Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Other Raw Converters => Apple Aperture Q&A => Topic started by: Hellstan on February 05, 2008, 05:12:24 pm
-
I run both LR and Aperture. From inception, I feel at home with LR, and get lost in Aperture.
Aperture geeks, here, talk me in convincing me to spend time on it. What benefit, regarding to LR (knowing that 80% of my workflow is in CS3 anyway) ?
Please tam me in not to put my Aperture on eBay.
Thanks to you.
-
I run both LR and Aperture. From inception, I feel at home with LR, and get lost in Aperture.
Aperture geeks, here, talk me in convincing me to spend time on it. What benefit, regarding to LR (knowing that 80% of my workflow is in CS3 anyway) ?
Please tam me in not to put my Aperture on eBay.
Thanks to you.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=172555\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sorry, I can't. I started with Aperture too. Can't use it. Good luck with eBay!
-
Sorry, I can't. I started with Aperture too. Can't use it. Good luck with eBay!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=172578\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ha-ha, Andrew, from you, this is death penalty for Aperture.
Shall I hear my Aperture speak to me like that :
"Are you quitting on me? Well, are you? Then quit, you slimy fucking walrus-looking piece of shit! Get the fuck off of my obstacle! Get the fuck down off of my obstacle! NOW! MOVE IT! I'm going to rip your balls off, so you cannot contaminate the rest of the world! I will motivate you, Private Pyle, IF IT SHORT-DICKS EVERY CANNIBAL ON THE CONGO!"
-
Ha-ha, Andrew, from you, this is death penalty for Aperture.
I had really high hopes for Aperture. When I first saw it demo'd (I think 2 years ago at PMA?) I was blow away. It demo's really well. And there ARE some really cool parts of it. But Apple appears to have built this pup in a vacuum. I don't know who they worked with outside the company in getting better usability out of it. But you know, there are lots of people who don't like Lightroom and think the world of Aperture. And if not for Aperture, Lightroom may not have seen the light of day (it was that close to being killed off). I just found LR was a better, more direct experience for me. I keep letting the system software update the app and check it out, but after a few minutes, I just quit, delete the files and go back to Lightroom.
This reminds me of the very old days (raise your hands old farts) when Photoshop was competing with Color Studio. Color Studio had some pretty impressive functionality (CMYK long before Photoshop). But it just didn't flow for a lot of users and it died. And then there was Live Picture. Anyway, one reason Adobe software is so successful is they do build products that most people find intuitive and often preferable to the competition (anyone recall Xres?).
-
Anyway, one reason Adobe software is so successful is they do build products that most people find intuitive and often preferable to the competition (anyone recall Xres?).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=172582\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
In fact, to know about usability of any product, I check how far I can go learning by myself, eyes wide shut, if I may say so, without opening a manual or a tutorial. LR is definitely in that category. I used it since a year before needing to go further with Luminous tutorial and so on. With Aperture, from day one, page one, I had to rely on guidance.
-
Please tam me in not to put my Aperture on eBay.
Thanks to you.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=172555\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Dont put your Aperture on ebay - it will reduce the price I get for mine.
Seriously, since the D300 debacle I've been looking at LR and although it has some nice tools for photographers, the organisation and navigation sucks, and the modular design is pointlessly annoying.
So for now I'm staying patient and waiting for 10.5.2 ... at least for a little while
-
Have a look at the aperture tutorials on line. The video podcasts in particular. If you watch them, you'll see just how powerful Aperture really is. It's in a different league from Lightroom. It just depends if you need all the features of Aperture.
The strengths of Aperture as I see it are:
*Great auditioning tools for comparing images
*stacking similar images together based on how close together they were shot in time
*smart albums for sorting and finding images.
It's initially not intuitive - it has a very different approach to how to manage images, but once you get into it, it really does begin to snowball.
-
Have a look at the aperture tutorials on line. The video podcasts in particular. If you watch them, you'll see just how powerful Aperture really is. It's in a different league from Lightroom. It just depends if you need all the features of Aperture.
The strengths of Aperture as I see it are:
*Great auditioning tools for comparing images
*stacking similar images together based on how close together they were shot in time
*smart albums for sorting and finding images.
It's initially not intuitive - it has a very different approach to how to manage images, but once you get into it, it really does begin to snowball.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174305\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks a lot Bruce.
Well, I feel C1 has nice tools too for comparing/duplicating variant and sorting images
I definitely don't like the magnifier in Aperture, much prefer the equivalent tools in LR or C1
Stacks are a forte, yes
As a lefthanded / right brained guy, I love intuitive apps. Aperture is much more left brain to me — asks for learning before handling.
Well, I won't put it on eBay and leave me a week-end to delve more into it.
UPDATE
Just downloaded Aperture 2.
-
Hi Hellstan,
Yes, I have to admit I was the same. When I loaded it up, I was stuck as to how to do anything with it. Whereas Lightroom was straightforward.
The only thing being, that to get the most out of software, you have to dig deeper than the skin, and in Apertures case - thats where all its strengths lie.
Also, I would like to add that when you see the aperture video tutorials - youll find the features are really neat, sort of, wow - how come Lightroom doesnt offer that..... but the way you have to call them up perhaps seems a little strange until you get your head round how Aperture structures things.
Sometimes, in order to do something really good, we have to turn things on their head. Aperture does this. Unlike Lightroom which has some basic directory and grouping mechansims.
But Im not saying Aperture is better than Lightroom. its really down to your own preferences and what you require out of the software. Perhaps Lightroom is all you need. They are quite different.
-
Hi Hellstan,
Yes, I have to admit I was the same. When I loaded it up, I was stuck as to how to do anything with it. Whereas Lightroom was straightforward.
The only thing being, that to get the most out of software, you have to dig deeper than the skin, and in Apertures case - thats where all its strengths lie.
Also, I would like to add that when you see the aperture video tutorials - youll find the features are really neat, sort of, wow - how come Lightroom doesnt offer that..... but the way you have to call them up perhaps seems a little strange until you get your head round how Aperture structures things.
Sometimes, in order to do something really good, we have to turn things on their head. Aperture does this. Unlike Lightroom which has some basic directory and grouping mechansims.
But Im not saying Aperture is better than Lightroom. its really down to your own preferences and what you require out of the software. Perhaps Lightroom is all you need. They are quite different.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174325\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Apart video tutorial included with it (disc 2), which are the best to learn deeper ?
I went back to Aperture after reading your sensible post and in fact it's really rich, yes…
-
hi hellstan,
I'm not sure.... I didn't look at the Discs that came with the software. All the tutorials I looked at were on the Aperture web site. Now they have released 2, I have no idea if the tutorials are still there or have been updated.
Yes, it's very rich. Like I said, Aperture and Lightroom have similar features, but I do feel they are different in what you'd want them for. Aperture is great for global edits and structuring of your files. It all starts to make sense in that way, whereas I felt that Lightroom was poor on the file system side of things. It just uses categories etc to group files, which doesn't realy work for me.
Have a look at smart albums in Aperture. There is also an Aperture blog site with some nice short examples of workflows you can do. Plus it integrates with Apples Automator which is nice.
Perhaps Aperture isn't what you need. It's what I need, but perhaps not for you. Very rich features, but unfortunately a little buggy, but if you get into it, you'll either love it or hate it. I personally love it.
-
hi hellstan,
I'm not sure.... I didn't look at the Discs that came with the software. All the tutorials I looked at were on the Aperture web site. Now they have released 2, I have no idea if the tutorials are still there or have been updated.
Yes, it's very rich. Like I said, Aperture and Lightroom have similar features, but I do feel they are different in what you'd want them for. Aperture is great for global edits and structuring of your files. It all starts to make sense in that way, whereas I felt that Lightroom was poor on the file system side of things. It just uses categories etc to group files, which doesn't realy work for me.
Have a look at smart albums in Aperture. There is also an Aperture blog site with some nice short examples of workflows you can do. Plus it integrates with Apples Automator which is nice.
Perhaps Aperture isn't what you need. It's what I need, but perhaps not for you. Very rich features, but unfortunately a little buggy, but if you get into it, you'll either love it or hate it. I personally love it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174340\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, I really like some of the Capture 1 Pro tools, especially as I'm workin with an M8 now, and C1 has profiles dedicated to it.
But I browsed the tutorial for Ap. 2 and the new tools like correction of blown highlights (I often shoot in hard light places like cafes or the like) seems absolutely a must. Pity the download is bugged : it refuse the serial number Apple emails to you, warning you you should have Ap. 1 or superior to launch the trial. Micro$oft like…
UPDATE
Been unfair to Apple : they're not bogged by Micro$oft yet :
It's stated on the update window in small characters you have to rename or relocate Aperture from its original Application folder prior to launch the trial update.
-
..... whereas I felt that Lightroom was poor on the file system side of things. It just uses categories etc to group files, which doesn't realy work for me.
Have a look at smart albums in Aperture.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=174340\")
You can have what ever filing structure with your folders, that you want in Lightroom. Best doing it outside of LR in a decent file manager.
I file by date+ description[e.g. 2007/2007-12-December/2007-12-25 Xmas day - present opening is the heirachy I use] and add keywords, you can then find stuff via keywords, metadata such as file type or date.
This way of filing is very robust and is very good practice as it will outsurvive all programmes and changes of OSs.
Aren't Collections, LR's version of Smart Albums?
Seems like you haven't really learnt what LR does.
Speaking of learning
All the tutorials I looked at were on the Aperture web site. Now they have released 2, I have no idea if the tutorials are still there or have been updated.
Lots of tutorials on Aperture 2 online. Though not that easy to find.
[a href=\"http://www.apple.com/aperture/tutorials/#organizecompare-keywords]Aperture tutorials[/url]
-
Hi, I've used Aperture and also Lightroom. As a libuary tool I prefer Aperture as I created a number of custom meta data templates with specific fields relating to the photographic content.
Processing, both offer slight differences in how to do similar things. I only use Ap or LR for general "tune ups" for web or standard everyday prints. (Most of my personal work goes through Capture NX - Tiff - CS workflow) However in Ap raw updates should be applied to all archived images. LR uses same engine as CS which is IMHO useful.
File structure, seems to be broadly the same in practice - different names etc, I prefer Ap, but I think that is only because I used it first. I do not load any files into the actual software database - which was the Big snag with Aperture 1
Speed, on my ancient Powerbook LR seems to have the edge.
Overall UI, I slightly prefer AP, but getting very used to LR.
The LR slide displays and web outputs are very good - screen image quality seems better in LR.
I personally slightly prefer Ap, but, and this is the big but, as my more commercial projects will weigh heavily on a successful application such as AP or LR to edit quickly in the field, provide slide shows, present example etc. the industry standard seems to be LR, (As CS is to serious editing) therefore using anything else IMHO comes with the risk of being exposed in the future...
-
Hi, I've used Aperture and also Lightroom. As a libuary tool I prefer Aperture as I created a number of custom meta data templates with specific fields relating to the photographic content.
Processing, both offer slight differences in how to do similar things. I only use Ap or LR for general "tune ups" for web or standard everyday prints. (Most of my personal work goes through Capture NX - Tiff - CS workflow) However in Ap raw updates should be applied to all archived images. LR uses same engine as CS which is IMHO useful.
File structure, seems to be broadly the same in practice - different names etc, I prefer Ap, but I think that is only because I used it first. I do not load any files into the actual software database - which was the Big snag with Aperture 1
Speed, on my ancient Powerbook LR seems to have the edge.
Overall UI, I slightly prefer AP, but getting very used to LR.
The LR slide displays and web outputs are very good - screen image quality seems better in LR.
I personally slightly prefer Ap, but, and this is the big but, as my more commercial projects will weigh heavily on a successful application such as AP or LR to edit quickly in the field, provide slide shows, present example etc. the industry standard seems to be LR, (As CS is to serious editing) therefore using anything else IMHO comes with the risk of being exposed in the future...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174417\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Steven,
I tried Ap. 2 tonight. Great new tools like hot and cold areas, recovery, etc.
But there is a huge but : it is so slow ! Puts strain on my PPC 2x2,5 Ghz like LR, CS2 or C1 never
do, with the wheel spinning indefinitely. I unticked the "Update previews" preference, which improved slowness a bit, but just a bit. How come I've read some here and on Apple forum they run Aperture on their Powerbook fast enough ?
I should add my PPC has been completely overhauled and double-checked 6 months ago, so it's not faulty…
-
You can have what ever filing structure with your folders, that you want in Lightroom. Best doing it outside of LR in a decent file manager.
I file by date+ description[e.g. 2007/2007-12-December/2007-12-25 Xmas day - present opening is the heirachy I use] and add keywords, you can then find stuff via keywords, metadata such as file type or date.
This way of filing is very robust and is very good practice as it will outsurvive all programmes and changes of OSs.
Aren't Collections, LR's version of Smart Albums?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174387\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You make good points, though you're wrong about Collections and Smart Albums. LR only has dumb Collections to which you have to add items manually. Aperture has those too, "albums", but smart albums let you specify a query, so they reflect any updates to metadata. Ap2 takes this further, so you can now include adjustments in a smart album - eg got to test this, but you might define a filter as "images shot in Feb 2008 with rating over 1 and noise reduction not set". This could be a powerful way to control progress through a job, and such Smart Collections would be a great addition to Lightroom. It's one of the few areas where Ap2 has any advantage.
Dumb as they currently are, Collections still allow the sort of project hierarchy that you are simply forced to adopt in Aperture, where projects obscure the physical locations and folder structures, something which kind of dents the idea that Aperture has better DAM features (which it does if you gerrymander how you define DAM). Who can argue that it's not best to have both folder visibility and project hierarchies, if you want them?
John
-
Steven,
I tried Ap. 2 tonight. Great new tools like hot and cold areas, recovery, etc.
But there is a huge but : it is so slow ! Puts strain on my PPC 2x2,5 Ghz like LR, CS2 or C1 never
do, with the wheel spinning indefinitely. I unticked the "Update previews" preference, which improved slowness a bit, but just a bit. How come I've read some here and on Apple forum they run Aperture on their Powerbook fast enough ?
I should add my PPC has been completely overhauled and double-checked 6 months ago, so it's not faulty…
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174481\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm having the same experience. When I start editing a photo it's quick, but after adding a few adjustments it begins to slow down a lot, almost as bad as Aperture 1.x.
I really feel in a quandary right now. I've used both Aperture and LR quite a lot (Aperture at home, LR at work) and they each have strengths and weaknesses. I much prefer Aperture's UI (especially in v2.0), it's organizational features, and a few of it's tools. But I like LR's speed, and more of it's editing tools more. I'm going to try and hold out for LR 2 before upgrading Aperture.
-
I'm having the same experience. When I start editing a photo it's quick, but after adding a few adjustments it begins to slow down a lot, almost as bad as Aperture 1.x.
I really feel in a quandary right now. I've used both Aperture and LR quite a lot (Aperture at home, LR at work) and they each have strengths and weaknesses. I much prefer Aperture's UI (especially in v2.0), it's organizational features, and a few of it's tools. But I like LR's speed, and more of it's editing tools more. I'm going to try and hold out for LR 2 before upgrading Aperture.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174876\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, I made a PRAM on my Mac and it's slightly better. What irks me, apart the slowness, are Aperture's cursors which "stick" and are not smooth as in C1 or LR.
I'm fortunate to have all 3 applications and for now it's C1 I prefer for its fast enhancing tools,
then LR. But Aperture has some very convenient tools also for fast work like recovery with display of hot and cold areas, really convenient.
I'll make another test after defrag of my hard drive.
If Aperture 2 is still that slow, I'll use it only for pictures needing fast recovery.
If not, I might consider a switch. Even if the vault eats a lot of disk space unnecessarily.
-
Even if the vault eats a lot of disk space unnecessarily.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174882\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Then use referenced rather than managed images.
John
-
Then use referenced rather than managed images.
John
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174884\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Apple's Aperture
A Non-Review
"On faster machines I'm quite sure it runs better. A friend with a Quad G5 and 4 GB of RAM says that it runs quite nicely. I'm sure it does. But until there's a $10,000 UbberMac on my desk I'll just have to take his word for it."
*** I have a 2x2,5Ghz and it's still slow. LR and C1 are not.
"One of the major complaints against Aperture, which I resoundingly echo, is that it is a unitary database program. By this I mean that it keeps all of its files and data in one huge database. This has several implications. The first is that your entire collection of raw files, completed files, versions etc, can not be larger than a single hard drive. This is simply unacceptable for a professional application. I currently have more then two Terabytes of files occupying 10 separate drives, and I'm sure that most pros and active photographers have as much if not more – and growing weekly.
Yes, I know that you can change to a different database, but what if you want to search for, compare and re-catalog files that reside on different disks? Can't do it. Bad. Really bad. Can you say "dumb design"?
Another issue is that your raw files are sucked into this database, and that's where they live. Yes, you can first copy them to a separate directory and drive before ingesting them into Aperture. And, yes, you can extract them from Aperture. But, I am very uncomfortable having my files living inside a large unitary database. I really don't see why a more modern relational database structure can not be adopted. It feels like Apple simply adapted their rather limited IPhoto structure when creating Aperture.
Consequently Aperture really has little utility for cataloging images. Without the ability to catalog files outside of its own limited environment, photographers are forced to use other cataloging programs, and these are incapable of reaching inside Aperture to index its files. All in all a bad situation."
Agree.
-
Who are you quoting?
I largely agree, but 1.5's introduction of referencing was a sensible move away from the iPhoto model.
John
-
Who are you quoting?
I largely agree, but 1.5's introduction of referencing was a sensible move away from the iPhoto model.
John
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174891\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I suppose it's Michael Reichmann…
-
Ah, it does sound like his writing style - "which I resoundingly echo" is a very Michaelish phrase.
But he must have been discussing 1.0, because those issues faded away after 1.5 if you abandoned the idea of managed images and the vault. You can mix and match within a single library, using managed for new images, and then moving them to referenced locations once you no longer need them on your workstation.
John
-
With Ap 1 having everything sucked into the database was not what I or most other photographers wanted. However listening to Apples argument there concept made sense in theory. I suppose one of the characters of Apple products, hard or software is that they like designing an item or a way of doing something and then try and convince the world via sharp marketing to be part of the experience - to do things the apple way.
When apple does something we like its great, cool, neat, and we make remarks like why do folks still use MS!! But to enable a company to nudge the creative edge of new products we have to accept that sometimes their vision won't be accepted by the intended user and we will be bit disappointed.
Apple provides a very strong consumer branding and a lot of sales for products are probably based on a feeling of consumer safety, removal of the risk of making a poor choice! However that does not mean it is the best.... Apple software also is so "apple family" orientated that sometimes the user is made to feel a little hassled at using non apple product. Yet while most apple products provide good consumer satisfaction, many pro or serious photographers will be using non apple functions and don't want the sometimes tacky bombardment of apple branding, iweb, .mac, iphoto, itunes, ......
LR is built more around the solid principles of what pro photographers wanted, based on experiences with a variety of other similar programs, and Aperture's arrival probably spurred things on. One could argue it is a bit of a bland interface compared to Aperture, but ultimately it is a tool. Adobe with its portfolio of industry standard software must therefore be a safe bet to be trusted with software such as LR.
But I do see something of a twist.
Adobe will have to decide where the line is between LR and CS. There will be a point where the extra sales of CS from LR uses will turn into a reduction in CS purchases if LR offers too much....
However Aperture is not limited to such restrictions while it is certainly not a replacement for CS, it would be foolish to imagine a world in which Apple would not like a competent rival. This could make Aperture by the time it evolves into version 4 or 5 a very interesting prospect.
-
Although I'm using LR, I don't enjoy it much. It feels like a very old product which has got bogged down with over complex and badly organised features. I find it bizarre when the various LR cheerleaders go on about how there are so many different ways to do the same thing in LR - especially as this is what makes Photoshop so daunting. To me it really feels like it was designed by a committee, with no real overall direction, and far too much fluff. I find it unbelievable when LR cheerleaders criticise Aperture for being "sprinkled with buttons" - almost EVERYTHING is a button or a control in LR, and as for the context menus and the secret options, and, well, whatever, LR is certainly NOT a paragon of good User Interface design. The hastily thrown together stacks feature in LR is a dog - why does it have all these arbitrary restrictions ? The confusing rules about using flags, the opaque collections, etc etc.... Well, at least it gives some justification for the avalanche of "how to" Lightroom books. If it is so intuitive, why is there such a market for these books ?
But....... the image manipulation features in LR are just brilliant. Targeted adjustments are the best innovation I've seen in years. And the evolved curves and other contrast tools are genuinely brilliant. And Aperture 2 still has those insane split level controls, a totally pointless, and not very effective reinvention of the wheel.
So, a clunky UI that supports an excellent image manipulation tool, or a great UI with much better DAM but with so-so image manipulation ? Stupid question, really.
The real problem is in the nature of these products: the downside to non-destructive editing is that it ties you into the software. Sure, Aperture 5 may be a great product, but I can't imagine it would be good enough bait for people with 5 years work tied in in LR's proprietary edit metadata. Or vice versa.
-
"If it is so intuitive, why is there such a market for these books ?"
You've said that before, haven't you? I can just imagine marketing departments throughout Silicon Valley falling over themselves to stuff their ad campaigns with buzzwords like "unintuitive", "add brainpower", "if you need it explained, you're too dumb to use it", "RTFM dude". It's obviously a multi-faceted demand. What's totally intuitive for one person is less so for others, to varying degrees and in differing areas of a program. People want to learn faster, discover best practice or confirm their intuition, slavishly follow some wild-eyed guru, etc etc.
Rather like you I use LR without having much affection for it, not like I think I have for some other programs that I've enjoyed using (Excel, Dreamweaver, Fireworks, iView, Cognos PowerPlay, or even Lotus Improv) but I think you're wrong to characterize LR as "old" or "designed by a committee". I'd argue that at times it's too relentlessly built from the ground up (eg metadata presets and sync excludes keywords, point curve, the xsl-based Web engine), and that there's a very tight, almost stubborn direction behind its modular structure and visual coherence. This is so thoroughly-realized that I think it would be fair to describe the interface with words like rigid, blocky, step-like, and I would have preferred the panels to be floating, dockable palettes like in Dreamweaver, and a less modular structure (the UI designer spent time with Macromedia and with Kai). I agree with your point about stacks, wish flags were global by default and local by preference, but think you're mostly wrong about context menus. "Mostly" because I think Auto Sync should be the default and you shouldn't have to Ctrl/Cmd click to enable it - together the the targeted adjustment tool, this is one of my favourite features in LR.
Turning to Aperture, I'll stand. My first thoughts upon using it were it was like a cross between Extensis Portfolio (the product manager is ex Extensis) and SQL Server Enterprise. Is it really Apple-like, whatever that means? The top toolbar is more Microsoft style, pre Office 2007 (thankfully), but otherwise I find its interface remarkably fiddly with at least 5 styles of little buttons scattered in different areas of the screen. Why for example is the Quick Preview button stuck down at the bottom right corner, or those vault buttons in the bottom left? All those little buttons look like pretty good evidence of changes of design direction and compromise, as do the brushed metal and full screen modules, oops views, and the differences between managed and referenced files (I've never been a fan of projects which obscure the real locations of your files and which are a gaping hole in your "much better DAM" judgement). There is plenty I like about the product - I'm a big fan of smart folders, the loupe, the new Quick Preview - and if it were the only show in town and ran on the PC too, I'd use it, but again without a lot of affection.
As for looking forward, I suppose I go back to the old Ansel Adams nostrum about the negative and the performance. To preserve a rendition, save a TIF, but in 5 years' time you'll print the same negs on different paper, with different developer, with different eyes and sensibilities. It would obviously be ideal if all these programs wrote certain "common" adjustments like WB to XMP, and you'd then see people making *good enough* adjustment translation scripts (better still if both programs were scriptable and you could make them talk). But providing your descriptive metadata is transferable, I'm unconvinced that it matters too much if your editing metadata is locked in.
John
-
"If it is so intuitive, why is there such a market for these books ?"
Well that was slightly tongue in cheek... and I've got several of these books myself (I won't name names, to remain impartial :-) ). But I do think I've got a point, and actually, another strong point of Aperture over LR is (was, maybe, looking at new packaging) the almost retro-like quantity & quality of documentation in came with. LR's help is ok, but the total lack of serious documentation is good enough fuel for a conspiracy theory......
What I really want is iView coupled with an intelligent RAW engine plugin, maybe C1 by default. This seemed so obvious - I reckon iView & PhaseOne really missed a golden opportunity there. But I suppose it will never happen now. I want a DAM which accommodates RAW but does not exclude film. Aperture is actually better at that than LR. I'm probably an edge case.
Finally, I just don't hold with this "Aperture hides photos" bollox. You know well enough that it does no such thing. It is trying to abstract the file system concept, which frankly may well turn out to be way ahead of its time. I see no real reason, from a UI design perspective, why we as PC users need to have a mental model of a file system these days. It should be as outmoded as thinking about sectors or tape headers. I suppose if Microsoft had not screwed up that aspect of Vista, it would be common practice by now.
-
What I really want is iView coupled with an intelligent RAW engine plugin, maybe C1 by default. This seemed so obvious - I reckon iView & PhaseOne really missed a golden opportunity there.
Though what I've always wanted too. I'm certain that almost all photographers have things other than photos to manage as part of photographic jobs.
Finally, I just don't hold with this "Aperture hides photos" bollox. You know well enough that it does no such thing. It is trying to abstract the file system concept, which frankly may well turn out to be way ahead of its time. I see no real reason, from a UI design perspective, why we as PC users need to have a mental model of a file system these days. It should be as outmoded as thinking about sectors or tape headers. I suppose if Microsoft had not screwed up that aspect of Vista, it would be common practice by now.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=175416\")
Yes, I do indeed. Aperture fans can call it abstracting, but it is equally true to say it obscures your folder structure, just the spin is not quite so positive or persuasive. That's the beauty of Foxspeak.
I think the idea is ahead of its time, at least for most users *. But while I prefer Lightroom's control over real folders, plus abstraction via collection, one could always turn that round to say that it encourages users to adopt poor file management practice - eg [a href=\"http://www.adobe.com/designcenter/lightroom/articles/lir1at_orgsystem.html]here[/url] and here (http://blogs.oreilly.com/lightroom/2008/02/organizing-your-images-before.html). Helps spice up the authoring market though.
Conspiracy theory? How could you!
John
* Just one specific where abstraction makes life harder than it needs to be. How can you be 100% certain all the photos on Drive X are in Aperture? I've no doubt there are fancier ways to guarantee it (eg automator or script) but AFAICS, in Aperture you'd have to reimport that drive.
-
Though what I've always wanted too. I'm certain that almost all photographers have things other than photos to manage as part of photographic jobs.
This is my main criticism of LR, if it is to be a real DAM app for photographers, it needs to be able to import all file formats relevent to photography. I may have notes and information about who/what I shot in a text file, an audio clip to add into a slide show etc. Once it does that, only then it will be a true photographer's tool. As it stands now I cannot even do a Collection of images to use in my portfolio as many of them are duo/tritones and LR won't import them even though they are PSDs. Duh!
I've posted thoughts elswhere about how great a programme LR could be if it was less blinkered and restrictive. On one of the Podcasts regarding LR, one of the creators states how LR was designed to solve their specific workflow issues and which led to my mind, to the mistakes like not recognising different file extensions. LR is quite proscriptive in how one should work, a better programme would be one that allowed more varied workflow paradigms as people are very different. That's PS's main strength and not it's main weakness as some would have it.
Yes, I do indeed. Aperture fans can call it abstracting, but it is equally true to say it obscures your folder structure, just the spin is not quite so positive or persuasive. That's the beauty of Foxspeak.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=175420\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
One should eshcew obfuscation like abstraction.
DRM - Even if you take the view that Aperture doesn't hide your images, Apple sure make a messy [and meaningless to humans ] folder structure from what I've seen they do in iTunes and iPhoto. Which makes it difficult to leave the product behind as nothing else can understand what the hell is going on, Apple are very, very controling in that respect, iPods+iTunes for example. I think MS's market controlling pales into insignificance, compared to Apple.
A filing system that is programme and OS independent can be used by any decent software and that is usable all the way into the future, makes far more sense to me. You'll be stuffed when in 15yrs time if say for instance Apple goes under and Aperture, even if still around, is discontinued. And any company no matter how big can go under. Enron, Pan-Am, TWA, United Artists are the first few I can think of. IBM have gone from all powerful to just another company. And Apple could easily founder without Jobs, as so much of Apple's credence is built upon the Cult of Jobs.
So a filing system that is beholden to a specific programme is a very bad long term investment.
-
You can have what ever filing structure with your folders, that you want in Lightroom. Best doing it outside of LR in a decent file manager.
I file by date+ description[e.g. 2007/2007-12-December/2007-12-25 Xmas day - present opening is the heirachy I use] and add keywords, you can then find stuff via keywords, metadata such as file type or date.
This way of filing is very robust and is very good practice as it will outsurvive all programmes and changes of OSs.
Aren't Collections, LR's version of Smart Albums?
Seems like you haven't really learnt what LR does.
Speaking of learning
Lots of tutorials on Aperture 2 online. Though not that easy to find.
Aperture tutorials (http://www.apple.com/aperture/tutorials/#organizecompare-keywords)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174387\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Collections in Lightroom are crap. They're truly horrible. It's just you don't know how bad they are until you've used Aperture. In Aperture you can define smart albums, based on a large number of criteria, and they are constantly updated.
Lightrooms collections are static (so they're not "smart" in any way), but what REALLY kills me is there's a ton of functionality which is NOT available when you're working in a collection. I like LR for a lot of things, but what really gets me is that I forget about the modal interface until it KILLS me. And these are SIMPLE things, like I cannot stack photos in the loupe view -- only in the grid view. Why? There are similar things in collections -- I can't recall if it's not possible to keyword when you're in a collection -- there are a few things you CANNOT do and it really is painful.
I switched from Aperture to LR because it's better for editing... and for landscape stuff which is mainly what I do, that was enough. But for sorting/organizing/etc., my past 1 1/2 years with Aperture really show me the warts that LR has in these areas -- it's grossly immature by comparison to Aperture's "You can do pretty much what you want when you want," and every time I have simple thoughts like "I'm cleaning a dust spot but I just though of a good keyword," I CANNOT do it without totally cheezing my workflow.
Sorry, I just got through sorting through 1600 photos of the Tour of California prologue and I felt a fair bit of pain, as well as accidentally added about 40 photos to a "quick collection" because I clicked the wrong area of the thumbnail in the film strip
-
But....... the image manipulation features in LR are just brilliant. Targeted adjustments are the best innovation I've seen in years. And the evolved curves and other contrast tools are genuinely brilliant. And Aperture 2 still has those insane split level controls, a totally pointless, and not very effective reinvention of the wheel.
So, a clunky UI that supports an excellent image manipulation tool, or a great UI with much better DAM but with so-so image manipulation ? Stupid question, really.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=175092\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Agree on the targeted adjustment tool in LR. That was *real* innovation, and it makes things markedly better.
Note that Aperture 2 copies this somewhat -- you can now use an eyedropper in the photo and pick a point for which you can edit the HSL values... basically you can do this with 6 points. It provides very similar functionality to what Lightroom's TAT can do.
As for curves versus levers... no argument there. I heard some arguments that the levels tools in Aperture were more flexible and the retort was "Well, you could steer a car with levers really well and that may be super precise but then almost nobody could drive a car." Touche :-)
Agree as well on the trade-offs of image manipulation versus organization. Aperture is still far ahead of LR on that point. Here's to hoping that either:
1) LR 2.0 vastly improves its organizational abilities
2) Aperture gets the ability to import XMP so I can move back without needing to convert all my photos to DNG so it can get my keywords and ratings (oh, the irony).