter, I interpret that narrowly. For instance, Raw Photo Processor and AccuRaw are RAW converters, that’s all they do. Aperture and Lightroom do convert RAW, obviously, but they also do far more than that. To refer to them as RAW converters is a misnomer, IMO, since that’s only one part of what they do.
2) So just for the record, I largely agree with Bob, in that for my purposes Aperture (still) offers the best combination of u.i., conversion, editing, keywording, cataloging, and printing, and I’m still bummed that Apple decided to drop it. But I also agree with John if you pick any one of those areas, you can find other products that will produce better results, if you’re willing to put in the time to learn how to do it. And specifically in the conversion step, to address another comment; I wish my shots always came out so beautifully lit and perfectly exposed that I didn’t need noise reduction or highlight recovery. For some reason, the world refuses to cooperate.
Anyway, if there’s going to be any more discussion on this, can we please do without the personal insults?
-
Thanks for that info, Rob.
I am also on El Capitan but checked Photos and it has the same Raw support in the "About" link.
I checked the Activity Window on Aperture as per your tip and the raw is located at
/System/Library/CoreServices/RawCameraSupport.bundle/Contents/Resources/PlugIns.zip
I copied and pasted that elsewhere and opened it. All the cameras are visible.
I then opened the latest version of Phocus and there it is again
/System/Library/CoreServices/RawCameraSupport.bundle/Contents/Resources/PlugIns.zip
So pretty fair to say that Aperture is using the same as every other Mac OS raw supported application and is therefore being updated.
6.21 seems to be the latest Raw on the support website but I am just about to go Sierra so will check then.
Seems likely that I will be using Aperture for quite a while longer. When I get to Sierra I will also try the Raw Power + Photos, but the DAM is very limited from appearances.
-
... And specifically in the conversion step, to address another comment; I wish my shots always came out so beautifully lit and perfectly exposed that I didn’t need noise reduction or highlight recovery. For some reason, the world refuses to cooperate.
Well ... 'the world' has very little to do with the data your camera captures.
I've always thought the best image processing tool is held within the gray matter behind the eyeball peering through the camera viewfinder at the time the shutter release is depressed. Judicious decision making before the capture can greatly reduce the effort necessary after the capture.
My point was, if we as photographers utilize that aforementioned tool, our reliance upon other ancillary post capture tools like noise reduction and highlight recovery become much less important to the process. For myself, I would much rather spend my time capturing new images rather than become imprisoned by lengthy post processing sessions. It has been my experience that I can control that allocation of resources to a great extent if I make better choices before I collect the image data.
While I appreciate some of the advancements found in other solutions, Aperture is still quite capable in many aspects. Even though others may choose to believe otherwise.
Also ... while it is true that Aperture still uses the most current version of the Camera RAW Core Services, it does lack any/all controls that have been added/augmented since the last official update.
-
Well ... 'the world' has very little to do with the data your camera captures.
Really? Unless you only shoot in the studio, at some point you’re going to be faced with a shot that exceeds the dynamic range of your camera. If you still want the shot, something is going to have to be compromised. And hey, maybe you botch the compromise; inattention, inexperience, time pressure, whatever, mistakes happen. Maybe your response to that is “Eff that, I’m not wasting my time trying to save this image,” which is a perfectly valid decision to make. Someone else might make a different decision, and want to know what’s the best tool for trying to save that image. Where’s the harm in admitting that there are better tools than Aperture for some situations?
While I appreciate some of the advancements found in other solutions, Aperture is still quite capable in many aspects. Even though others may choose to believe otherwise.
I agree with that, which is why I’m still using it. But I don’t see any harm in admitting that other tools do some things better.
Also ... while it is true that Aperture still uses the most current version of the Camera RAW Core Services, it does lack any/all controls that have been added/augmented since the last official update.
Such as?
-
Really? Unless you only shoot in the studio, at some point you’re going to be faced with a shot that exceeds the dynamic range of your camera. If you still want the shot, something is going to have to be compromised. And hey, maybe you botch the compromise; inattention, inexperience, time pressure, whatever, mistakes happen. Maybe your response to that is “Eff that, I’m not wasting my time trying to save this image,” which is a perfectly valid decision to make. Someone else might make a different decision, and want to know what’s the best tool for trying to save that image. Where’s the harm in admitting that there are better tools than Aperture for some situations?
Oh I don't know. I've spent the past 46 years shooting action sports and hard news, on location, on tight print deadlines ... starting out with Kodachrome 25 & 64 ... if you want to lament the pitfalls of dynamic range ... that will test your mettle quite extensively. As per my original point ... with most modern DSLR's, they already have quite good noise reduction SOOC ... IF ... they are exposed reliably for the circumstances. And yes, you may be forced to compromise from time to time ... I prefer to make those tradeoffs before I decide to shoot ... not after.
Don't get me wrong, I wholly support using good tools and will employ said methods after the fact ... but these are the exception, not the norm. As mentioned, my deadlines are tight, Don't have the luxury to ,massage pixels after capture ... the presses must roll on time.
In the end, my clients would be very hard pressed to determine which software option I may have utilized to prepare their images. It has been my experience that while the NR available in Aperture may be less powerful than found elsewhere ... it still does quite a nice job on most images that have been exposed well.
I agree with that, which is why I’m still using it. But I don’t see any harm in admitting that other tools do some things better.
I don't think it's harmful to make mention of that either ...I also think it is of little benefit to needlessly belittle an option because it falls short in some areas though it still offers many advanced capabilities on the whole.
Such as?
Can't recall the specific sliders and/or adjustments now offered in the RAW pipeline that have been added since the last iteration of Aperture 3 was updated ... I recall reading somewhere recently there are now some adjustments available in those apps that have been further developed since. It's similar to the Process version scheme Adobe uses ....Aperture may be using the current foundation, but it is still using the former presentation.
-
Can't recall the specific sliders and/or adjustments now offered in the RAW pipeline that have been added since the last iteration of Aperture 3 was updated ... I recall reading somewhere recently there are now some adjustments available in those apps that have been further developed since. It's similar to the Process version scheme Adobe uses ....Aperture may be using the current foundation, but it is still using the former presentation.
FWIW, I haven’t done an exhaustive search, but I can’t find any mention of Aperture missing out on new features of the current raw processor in the searching I have done. For instance, I couldn’t find anything about it on the Apple Aperture forum. So if you come across any sources, I’d be interested.
-
FWIW, I haven’t done an exhaustive search, but I can’t find any mention of Aperture missing out on new features of the current raw processor in the searching I have done. For instance, I couldn’t find anything about it on the Apple Aperture forum. So if you come across any sources, I’d be interested.
Aperture hasn't seen an update in over 2 years now. Launching it on Sierra and you see many UI elements that have been clipped.
I'm curious how you think the latest advancements in the macOS raw converter could make their way into Aperture?
Your pictures processed with Aperture's raw converter on macOS Sierra will look identical to the pictures processed with Aperture's raw converter on OS X Yosemite. Try it for yourself ;)
-
I wouldn't bother with Aperture now, I used it for years version one to the last. I had to change a computer and the merry go around of upgrades meant I had to look elsewhere for an Aperture replacement . I ran both LR and Aperture for a time on different computers to see if I could learn not to hate LR.
I went with a monthly sub for LR, mainly because it comes with Photoshop as well, I have to tolerate LR's clunky two programs bolted together type working.
Aperture was the best DAM by a long way, LR is poor, on the face of it if you described what they both do they sound similar, in use LR is awful. Aperture backup with vaults was brilliant, the back up in LR does Not back up your image files, you have to do that by a third party solution.
As a program to use every day running a picture library of my own Aperture was easily the best.
But want for a better word "progress" got in the way of a good idea and Apple abandoned Aperture and it's users.
The bottom line is at some point you will be up the cul de sac of OS not supporting Aperture, it could be because of hardware failure or new camera etc, they will force you to upgrade at some point. I still have old computers running OS9 so I can run some old scanners but I wouldn't base a general workflow around them.
So stick with something current, C1 LR etc, they do have some advantages over Aperture so it's not entirly a backward step, LR stitching and HDR is very useful for me.
I'm quite sure Adobe will be putting LR on a back burner soon and will release a new subsciption only program and screw people over because that's what these companies do. I wish I had taken more of a look at C1, I think as a progressive pathway it will have less twists and turns than an Adobe product.
At the end of the day Aperture is gone and it's advantages compared to what happens if the unsupported system you are running it on has a serious problem are very much outweighed.
Aperture is just a happy memory for me now.
One reason I shoot my fun stuff on film is because of the constant screw the customer one more time attitude that All software and hardware Co's have. I really enjoy going out with a clockwork camera, shooting film, processing it and printing it on a forty year old enlarger that works just as well as the day it was made. It's like leaving the rat race and moving to the Country, much more civilised!
Forget Aperture as a viable proposition.
-
Aperture hasn't seen an update in over 2 years now. Launching it on Sierra and you see many UI elements that have been clipped.
I don't understand what you're saying here, can you give an example?
I'm curious how you think the latest advancements in the macOS raw converter could make their way into Aperture?
The Aperture app doesn't have it's own raw processor, it uses the system's raw processor. So for it to be stuck using some older processor, either Apple would have had to massively rewrite it to include it's own processor, or they would have had to rewrite it sufficiently to make it look for an older version of the processor in the system, and then made sure that the older version remained in the system through OS updates and RAW updates. We know they didn't do a significant update on an app they were abandoning, and my trawling through my system doesn't turn up any older processor version.
Your pictures processed with Aperture's raw converter on macOS Sierra will look identical to the pictures processed with Aperture's raw converter on OS X Yosemite. Try it for yourself ;)
That just means they haven't the default processing settings for your camera, which is what I would expect.
-
Highlight recovery, not as good. Noise reduction, not as good. Lens correction, none. Local adjustments, not sure I can remember but they had two bites at it! But no better than its competitors is a pretty fair summary.
Aperture supports third party apps via functionality called Plugins. These plugins enhance or replace functionality or add features if they aren't there. For $25 I can add lens corrections and for a few dollars more add state of the art noise reduction. I'm surprised you haven't heard of plugins since Lightroom supports them too. You can even replace LR's mediocre noise reduction with a better one… Noiseless Pro, Denoise for example. You should look into it.
-
Aperture supports third party apps via functionality called Plugins.
Sorry, such so-called plugins - really external editors - are irrelevant in a comparison. Is Aperture suddenly better at B&W because you send stuff to Silver Efex? It's also laughable to describe Lr's noise reduction as mediocre.
-
Sorry, such so-called plugins - really external editors - are irrelevant in a comparison. Is Aperture suddenly better at B&W because you send stuff to Silver Efex? It's also laughable to describe Lr's noise reduction as mediocre.
It's not irrelevant at all. Plugins make both apps better. The areas you list as weaknesses in Aperture can be added/improved easily. I'm not aware of any plugin that makes LR useable as a catalog/DAM. If there are some, please share. And to be fair, LR is an excellent app: good at a lot of things but it's hardly the best at many. But you'll never admit it because you make your money from Lightroom. I get it. Pump up the product that feeds the kids. Personally, I don't use either. If I had my choice it would be Aperture. But I won't take the risk that it stops working in the not too distant future. That's reason enough to consider LR and alternatives. Still, LR wasn't my choice for a replacement. And I tried to like it.
-
I don't understand what you're saying here, can you give an example?
Yeah, look at the preferences window. Aperture is using something called "ProKit" which is a bunch of UI elements that were used in Final Cut Pro (prior to version X), etc. And it's pretty obvious when launching Aperture on Sierra these days that it's lost in time.
The Aperture app doesn't have it's own raw processor, it uses the system's raw processor. So for it to be stuck using some older processor, either Apple would have had to massively rewrite it to include it's own processor, or they would have had to rewrite it sufficiently to make it look for an older version of the processor in the system, and then made sure that the older version remained in the system through OS updates and RAW updates. We know they didn't do a significant update on an app they were abandoning, and my trawling through my system doesn't turn up any older processor version.
That's not how it works. The raw processor in the OS changes, but Aperture is "locked" to a specific version. This is how software works; Aperture is not calling new APIs and it's not getting enhancements made to shadow/highlight detail, etc. Otherwise when you upgrade the OS, all your pictures would change how they look.
This is like how Lightroom did with their "Process Version 2010" and "Process version 2012" and maybe newer ones now. Even if the OS raw converter is upgraded, Aperture is locked to the most recent version when it shipped. This is a fact, and these days Photos can do a better job processing raw photos than can Aperture, from an initial conversion standpoint. I've tried this with photos from my Leica M9: I had some poor raw conversions on skies with Aperture, and in the past 2 years, those photos render beautifully in Photos.
That just means they haven't the default processing settings for your camera, which is what I would expect.
No. All my cameras are fully supported by Aperture.
-
It's not irrelevant at all. Plugins make both apps better. The areas you list as weaknesses in Aperture can be added/improved easily. I'm not aware of any plugin that makes LR useable as a catalog/DAM. If there are some, please share. And to be fair, LR is an excellent app: good at a lot of things but it's hardly the best at many. But you'll never admit it because you make your money from Lightroom. I get it. Pump up the product that feeds the kids. Personally, I don't use either. If I had my choice it would be Aperture. But I won't take the risk that it stops working in the not too distant future. That's reason enough to consider LR and alternatives. Still, LR wasn't my choice for a replacement. And I tried to like it.
You don't need any plugin to make Lightroom usable as a catalogue/DAM. But here we go again, a personal attack....
FWIW I've often commented on things I prefer in Aperture.
-
That's not how it works. The raw processor in the OS changes, but Aperture is "locked" to a specific version. This is how software works; Aperture is not calling new APIs and it's not getting enhancements made to shadow/highlight detail, etc. Otherwise when you upgrade the OS, all your pictures would change how they look.
I also do not believe that to be the case. If I look at images processed in previous versions of the Mac OS in Aperture there is a notice right at the the top that tells me they were processed in an older version and invites me to reprocess. You can actually Duplicate Version and apply the Reprocess to one copy and see the two versions side by side, so same raw image with two raw processors in a side by side comparison. Very visible differences.
Also to be fair to John, he doesn't just bag out Aperture in the Aperture forum. He is quite happy to go onto the Capture One forum and troll there too.
At the end of the day, I use Aperture because it is the best product for me. That appears to be the case for a lot of others as well.
By far the best DAM I have seen and the only one currently meeting my needs of supporting all cameras on a server based catalog.
If the raw conversion is really, really important I would use Phocus or open it directly in Photoshop anyway.
I am reminded of the first time a PC user excitedly showed me Lightroom. My response - So where have you been? Lousy interface isn't it.
Cheers
-
Oh dear, Big Bob again thinks he sets the forum rules. Diddums.
-
Yeah, look at the preferences window. Aperture is using something called "ProKit" which is a bunch of UI elements that were used in Final Cut Pro (prior to version X), etc. And it's pretty obvious when launching Aperture on Sierra these days that it's lost in time.
Well, I don’t see anything “clipped” about that, and I don’t know what that has to do with raw processing.
That's not how it works. The raw processor in the OS changes, but Aperture is "locked" to a specific version.
Yes, that’s exactly how it works. Go look in /System/Library/CoreServices. See that folder called RawCamera.bundle? Every Apple provided app that opens raw images uses that; Preview, Photos, iPhoto, and Aperture. It’s also available to be used by third party developers, so for instance, Acorn, Pixelmator, and Affinity Photo all use it for raw conversion, though Affinity also offers the option of using their own processor. You can open the RawCamera.bundle and look at the version.plist file, and then look at About Aperture, and you’ll see that they’re both the same version. If Aperture were somehow locked to an older version, then there would have to be an older RawCamera.bundle in CoreServices, and Aperture would have to be lying about what version it’s using in the About window.
This is how software works; Aperture is not calling new APIs and it's not getting enhancements made to shadow/highlight detail, etc. Otherwise when you upgrade the OS, all your pictures would change how they look.
As Bob has already pointed out, you can open older files and see the warning about being processed by and older version of the raw processor, and if you reprocess, they do change.
I've tried this with photos from my Leica M9: I had some poor raw conversions on skies with Aperture, and in the past 2 years, those photos render beautifully in Photos.
Which suggests that the default processing settings for Photos and Aperture are different, which is what I would expect from consumer vs. professional focussed apps.
No. All my cameras are fully supported by Aperture.
Where did I say anything about your cameras being unsupported?
-
An update on this as I have just upgraded to Sierra 10.12.3.
There is a problem with raw support. I don't know where it is but cameras such as the Canon M5 raw are not supported in Aperture.
At https://support.apple.com/en-au/HT205272
Apple says Digital Camera RAW Compatibility Update is 6.21
This corresponds to the About Aperture showing 6210 on the machine running 10.11
At https://support.apple.com/en-au/HT207049
It gives cameras supported by Sierra, but right at the bottom says
"Additional formats supported by iOS 10.2 and macOS 10.12.2"
These include the Canon 5Dmark4 and M5.
My About Aperture is now showing as 7010, with no update visible. Others are saying that they have 7020.
These however do not appear to be system wide. Apple has changed something and they are usable in Preview, and Phocus, but not Aperture.
However the same bundle is directed to in the system.
Any ideas on what is happened here? Or is it as simple as going directly to 10.12.3 from 10.11 without going through 10.12.2 I have somehow missed the 7020 update at 10.12.2?
-
Hi Bob,
I downloaded a sample EOS M5 RAW from photographyblog and it does not show up properly on my Aperture either (Sierra, fully patched 10.2.3).
I can use RAWPower app to open the image and it shows up fine. Photos works with it too.
Something is broken in Aperture and the Raw support for the EOS M5. This is not good. I am still waiting on EM1 MarkII RAW support and I hope it will not be broken in Aperture too. Someone needs to report it to Apple but who knows if it will get fixed at this point. :-(
-
Something is broken in Aperture and the Raw support for the EOS M5.
Nothing is 'broken' in Aperture ... it is no longer actively supported by Apple. As previously shared in this thread, no updates have been issued relating to updated calls to Core Image to all such support. While the app may recognize a newer version of CI is available, Aperture still relies on the older method (version process if you will) for handling RAW images.
-
I'd classify that as broken.
-
Nothing is 'broken' in Aperture ... it is no longer actively supported by Apple. As previously shared in this thread, no updates have been issued relating to updated calls to Core Image to all such support. While the app may recognize a newer version of CI is available, Aperture still relies on the older method (version process if you will) for handling RAW images.
Ok, but the question still remains as to where the raw information is stored. All of the programs point to the same raw bundle, but the new cameras are not there, so where is Preview etc finding the M5 etc raw information?
-
Ok, but the question still remains as to where the raw information is stored. All of the programs point to the same raw bundle, but the new cameras are not there, so where is Preview etc finding the M5 etc raw information?
No doubt, the current RAW support is present on your system as Preview, which is supported for the newest current version and can 'call' the updated bundle. Aperture is not currently supported and it's code has not been updated so it can only 'call' the former versions of RAW support. It's akin to a close friend that has changed their phone number. Your phone's directory can easily call his former number, but it can't call his new number if it has not been updated to your friend's contact info. Aperture may even recognize a new version of Core Image is present on your system, that doesn't mean it is capable of invoking it's resources.
It is similar to Lightroom/ACR Process Versions ... older versions of those software options can't call upon newer process versions that were added after Adobe ceased support for those older versions.
-
I have been able to use Adobe DNG Converter 9.9 (free) to open the sample EOS M-5 sample and import that into Aperture successfully.
Settings were 7.1 and later compatibility and jpeg preview set at medium, nothing else was selected in the preferences.
The DNG Converter also worked with my Olympus EM-1 Mark II ORF files and Aperture also imported them without complaint. Batch conversions and multiple cpu/core aware so it seemed fast enough on my Mac Pro (didn't hit the the hyperthreading fully though), hopefully it's not too slow on my laptop.
Too lazy to provide the official link but this one redirected fine.
https://www.macupdate.com/app/mac/16064/adobe-dng-converter
While not exactly a replacement for direct RAW support, this is basically the next best thing.