Aperture on Sierra

[john beardsworth]

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....

[john beardsworth]

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....

[CatOne]

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.

[BobShaw]

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.

[john beardsworth]

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.

[BobShaw]

Snowflake.

The snow is freezing brains in the UK!

[RobSaecker]

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?

[BobShaw]

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.

[ButchM]

... 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.

[RobSaecker]

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?

[ButchM]

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.

[RobSaecker]

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.

[CatOne]

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

[KevinA]

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.

[RobSaecker]

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.

[jwstl]

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.

[john beardsworth]

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.

[jwstl]

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.

[CatOne]

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.

[john beardsworth]

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.