Apple Aperture 3.5 adds iCloud Photo Sharing, SmugMug support

I agree. The SmugMug had to just be the one brought over from iPhoto. I don't personally know anyone who uses SmugMug, Snapfish, etc. and Aperture or Lightroom. You are right, it's usually services like 500px, Zenfolio, etc.

Oct 25, 2013permalink

Anaxagoras

I agree.

I use Aperture and Smugmug; I upload using 'SmuginProForAperture' - I made those decisions many years ago. Trouble is, with 50,000 photos on Aperture and Smugmug I cannot (realistically) change those decisions now.

Apple needs to recognise this and give us, and future customers, as much flexibility as possible.

Oct 30, 2013permalink

Eric Nepean

So Apple squashes a bunch of Aperture bugs (which most of us know how to work around) and replaces them with 10.9.0 bugs which we haven't found yet. Gotta love that.

Oct 24, 2013permalink

retro76

One thing about Aperture I love is the color rendition. It's much better than Lightroom. I prefer Lightroom's controls, but the color has always been a problem no matter which camera I use. Aperture delivers lovely skin tones.

Oct 24, 2013permalink

dual12

Lightroom color is fantastic. You should learn to use it.

Oct 25, 2013permalink

How long does it take to learn to get fantastic color from Lightroom?

Oct 27, 2013permalink

KAllen

Aperture is better handling Canon files than Adobe.

Jan 8, 2014permalink

chris1952

Delightful upgrade. I did not expect it, did not need it, and now see some pleasant surprises - especially Smugmug.

Oct 24, 2013permalink

Collie Camp

To the ones saying "Aperture isn´t professional.... bla bla bla"

One thing:

I was really really surprised when I used Lightroom 5.2 the other day and wanted to switch the AF focus points overlay on - you know, the active one etc. - but surprise, you can´t do it in Lightroom?!?

Aperture shows the AF points and marks the used one if you want to with lots of cameras like the Canon 5D and even the Fuji X-Pro 1- very nice feature!

Oct 24, 2013*permalink

(unknown member)

I love Aperture, but cannot get hold of a Mac that functions properly to put my copy on! I had to return a total of three BTO top of the range iMacs (overheating/flickering, dark bar across screen, and refused as courier stood it outside in a puddle in the rain (Apple cant be bothered to have their own Applecare Vans yet are quite able to run a fleet of them). Oh yes, and the Mac Mini arrived back in the day when they still had a discrete card and a DVD writer, but the DVD writer did not work. Such is packing.... So MY copy of Aperture three is still available to redownload. Oh yes, I got a Retina MacBook Pro retail £1800 when the first 15" model appeared a year ago. That went back as powered USB3 drives shorted to the chassis which was live and sent pixels fractelling madly on both the MBP screen and the 27" monitor attached to it. The MBP screen was too dim to correct shadow detail on in any case, so I got a refund. My nerves now hold me in check, and no Aperture is not for lenses

Oct 24, 2013permalink

I think you must carry Microsoft antibodies and your body just rejects the Macs. Oh, well. Enjoy what you prefer to use. I've never had that many issues. My brother in law is much the same as you but with iPhones. I have no idea who he has such bad luck with them...but for him, it's anything that uses electricity..they all break on him. Strange.

Oct 25, 2013permalink

Najinsky

Please, do feel free to go, but how about keeping the noise down as you leave, no need to be loutish about it!

And no need to justify your decision to us, if Aperture doesn't do what you want, then perhaps it's your time to fly.

But it is a bit strange, after all, the product still does all the great things it did when you bought it. It's had loads of new features added for free. It gets regular bug fixes as bugs get reported and squished. And the raw camera updates continue to flow, and not rushed out but done to the high standard users have come to expect, with support for maker notes and camera features not supported by certain other brands.

Sure you might want some new features, but which? The internet shows there is far from a consensus. The plug-in architecture gets around this, giving far more variety than Apple could justify developing.

Here's a free tip. Put your money into good lenses, not more software, and you won't need half the features you think you need.

Oct 24, 2013permalink

maurotandoi

I use Aperture, I like it...but:

No Automatic Lens Barrel/Distorsion/Aberration control...yet

LR yes
Dxo Yes
Capture Yes

...only aperture doesn't have.

Is it possible deactive face detection process, it spends 100% (8 cpu processor)?

No layer..(always must export to tiff format for applied a filter)

I hope to see Aperture 5.0 in the future

Oct 24, 2013permalink

Najinsky

Faces - Goto Preferences.General.Enable Faces select/deselect

Lens corrections - Aperture does this automatically when correction data is supplied in the raw by the cameras. Eg: M4/3, Sony RX100, many premium compacts. The practice seems to be very slowly being adopted by others too. Certainly beats all the manual testing DXO, Adobe, etc have to do to build profiles. Perhaps one day all raws will carry the correction parameters and manual profiles will be a thing of the past. If Apple sees it the same way, I doubt they'll spend time investing in the past.

Shared Layers - would require enormous cooperation between the app makers (Apple, Adobe, DXO, etc) and the filter makers. No app currently does this. If you build it they will come?

Oct 24, 2013permalink

steve_hoge

Face detection can indeed be turned off. I'd bet the majority of Aperture users have this disabled - go to Aperture->Preferences->General and unclick Enable Faces.

Aperture RAW support for my Panasonic FZ-35 corrects the significant barrel distortion that is built into its compact Leica zoom.

Oct 24, 2013permalink

(unknown member)

Bye bye Aperture. Now I get LR as part of CC (had to go to the Adobe Dark Side for a collaboration) and your lacklustre update policy means a change going forward.

I've used it since paying $800 for version 1 (remember when software cost that much?!) but now just a legacy to maintain edits from past projects.

Oct 24, 2013permalink

I remember Aperture being $500 on launch, not $800, and it very quickly dropped to about $299. Now it’s $79.

How long before it’s free, I wonder.…

Oct 24, 2013permalink

TattooedMac

Ummmm NO !!!!!

LR is a separate purchase to Creative Cloud. I know because i have a 5 yr Membership won in a Adobe Comp, and i have only recently been told by friends to TRY LR and it is a separate Purchase . . Im still trialing it, and TBTH i just can't come to grips with it, and don't like it at all, so once the trial is over (i have 17days left) its leaving my Mac and i will continue using Aperture, so boasting you get it with CC is a straight up lie :)

Oct 28, 2013permalink

JBracy

It's part of my Creative Cloud subscription. Wasn't at the beginning, but was added before LR5 was released. I still prefer Aperture and CaptureOne though.

Oct 30, 2013permalink

pedroboe100

I use aperture as a platform for nik collection. And easy to upload to Flickr

Oct 24, 2013permalink

I think Apple will do a 4.0 of Aperture X in the not too distant future and when they do...it will be done very well IMO. It's just a matter of how long do we want to wait. It's similar to the Mac Pro with no updates for years....

Oct 23, 2013permalink

Beat Traveller

And then when they finally did release it, it looks like a dustbin.

Oct 23, 2013permalink

vFunct

No need for Aperture 4.0. It's already better than it's nearest competitor - Lightroom 5.

Lightroom sucks compared to Aperture.

Oct 24, 2013permalink

dual12

Aperture is the worst photographic program I've ever used. Total junk. Talk about amateur hour. It won't even open my professional medium format files. What a joke of a program.

Oct 24, 2013permalink

Sean_Jayhawk

I waited and waited for Aperture X or 4 or whatever and finally gave up. Switched to the current Lightroom and cannot envision that Apple's next version of Aperture will pass Lightroom up (well, technically this 3.5 is the next version and it didn't come close). ;~)

Oct 24, 2013permalink

tjwaggoner

If it won't open your "professional medium format files" how do you know it's the worst software you've used. If you can't open a file there isn't much you can do to "use" the software.

Oct 24, 2013permalink

Jim in Hudson

dual12, what file format are your medium format files?

Oct 24, 2013*permalink

Collie Camp

@dual 12

Give me a break: Aperture suports all RAWs that OS X supports, it got no problems with Hasselblad & Canon 1Ds...what are you shooting with?

I use Aperture for my professinal work all the time, so I think you a) should learn how to use Aperture or b) use whatever you like and be fine with that.

Oct 24, 2013*permalink

steve_hoge

Yeah, I'd be amazed if it couldn't open medium format files - even RAW - since I regularly import and edit 35MB TIFF files.

That said, you do need the right platform - my Dell 9" hackintosh netbook strains on JPEGS and even a 5-year-old Macbook with any amount of memory wouldn't cut it for editing of medium format RAW images.

Oct 24, 2013permalink

KAllen

If you can't open your files how would you know it to be junk?
It's probably the best software I have, I run a business based around Aperture workflow. The DAM capabilities are second to none, it handles Canon files really nicely. Phaseone has no decent DAM handling system worth using, that alone would rule out Phaseone software, Hasselblad camera system is no good for me, that leaves Leaf which I believe Aperture does handle. If I can find a work around for Phase I'm going to upgrade. But it has to work with Aperture. I rate Aperture capability more use than the extra a Phaseone would give.

Jan 8, 2014permalink

As a company purportedly built on the crossroads of technology and the humanities, Apple sure knows how to drag its feet updating a "pro" product like Aperture.

If the photographic arts AREN'T the epitome of a discipline squarely in that crossroad, I dunno what is.

How Apple cannot build a product that can match or exceed Lightroom is beyond me. Too busy raking in royalties from Angry Birds I suppose.

Oct 23, 2013permalink

jwil6902

You realize that 95%+ of Apple's revenue is derived from CONSUMER business and not pros, right? Right?????

Sounds to me like a company that is behaving exactly like one that knows how it's bread is buttered. I guess you probably should head to Adobe and I'm also sure that Apple won't lose a single millisecond of sleep at losing your $79.99. *shrug*

Oct 24, 2013permalink

dual12

It's not pro software. It won't even open my medium format files. Total joke of a program.

Oct 24, 2013permalink

Poss

Those Pros you’re dismissing so easily are one of the reason why Apple did not go under in mid ‘90s. They are the reason Apple still exists today.

A nod to those old geesers every year or so would not be too much to ask given the size and resources of the biggest tech company on the planet.

Consumers are an unreliable, bitchy bunch. They could (and did so in many occasions) move onto the next shining dangling thing in front of them, especially if it’s a buck less…

Oct 24, 2013permalink

that ^^^

Oct 24, 2013permalink

if Picassa was just a little bit better, those consumers would RUN to it as a post processing answer....cause its FREE.

PRO's want support, are willing to pay for it, and expect a certain level of innovation from time to time.

Apple continues to treat Aperture like an indigent ER patient while Adobe and the Creative Commons biz model makes some sense now.

-I need a beer.

Oct 24, 2013*permalink

Kglass77

@dual12 did you check under the TROLL settings... that may help you...

Oct 24, 2013permalink

JBracy

You realize that Pros tend not to upgrade to every new version of software? Apple traditionally has made very little money in the Pro market because most shops would run on the same hardware and software for 5+ years. If you make $ off a workflow you tend to not want to change it and retrain your users every 6 months. Having said that, it's because of the Pro market that Apple survived the slump and is the company they are today. I give them props for keeping the Pro Apps around and for reinventing the Mac Pro.

Oct 30, 2013permalink

nail meet coffin Apple...

weak update

off to Adobe I go.

It's been pleasant Apple.

Oct 23, 2013permalink

praktinafan

I still use the boxed version of Aperture (comes on a DVD) and so I can not upgrade to 3.5. This update only works with an AppStore license! Bummer

Oct 23, 2013permalink

njb311

I still use the boxed version of Aperture (came on DVD), and I'm now running 3.5. This update worked fine! Awesome

Except the update is a fairly minimal maintenance release. Where is Aperture X??

Oct 23, 2013permalink

hanoman

It is possible: change the language to English and restart. After that you can update.

Oct 23, 2013permalink

I have the old version that i purchased a license for from the old free trials. I don't have the app store version at all...it still shows me full price. HOWEVER, the OS Updates have always contained all the updates I needed and I'm now on 3.5. I started off, I think with 2.x.

Oct 23, 2013permalink

quiquae

FWIW, I read on another bulletin board that Apple's support center said that the inability to upgrade the DVD version was an error, and will be fixed soon.

Oct 24, 2013permalink

dan801

Once you update to maverick osx the update becomes available for DVD installs. 3.5 is not supported on previous osx versions.

Oct 24, 2013permalink

michaelbs

It's true what hangman states: update to Mavericks. Then temporarily change the language to English - then you can update to 3.5. Try it. It works!!

Oct 26, 2013permalink

Felts

I moved across from Aperture to LR about a 6 months ago and have never looked back. I couldn't help but get very 'digital' looking images from Aperture, where as they are far smoother film-like colours I get in LR.

The extra tools found in LR5 has frankly transformed my photography.

Oct 23, 2013permalink

facedodge

I was a big Aperture user, but after a few hours with Lightroom I never went back. I miss the OS integration I had with Aperture. Maybe they will win me back one day.

Oct 23, 2013permalink

Oddly enough, I just upgraded Aperture to 3.5 and iWork Pages to 5 and that OS integration is gone anyway. iWork’s Media browser only displays iPhoto images, and the “Share Previews” checkbox in Aperture has been changed to “Share XML” whatever that means (and it’s not explained in Aperture’s Help system, nor are previews mentioned except as a Glossary entry).

Oct 24, 2013permalink

Jim in Hudson

I think it was basically an iPhoto update and Aperture simply inherited the changes.

Oct 23, 2013permalink

Stubb

More social media integration—the Aperture team sure listened to their users in planning this update.

Apple's satellite imagery for out-of-the-way areas is also horrifically low resolution compared to Google Maps. So while Apple Maps are great for driving around town, they're a mess for checking out your backcountry excursions.

Oct 23, 2013permalink

(unknown member)

I'm happy with Aperture, though wouldn't mind if they keep update it as they do. Use it with Nik software ( a lot) and sometimes with Olympus viewer. Did use LR when on Windows. Is also very good, but for what I do with it Aperture is just fine. Hope for the LR users that they won't put it in the cloud. . . .

Oct 23, 2013permalink

brycesteiner

Aperture is fast and it still works great. I really don't need the lens corrections, though other people do and so it should be added. I'm just glad they didn't charge for the new features and the update to keep it current with the new OS

Oct 23, 2013permalink

nicholo plaza

I agree with people saying that Lightroom is better for processing and has much more powerful tools, but Aperture just has such a smooth and seamless workflow that its difficult to ignore.

Oct 23, 2013permalink

vadims

Does that workflow still require you to *move* your images into Aperture's proprietary database?

Oct 23, 2013permalink

No it does not. I run a referenced library that i have all original images imported to and catalogued how i choose. Their proprietary library contains the data files related to your edit and tags. BUT, you images are always where you put them in an untouched state. I could take that directory and just point LR to it if I wanted to do so.

Oct 23, 2013permalink

graybalanced

vadims, neither Aperture nor Lightroom require you to move your photos from where they already are. That criticism is so 2010...

Oct 24, 2013permalink

vadims

@graybalanced Well, I wasn't criticizing, just asking. I'm happily using LR and was wondering if that awkward Aperture db design that rised quite a few eyebrows is still in place... You say it's not; ok, good for them (aperture users). Thanks.

Oct 24, 2013permalink

ir Bob

@Vadim,

Actually, Aperture never required you to move images into a database. And even if they are stored in the library, they are not in a database. The library is a folder structure just like anything else. It only appears to the user as a single file. This technique is abundantly used in OSX. (All applications on the Mac are based on this principle)

From a technical point of view it's nothing different then asking Lightroom to move your photo's to year-date folders.

Oct 24, 2013permalink

vadims

@ir Bob

That "folder structure" still prevented people from adding images on other drives without physically moving them into the database located on main drive. Internal structure is irrelevant here.

If that's no longer the case, that's good, as I said.

As to apps and data files actually being complex "folder structures", well, these days that's the case with Java jars, MS docx, xlsx, pptx and god knows how many other formats available on many operating systems. They are essentially ZIPs, which (just like RARs) can be navigated and used as if they were folder trees -- you just need to use proper UI shell (and on Windows there are plenty that allow that).

Oct 25, 2013permalink

ThaQuest

And this is why I switched to LR a month ago...

Oct 23, 2013permalink

Asylum Photo

How about vignette corrections based on lens data, Apple?

Oct 23, 2013permalink

itcrashed

Sad that 4.0 has yet to arrive. Glad that they continue to do these minor upgrades. Lightroom is still better for overall processing, but Aperture is necessary if you are a hobbyist, like me, that utilizes Apple's full ecosystem.

Oct 23, 2013permalink

JadedGamer

Why this obsession with a version number? That led to Firefox and Chrome dropping the fractional version numbering altogether - but the changes from Firefox 12 to 13 need not be more than would have been from e.g. 3.5 to 3.6 in the old days...

"Windows 7 is so much better than Vista!" No, it's just a point upgrade from Windows NT 6.0 to 6.1 when you look at the internals.

Oct 24, 2013permalink

photogeek

4.0 is looooong overdue.

Oct 23, 2013permalink

S. Jobs would have fired somebody yesterday.

Oct 23, 2013permalink

Robo2k

Well Aperture is one of those products that Apple gives as much attention as to the iPod classic. Seriously, why should anyone bother using it when Adobe is doing a much better job?

Oct 23, 2013permalink

smorti

Take Logic Pro. Long time after 9 was released, everyone was saying what you are saying; then they released X which is fantastic. New versions of Apple software are slow in coming but worth it.

Oct 23, 2013permalink

njb311

Yeah @smorti, I tend to agree. The problem is that as you can see by a number of comments that people who would otherwise have stuck with Aperture if it kept pace have instead jumped over to LR.

Personally I generally do very little post processing on my photos so Aperture's other strengths e.g. in cataloguing and integration have kept me on board.

Oct 23, 2013permalink

Paul Janders

If anyone is wondering, you have to be running OSX 10.9 to use this upgrade.

Oct 23, 2013permalink

It may not be Aperture 4...but it's a full .x update with a lot of bug fixes and some new functionality. I think they must be saving upgrades/updates to actual photo processing until the eventual version 4.0. It's taking quite a while, so I hope the wait will be worth it. I've been tempted many times to go to LightRoom but the Aperture workflow and tight integration keeps with with 3.5 :-)

Oct 23, 2013permalink

njb311

In the Apple keynote Phil Schiller referenced a new version of Aperture that the Mac Pro, coming in December, took advantage of.

I am sincerely hoping that that means Aperture X coming by the end of the year, and not this relatively insignificant point release...

Oct 23, 2013permalink

maurotandoi

I hope to see...Aperture X too

Oct 24, 2013permalink