Aperture 2.1 tutorial

[Kenneth Sky]

Any chance of LL creating a downloadable tutorial for Aperture 2.1?

[michael]

No, not likely.

Every time there's a new version or major update I try Aperture, but I simply find that it doesn't appeal to me. There's little inherently wrong with Aperture (certainly with 2.0 and onwards) but I just can't get comfortable with its workflow and user interface.

I only teach and do tutorials on products that I use myself, so......

Michael

[Kenneth Sky]

Fair enough. Too bad because you have a teaching style that makes it very easy for me to learn a programme. I must say, I prefer LR's interface. However, the RAW converter in Aperture seems to handle the high ISO exposures on my Sony A700 better. So, Amazon here I come.

[bryanyc]

Fair enough. Too bad because you have a teaching style that makes it very easy for me to learn a programme. I must say, I prefer LR's interface. However, the RAW converter in Aperture seems to handle the high ISO exposures on my Sony A700 better. So, Amazon here I come.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195251\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

There is a new aperture book that should finally be shipping mid May, I have one on order.

Aperture is a great program - and greatly under appreciated.

[David Mantripp]

Personally I find the combination of the Apple getting started guide, the 700 page user manual, the various videos on the web site, and all the auxiliary stuff quite enough.  The quality of Apple's technical writing and publications team has always been stellar, although they get precious little credit for it.

If Lightroom was as well documented as Aperture is, I doubt they'd be much need for 3rd party tutorials...    Honestly, entertaining as it maybe in small doses, watching two guys sitting behind their laptops for 5 hours yakking about whatever it is not a terribly educating experience. Not to me, anyway.  

[CatOne]

...Honestly, entertaining as it maybe in small doses, watching two guys sitting behind their laptops for 5 hours yakking about whatever it is not a terribly educating experience. Not to me, anyway. 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195880\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ouch.  The gloves come off  

Lynda.com also has some good video tutorials.  Not sure there's one focused on Aperture 2.x yet though.

[michael]

David,

You omitted saying – gray haired guys wearing loud shirts.

Michael (putting his gloves back on).

[situgrrl]

Seriously - what is it with photographers of a certain standing and age and grey beards?!

[michael]

OK, I give up. What is it?

Michael

[David Mantripp]

I did qualify with "to me, at least". The popularity of the video tutorials shows I'm in a minority, and anyway I do find them entertaining.

Actually, I've watched a few Lynda.com videos, and they're even worse. The ones I've seen are presented by people with no speaking skills and no personality, and they go on for e-v-e-r. They are so incredibly slow that I just cannot understand who could have the patience, or justify the time, to sit through them.

I think video tutorials are incredibly difficult to do, and the LL ones are amongst the best I've seen. Clearly a lot of work goes into them, and the camera work and video production standards would be hard to beat.   BUT ... I can get a lot more out of reading a Lightroom book for a few hours than watching the video. Sorry, YMMV, but that's my experience.

I'm happy to pay for them to support the site though, so whatever!

One area which could be improved is to extend - a lot - the use of screen recordings, maybe using software such as TechSmith Camtasia or Adobe Captivate to add annotations and pointers.  Although it is nice to switch back to the speakers, honestly most of the time we only need to hear them, not see them. And I'm not even getting into the discussion about shirts.

I didn't want to come across as negative in my reply, which had more to do with Apple's approach to documentation compared to Adobe's, especially as I really do appreciate how much work goes into these videos, and how remarkably good value for money they are - if the medium works for you.

Of course, one could also argue that Lightroom _needs_ more documentation  

[Exegeter]

I picked up the Lightroom tutorial along with a Video Journal download and sat down with it for the first time today.  The only thing I really couldn't figure out how to apply to Aperture was the split toning feature, but almost everything else was easily translatable.  I found features I didn't know where there, and they made my ability to manipulate the exposure so much more effective.  

Thanks, Michael.

btw, when I was in college, I watched a few titles from the Lynda series as part of independent study in web development.  Not only are they slow, but they weren't making the best use of technology at the time.  I'm not sure if that's the case now, but I remember the Flash series being particularly bad culprits.  Although, I DID learn enough to use it confidently and build upon what I knew.  Their audience is mostly likely made up of those who have relatively little experience, and for them I believe it is a very good resource.

[CatOne]

There is no split toning in Aperture, so it would be tough to figure out how to do that, based on learning it in LR ;-)

[Kenneth Sky]

However there is soft profing. I guess you can't have it all in one application. To me, it's not the lack of split toning that I miss in shifting to Aperture 2 but as Michael points out, LR's GUI is much more intuitive especially for an old timer (like me) who graduated from a darkroom to digital.

[CatOne]

However there is soft profing. I guess you can't have it all in one application. To me, it's not the lack of split toning that I miss in shifting to Aperture 2 but as Michael points out, LR's GUI is much more intuitive especially for an old timer (like me) who graduated from a darkroom to digital.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=203596\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

What about the GUI in LR is more intuitive to you as compared to Aperture?  In many ways I found them fairly similar, with the exception that switching between LR's Library and Develop modules really did drive me crazy.  Or do you like the modular interface because it somewhat forces you to do only one thing at a time?

Aperture 2.0 in the aim of reducing clutter actually is more "modal-like."  Not that the behavior is different if you know the shortcuts, but you can't *see* keywords and adjustments at the same time... you need to cycle between the panels which takes some adjustment.

[currymac]

Every time there's a new version or major update I try Aperture, but I simply find that it doesn't appeal to me. There's little inherently wrong with Aperture (certainly with 2.0 and onwards) but I just can't get comfortable with its workflow and user interface.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195203\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I have just completed my first run-through of the Camera to Print tutorial which is absolutely fabulous.

Even though I've spent over 26 years in the industry I still marvel at how rapidly technology advances. Perhaps that's why I've lasted 26 years. The tutorial is just over a year old and already there have been significant advances. Lightroom and Aperture have both gone to v.2, and there have been a raft of new printers released. Perhaps it's time for an addendum?

Although I fully support Michael's approach to sticking with Lightroom and only offering tutorials on what he knows, it would be extremely interesting to get an in-depth review of precisely WHY he has made his choice. If, as he says, "there's little inherently wrong with Aperture," then what makes Lightroom so much better?