Aperture......good but falling behind!

[Stewart McKInlay]

Is there a trend for people to abandon Aperture and move to Lightroom? I use and enjoy Aperture the interface is great, it is Apple and therefore it just works! BUT, it is seriously being left behind and unless anyone knows differently there is no sign of an update. I have a large and getting larger photo collection and if one day I have to migrate to Adobe then sooner would be better. SO.....what should I do? I want to stay with Aperture but it is important to me to be able to keep up with the latest algorithms and tools to make sure my images can be PP'd to best effect. Jump now or wait for Apple? Is Apple giving up on Aperture? Come on Apple give us a clue!

 

[Johanfoto]

Is there a trend for people to abandon Aperture and move to Lightroom? I use and enjoy Aperture the interface is great, it is Apple and therefore it just works! BUT, it is seriously being left behind and unless anyone knows differently there is no sign of an update. I have a large and getting larger photo collection and if one day I have to migrate to Adobe then sooner would be better. SO.....what should I do? I want to stay with Aperture but it is important to me to be able to keep up with the latest algorithms and tools to make sure my images can be PP'd to best effect. Jump now or wait for Apple? Is Apple giving up on Aperture? Come on Apple give us a clue!

Let's not start yet another Aperture versus Lightroom battle, please...

 

[james_the_first]

What part of its function as a digital asset management tool is falling behind?

j

 

[Mark Alan Thomas]

What part of its function as a digital asset management tool is falling behind?

j

As an asset manager, nothing beats it, but the op’s concerns extend beyond asset management.

 

[Basalite]

Is there a trend for people to abandon Aperture and move to Lightroom? I use and enjoy Aperture the interface is great, it is Apple and therefore it just works! BUT, it is seriously being left behind and unless anyone knows differently there is no sign of an update. I have a large and getting larger photo collection and if one day I have to migrate to Adobe then sooner would be better. SO.....what should I do? I want to stay with Aperture but it is important to me to be able to keep up with the latest algorithms and tools to make sure my images can be PP'd to best effect. Jump now or wait for Apple? Is Apple giving up on Aperture? Come on Apple give us a clue!

Let's not start yet another Aperture versus Lightroom battle, please...

You are not forced to participate in such discussions.

--
Johan
http://www.johanfoto.com

 

[Basalite]

What part of its function as a digital asset management tool is falling behind?

The image editing functions, where it isn't "falling behind," it is "behind."

j

 

[james_the_first]

What part of its function as a digital asset management tool is falling behind?

The image editing functions, where it isn't "falling behind," it is "behind."

Well it obviously has the basics covered, which suit me fine

but the apple way is to get others to program the precise editing tools the market wants and make sure they can be integrated - there are plenty which play alongside Aperture just fine

It has to be said - just how usable is PS without the tools scripts and shortcuts written by others and it certainly represents a learning overhead most are unwilling to commit to

If you need an image editor - run one from within Aperture or fire one up to begin with

If you need an asset management tool fire up Aperture - and benefit from intuitive and effective editing tools bundled in - horses for courses - and Aperture shouldn't be thought of primarily as an image editor - if that's what you're doing its no wonder you think its falling behind

j

 

[ken henke]

Indeed, it is behind Lightroom/Camera RAW and many other RAW processing apps when it come to recovering shadows, for one example. Particularly, those difficult images in which there is considerable dynamic range, Aperture just doesn't have the ability to handle the extreme adjustments necessary to create a quality image. Yes, the shadow slider is capable of lightening shadows, but it doesn't process them with clean results. And related to that, the well documented deficiency of noise reduction. In fact, I have been shocked at how well Camera Raw 8 is able to handle extreme dynamic range with excellent clean results.

That said, Aperture processes most images, that don't have extreme dynamic range or other problematic images, quite well. It's initial processing seems to always have a very good color rendition, at least for Nikon cameras. The mid-contrast control also works exceptionally well on some images. The same goes for the recovery slider. It works well as it doesn't create weird color shifts and works on images I thought could never be recovered.

Fortunately, I have found a decent procedure for "round-tripping" to Camera Raw/Photoshop to process some images. Thus, my workflow still is acceptable as I wait and wait for Apple to improve the algorithms in Aperture. Many of the sub-par tools, (noise reduction, sharpening, perspective control, etc) can be found in many of the plugins available, for a current solution. I also should mention I find the printing capability quite good, as well. But even that can be improved a bit since I found Qimage's detail resolution a tad bit better.

The bottom line and purpose of my comments is to let folks know that I wouldn't trash any images that Aperture can't process well. Options may include using another Raw processor, utilizing HDR software, or manually blending exposures in Photoshop. Depending on how demanding you may be about your images, you can do amazing adjustments to images through OnOne and Nik plugins without ever having to use Photoshop. Unfortunately, I demand the utmost clean artifact free images. Thus, many of my edits on challenging images include the use of luminosity masking, which can only be accomplished through Photoshop.

 

[Basalite]

What part of its function as a digital asset management tool is falling behind?

The image editing functions, where it isn't "falling behind," it is "behind."

Well it obviously has the basics covered, which suit me fine

Perhaps many of those "basics" work better in another app?

but the apple way is to get others to program the precise editing tools the market wants

Come again? If they were doing that then people wouldn't be switching over to lightroom as much as they are.

and make sure they can be integrated -

In terms of image editing Lightroom is a nigh and day difference when it comes to integration.

there are plenty which play alongside Aperture just fine

Why would Apple depend on others to make up for what Aperture lacks in comparison to Lightroom, when it comes to image editing? Most people don't want to use more apps than are necessary, and they certainly do not want to pay more.

It has to be said - just how usable is PS without the tools scripts and shortcuts written by others and it certainly represents a learning overhead most are unwilling to commit to

If you need an image editor - run one from within Aperture or fire one up to begin with

Photoshop is not a valid comparison to Aperture.

If you need an asset management tool fire up Aperture - and benefit from intuitive and effective editing tools bundled in - horses for courses -

That's just it, Lightroom has arguably the more "intuitive and effective editing tools."

and Aperture shouldn't be thought of primarily as an image editor - if that's what you're doing its no wonder you think its falling behind

Both Lightroom and Aperture serve two core functions, file management and image editing. They are both image editors. It is logical to expect Aperture to remain competent in that area when competing against Lightroom. Since it has not, more and more people keep migrating to Lightroom.

j

 

[Basalite]

Indeed, it is behind Lightroom/Camera RAW and many other RAW processing apps when it come to recovering shadows, for one example.

And highlights.

Particularly, those difficult images in which there is considerable dynamic range, Aperture just doesn't have the ability to handle the extreme adjustments necessary to create a quality image. Yes, the shadow slider is capable of lightening shadows, but it doesn't process them with clean results. And related to that, the well documented deficiency of noise reduction. In fact, I have been shocked at how well Camera Raw 8 is able to handle extreme dynamic range with excellent clean results.

That said, Aperture processes most images, that don't have extreme dynamic range or other problematic images, quite well. It's initial processing seems to always have a very good color rendition, at least for Nikon cameras. The mid-contrast control also works exceptionally well on some images. The same goes for the recovery slider. It works well as it doesn't create weird color shifts and works on images I thought could never be recovered.

Fortunately, I have found a decent procedure for "round-tripping" to Camera Raw/Photoshop to process some images. Thus, my workflow still is acceptable as I wait and wait for Apple to improve the algorithms in Aperture. Many of the sub-par tools, (noise reduction, sharpening, perspective control, etc) can be found in many of the plugins available, for a current solution. I also should mention I find the printing capability quite good, as well. But even that can be improved a bit since I found Qimage's detail resolution a tad bit better.

The bottom line and purpose of my comments is to let folks know that I wouldn't trash any images that Aperture can't process well. Options may include using another Raw processor, utilizing HDR software, or manually blending exposures in Photoshop. Depending on how demanding you may be about your images, you can do amazing adjustments to images through OnOne and Nik plugins without ever having to use Photoshop. Unfortunately, I demand the utmost clean artifact free images. Thus, many of my edits on challenging images include the use of luminosity masking, which can only be accomplished through Photoshop.

 

[james_the_first]

Both Lightroom and Aperture serve two core functions

That's your error

PS there's no 'best' image editor just as there is no perfectly edited image

Assuming similar results I'll go with the product that quickest, easiest and cheapest - Aperture every time

 

[Kendall Helmstetter Gelner]

Is there a trend for people to abandon Aperture and move to Lightroom? I use and enjoy Aperture the interface is great, it is Apple and therefore it just works! BUT, it is seriously being left behind and unless anyone knows differently there is no sign of an update. I have a large and getting larger photo collection and if one day I have to migrate to Adobe then sooner would be better. SO.....what should I do? I want to stay with Aperture but it is important to me to be able to keep up with the latest algorithms and tools to make sure my images can be PP'd to best effect. Jump now or wait for Apple? Is Apple giving up on Aperture? Come on Apple give us a clue!

We already have a lot of clues - read the thread about Aperture 4 probably being released with the Mac Pro. Also note that we saw a 3.5 update that required a bit of work to put together, so it's pretty obvious Apple is not dropping Aperture anytime soon or why go to the trouble they did?

Regardless, Aperture is not behind Lightroom in the reason why you use either - to manage images. For editing Aperture still has a lot of abilities, and you can easily extend to very complex editing with plugins that give you way more ability than the base Lightroom has.

Try downloading Lightroom and see for yourself. I download every update and have not wanted to switch away yet... and be on the lookout in December, hopefully we'll see a larger update to Aperture.

 

[Basalite]

Is there a trend for people to abandon Aperture and move to Lightroom? I use and enjoy Aperture the interface is great, it is Apple and therefore it just works! BUT, it is seriously being left behind and unless anyone knows differently there is no sign of an update. I have a large and getting larger photo collection and if one day I have to migrate to Adobe then sooner would be better. SO.....what should I do? I want to stay with Aperture but it is important to me to be able to keep up with the latest algorithms and tools to make sure my images can be PP'd to best effect. Jump now or wait for Apple? Is Apple giving up on Aperture? Come on Apple give us a clue!

We already have a lot of clues - read the thread about Aperture 4 probably being released with the Mac Pro.

Actually, there is no reasonable clues to suggest that Aperture will have a big update when the new mac pro is released. Remember, Apple says nothing.

Also note that we saw a 3.5 update that required a bit of work to put together, so it's pretty obvious Apple is not dropping Aperture anytime soon or why go to the trouble they did?

It was work that had nothing to do with addressing the image editing deficiencies of Aperture.

Regardless, Aperture is not behind Lightroom in the reason why you use either - to manage images. For editing Aperture still has a lot of abilities, and you can easily extend to very complex editing with plugins that give you way more ability than the base Lightroom has.

Why are you comparing Aperture with plugins to Lightroom? Most people have no desire to use additional software and certainly have no desire to pay more than they have to. If Aperture has to depend on plugins to compete with Lightroom then it is clearly behind when it comes to image editing.

Try downloading Lightroom and see for yourself. I download every update and have not wanted to switch away yet... and be on the lookout in December, hopefully we'll see a larger update to Aperture.

--
---> Kendall
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kigiphoto/
http://www.pbase.com/kgelner
http://www.pbase.com/sigmadslr/user_home

 

[Simon Elwell]

... don't live well with each other. I've had no end of problems and have even clean installed everything (ie OS upwards) but still have issues. For that reason alone I've installed Lightroom. I haven't fully committed to it yet but as a Fuji X-trans user I'm finding the latest version of ACR more than competent at the RAW conversion task.

I hate Adobe as a company and can't forgive them for losing my personal details - but grudgingly I have to concede that Aperture is not the market leader it once was.

 

[Basalite]

... don't live well with each other. I've had no end of problems and have even clean installed everything (ie OS upwards) but still have issues. For that reason alone I've installed Lightroom.

All new versions of operating systems will have issues. You could always go back to Mountain Lion for the time being.

I haven't fully committed to it yet but as a Fuji X-trans user I'm finding the latest version of ACR more than competent at the RAW conversion task.

I hate Adobe as a company and can't forgive them for losing my personal details -

Why? That could happen with any company. What's the big deal? You reset your password and have a new card reissued.

but grudgingly I have to concede that Aperture is not the market leader it once was.

Yep.

 

[Nikko aus London]

Stewart

You might want to consider using Aperture for its strengths (DAM) but breathing new life into image editing by purchasing the Google Nik plug-in suite and calling these from within Aperture. I went down this path and couldn't be happier - the experience is seamless. I had experience of the Nik U-Point technology from my days shooting Nikon and editing with NX2 and it's waaay better now. And with Google slashing the cost of Nik, what's to stop you?

I did consider Lightroom but its catalogue management and workflow sucked IMHO.

Nikko

 

[Basalite]

Stewart

You might want to consider using Aperture for its strengths (DAM) but breathing new life into image editing by purchasing the Google Nik plug-in suite and calling these from within Aperture. I went down this path and couldn't be happier - the experience is seamless. I had experience of the Nik U-Point technology from my days shooting Nikon and editing with NX2 and it's waaay better now. And with Google slashing the cost of Nik, what's to stop you?

I did consider Lightroom but its catalogue management and workflow sucked IMHO.

Nikko

Why add $150 worth of plugins to Aperture to breathe "new life" into it when there are already better all in one solutions?

Catalog management? If you are really into that then I hear there is nothing better than Photo Mechanic.

 

[Nikko aus London]

Stewart

You might want to consider using Aperture for its strengths (DAM) but breathing new life into image editing by purchasing the Google Nik plug-in suite and calling these from within Aperture. I went down this path and couldn't be happier - the experience is seamless. I had experience of the Nik U-Point technology from my days shooting Nikon and editing with NX2 and it's waaay better now. And with Google slashing the cost of Nik, what's to stop you?

I did consider Lightroom but its catalogue management and workflow sucked IMHO.

Nikko

Why add $150 worth of plugins to Aperture to breathe "new life" into it when there are already better all in one solutions?

Catalog management? If you are really into that then I hear there is nothing better than Photo Mechanic.

Firstly, I bought PM to use alongside NX2 and yet I prefer Aperture for DAM. PM added meta data management to NX2 but neither product addressed storage management at all. That deficiency sits at the heart of my beef with LR. Storing masters/versions within hierarchies of folder structures is so last century. By contrast, Aperture's catalogs are self-managing, come with their own Vaulting system and yet also play well with TimeMachine. Storage management is a critical part of DAM, right?

You should also take note of the reference I made to my prior experience with NX2. I happen to *like* U-Point very much. Furthermore, plug-in support exists within both Aperture and LR for a reason, and that is to allow users of either tool to gain access to best-in-class image editing. And, I'm sure you will agree that the range of image editing tools available within Nik surpasses by far anything on offer from either LR or Aperture. You might want to give them a try.

So, my $150 investment provides access to best-in-class image editing within the best-in-class DAM tool for the Mac. Who wants to be restricted by a jack of all trades/master of none approach? Its all rather straightforward.

 

[Basalite]

Stewart

You might want to consider using Aperture for its strengths (DAM) but breathing new life into image editing by purchasing the Google Nik plug-in suite and calling these from within Aperture. I went down this path and couldn't be happier - the experience is seamless. I had experience of the Nik U-Point technology from my days shooting Nikon and editing with NX2 and it's waaay better now. And with Google slashing the cost of Nik, what's to stop you?

I did consider Lightroom but its catalogue management and workflow sucked IMHO.

Nikko

Why add $150 worth of plugins to Aperture to breathe "new life" into it when there are already better all in one solutions?

Catalog management? If you are really into that then I hear there is nothing better than Photo Mechanic.

Firstly, I bought PM to use alongside NX2 and yet I prefer Aperture for DAM. PM added meta data management to NX2 but neither product addressed storage management at all. That deficiency sits at the heart of my beef with LR. Storing masters/versions within hierarchies of folder structures is so last century. By contrast, Aperture's catalogs are self-managing,

How is LR"s catalog not "self-managing?"

come with their own Vaulting system and yet also play well with TimeMachine.

I've never had the need to test Lightroom in the way it works with Time Machine but why would Lightroom not "play well" with Time Machine?

Storage management is a critical part of DAM, right?

Not for me, and I doubt very much for most photographers to the level you apparently demand. As it relates to the software being discussed, I'm a photographer, not a librarian. Image editing functionality is the key for me, and I'm sure for most photographers. LR is more than capable for the needs of most photographers, including professional ones. If that were not so it would not be so popular.

You should also take note of the reference I made to my prior experience with NX2. I happen to *like* U-Point very much. Furthermore, plug-in support exists within both Aperture and LR for a reason, and that is to allow users of either tool to gain access to best-in-class image editing. And, I'm sure you will agree that the range of image editing tools available within Nik surpasses by far anything on offer from either LR or Aperture.

Instead of "being sure" how about just asking me?

While I have never used Google's Nik software, in my experience when dealing with such apps and plugins what you usually have is quantity and gimmicks over quality and useful tools. If Nik really "surpasses by far anything from LR or Aperture" then it would be far more popular than it is.

Plug-in support exists within LR and Aperture *not* because Adobe and Apple want to see you go elsewhere for your image editing needs or because they think their apps are difficient.

You might want to give them a try.

No, I avoid software from the ad company known as Google.

So, my $150 investment provides access to best-in-class image editing within the best-in-class DAM tool for the Mac. Who wants to be restricted by a jack of all trades/master of none approach? Its all rather straightforward.

Only if it is true most photographers have the same desire and need to manage files in the complex ways you demand, and only if it is true that Nik"image editing tools available within Nik surpasses by far anything on offer from either LR or Aperture."

The first is not true and the second is highly unlikely to be true.

 

[Nikko aus London]

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion just as much as I am to mine. Later...