Aperture on Sierra

[Toshanco]

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

[RobSaecker]

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.

[BobShaw]

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

[Toshanco]

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.

[BobShaw]

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.

[john beardsworth]

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?

[BobShaw]

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.

[RobSaecker]

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).

[BobShaw]

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.

[john beardsworth]

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.

[ButchM]

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.

[john beardsworth]

Subjective preference for the results is different from the claim that it was better as a raw converter than its competitors - it never was.

[ButchM]

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.

[john beardsworth]

Your opinion of what never was is indeed subjective.

It was no better than its competitors. FFS.

[BobShaw]

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.

[john beardsworth]

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.

[ButchM]

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

[john beardsworth]

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.

[BobShaw]

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. (:-)

[ButchM]

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.