Mac Users, any tried Aperture 2 with the D3?

I just browse through the new features and the video tutorials, look like a real killer Raw conversion app

Can't wait to get the upgrade tomorrow!

--

Everybody brings joy to this room; some by entering, some by leaving.

Randy Khayman said:

I just browse through the new features and the video tutorials, look
like a real killer Raw conversion app

Can't wait to get the upgrade tomorrow!

Click to expand...

You don't have to wait! Download the Free Trial and just use the number you get when the box arrives.
--
Cheers,
Joe

Unfortunately or fortunately, I am getting the upgrade version so downloading the trial will let me effectively have 2 aperture application. I'd rather just wait to get the upgrades tomorrow, save me some cleaning time just because I can fool around with it earlier...

Joe Mondello said:

Randy Khayman said:

I just browse through the new features and the video tutorials, look
like a real killer Raw conversion app

Can't wait to get the upgrade tomorrow!

Click to expand...

You don't have to wait! Download the Free Trial and just use the
number you get when the box arrives.
--
Cheers,
Joe

Click to expand...

--

Everybody brings joy to this room; some by entering, some by leaving.

I love the new Tethered shooting feature in Aperture 2. I just scratched the surface with it tonight shooting as session tethered with the D3. Worked perfectly. Now have to look at the new Raw 2.0 settings and how it all looks in depth. Enjoy!

I downloaded the trial and put it through some paces yesterday and today with my D3 images and my D2Xs images - I have to say compared to Capture NX it was way more snappy on the speed side - I think I will still do alot of things in NX but so far I am very pleased with the upgrade to 2.0

I have not tried the tethered shooting yet but plan to try it out.

I put this software through the paces on both my Mac Pro Workstation Quad Core & my Mac Book Pro - It was snappy on both.

I look forward to working more with it in the future.

Mark

Mark,

You said that compared to NX, it is more snappy but how about actual RAW conversion? I don't expect it to be better than NX but is it at least 90+% if not as good as NX?

Thanks.

Wojohowitz said:

I downloaded the trial and put it through some paces yesterday and
today with my D3 images and my D2Xs images - I have to say compared
to Capture NX it was way more snappy on the speed side - I think I
will still do alot of things in NX but so far I am very pleased with
the upgrade to 2.0

I have not tried the tethered shooting yet but plan to try it out.

I put this software through the paces on both my Mac Pro Workstation
Quad Core & my Mac Book Pro - It was snappy on both.

I look forward to working more with it in the future.

Mark

Click to expand...

--

Everybody brings joy to this room; some by entering, some by leaving.

I would put it at least 90% + - of NX there are some features/steps in NX that I like better than in Aperture, But I'm still ironing those out. Obviously NX has some proprietary features for the raw conversion. I would say NX best raw conversion, ACR/Aperture close seconds....

I am a fan of NX and have Jason Odell's eBook and some Vincent Versace training DVD's as well that have taught me a bunch in Capture NX after an investment of glass & bodies a couple hundred dollars of software is a no brainer to find which one works best. I am under the assumption that Capture NX 2.0 is around the corner in the next couple of months - just a hunch.....

I do like the color control points in NX so there are some trade offs

Like I said I use NX, Aperture, ACR, Bridge, Photoshop CS3 never really got too far into Lightroom.

I'm sure all three of these will be in my workflow - as to which one we bill the most used it is still up for grabs.

Hope this helps

Mark

typo sorry

as to which one will be......

Vibrant reds and blues are free of jaggies in Aperture, which can be problematic in CNX. What's more, I find details overall to be crisper, while still retaining a bit of that granular (some say filmic) texture than CNX does so well (perhaps too well, as details tend to suffer). I also find skin tones in Aperture 2 to be a little more natural (by default, meaning less work for me).

Add the superior UI and workflow, and it's not a difficult decision to use Aperture rather than CNX.

Give it a spin and see what you think yourself.

Randy Khayman said:

You said that compared to NX, it is more snappy but how about actual
RAW conversion? I don't expect it to be better than NX but is it at
least 90+% if not as good as NX?

Thanks.

Wojohowitz said:

I downloaded the trial and put it through some paces yesterday and
today with my D3 images and my D2Xs images - I have to say compared
to Capture NX it was way more snappy on the speed side - I think I
will still do alot of things in NX but so far I am very pleased with
the upgrade to 2.0

I have not tried the tethered shooting yet but plan to try it out.

I put this software through the paces on both my Mac Pro Workstation
Quad Core & my Mac Book Pro - It was snappy on both.

I look forward to working more with it in the future.

Mark

Click to expand...

--

Everybody brings joy to this room; some by entering, some by leaving.

Click to expand...

--
- -
Kabe Luna

http://www.garlandcary.com

I don't own a D3, but I have a D300 - and to finally see my RAW files in Aperture is great. The D300 images look a lot better than I thought - and much better than they looked in CS3 - up until now I have been shooting Jpegs. The RAW files from the D300 look better than ever - I was scared the high ISO images would not hold up, since people kept saying you must use NX to really benefit - but they look great so far!

--
'Procrastinate now, don't put it off.'

'Vista is the ME of our generation.' - John C. Dvorak

New support of D3 in Aperture 2 has a bug which is absent in the system support of raw formats in 10.5. Separation of libraw between system and Aperture is an issue which potentially leads to many problems and inconsistencies.

--
no text

And fr the first time, I loaded the RAW files from the D3 into Aperture and all I can say is "WOW!"

The colors are popping, the UI is a dream to use and the added features are so cool! And now I can actually shoot tethered without a proprietary software, even allowing me to control the shutter from within Aperture! What's not to like?

--

Everybody brings joy to this room; some by entering, some by leaving.

I've been an Aperture user since 9/06, I was also a Lightroom beta user. I downloaded the Aperture 2.0 trial and Lightroom trial as I have not used Lightroom since beta. I'll be honest, while Aperture 2.0 is a big improvement over 1.5.6, quite honestly, 3 hours playing with Lightroom left me feeling a bit underwhelmed by Aperture. Multiple folder import is way easier, RAW rendering is about equal, working with metadata is far superior in Lightroom and metadata browser rocks! I've seriously considering switching to Lightroom...and that is something I did not expect.

Unlike you, I was forced to use LR when I got my D3 and till now, I have problem navigating around it! Perhaps working with metadata is your priority but to me, its all about the efficiency of workflow and what I can do with the RAW files. the recovery options in Aperture 2 itself blow LR out of the water IMHO.

Further, despite what LR claims that it is "non destructive", it actually added something to the NEF files that it opens such that when the same files are imported into Aperture, data like what camera were used etc was totally lost. I am no techie, perhaps there is a easy way out but hey, why bother?

Aperture also has something similar to CNX u-point thingy, difference is that you use the drop picker to pick the hue and adjust is tone and saturation. That feature is a odsend!

Then there is the issue of speed, processing and rendering. I don't think LR is nearly as fast.

So to sum it up:

UI - A2 > LR
Speed - A2 > LR
RAW processing - A2 > LR (more options to control)
Overall - A2 > > > > > > > > LR

Just my opinion but there it is. Perhaps you might want to try more than 3 hours to make a statement?

stealthman_1 said:

I've been an Aperture user since 9/06, I was also a Lightroom beta
user. I downloaded the Aperture 2.0 trial and Lightroom trial as I
have not used Lightroom since beta. I'll be honest, while Aperture
2.0 is a big improvement over 1.5.6, quite honestly, 3 hours playing
with Lightroom left me feeling a bit underwhelmed by Aperture.
Multiple folder import is way easier, RAW rendering is about equal,
working with metadata is far superior in Lightroom and metadata
browser rocks! I've seriously considering switching to
Lightroom...and that is something I did not expect.

Click to expand...

--

Everybody brings joy to this room; some by entering, some by leaving.

Absolutely, that's why I said I'm 'considering' switching to LR. Obviously, the superior product will always be in the eye of the beholder and no product will be the end all + I immediately plunked down my $100 for upgrade so I certainly am 'invested' in Aperture. I LOVED the 'preview' feature in Aperture, which will shave loads of time off my initial culling step, I think Apple does Stacks better, I like the integration. I hate the fact that I still have to manually select edge sharpening from a tool menu every frickin' time I want to use it or noise reduction (hey if I'm mistaken, I'd love to be enlightened). Aperture strongly dissuades me from using keywords because it's not smart enough to recognize a keyword is already in a complex hierarchy and tosses it aimlessly into the keyword file structure as if it has never been used before. Keywords and batch metadata required no deciphering in LR last night, it was all quite intuitive. The fact that I can scroll off a photo in LR when in 1:1 or > enlargement is really dumb. But the loupe in Aperture is really dumb too.

Oh and having to search technical discussion forums to import the 1.5.x library in 2.0 is not very Apple like....And I still don't have my 1.5.x library in 2.0. So you tell me?

stealthman_1 said:

Absolutely, that's why I said I'm 'considering' switching to LR.
Obviously, the superior product will always be in the eye of the
beholder and no product will be the end all

Click to expand...

Agreed.

stealthman_1 said:

I hate the fact that I still have to manually
select edge sharpening from a tool menu every frickin' time I want to
use it or noise reduction (hey if I'm mistaken, I'd love to be
enlightened).

Click to expand...

Not sure if I understand you but I am sure that applies to every tool, you have to select it to use it, no?

stealthman_1 said:

Aperture strongly dissuades me from using keywords
because it's not smart enough to recognize a keyword is already in a
complex hierarchy and tosses it aimlessly into the keyword file
structure as if it has never been used before. Keywords and batch
metadata required no deciphering in LR last night, it was all quite
intuitive.

Click to expand...

I had no problem before but I'll see if I encounter any problems in this department.

The fact that I can scroll off a photo in LR when in 1:1

stealthman_1 said:

or > enlargement is really dumb. But the loupe in Aperture is
really dumb too.

Click to expand...

The loupe is suppose to be a nostalgic thingy for those during slide days, and while I do not use it alot, I do not think it is dumb.

stealthman_1 said:

Oh and having to search technical discussion forums to import the
1.5.x library in 2.0 is not very Apple like....And I still don't have
my 1.5.x library in 2.0. So you tell me?

Click to expand...

Huh? Isn't the first thing you do after installing to point to the existing aperture library? My transition from 1.5.6 to 2 is ultra smooth. Other than the UI has changed slightly (for the better), there is not evidence that my library has goe anywhere. Perhaps you can elaborate further?

--

Everybody brings joy to this room; some by entering, some by leaving.

Randy Khayman said:

I hate the fact that I still have to manually
select edge sharpening from a tool menu every frickin' time I want to
use it or noise reduction (hey if I'm mistaken, I'd love to be
enlightened).

Click to expand...

To make the new Edge Sharpen control part of the standard HUD:

0) Quit Aperture

1) Go to Library/Application Support/Aperture
2) Copy the file AdjustmentsDefaults.plist to a safe location

3) Open the original AdjustmentsDefaults.plist file by double clicking it. This should launch the Property List Editor with the file loaded
4) Unfold the Properties List nodes
5) Select the last entry in the plist (the one named 5)
6) Click on "New Sibling" in the toolbar
7) Enter RKProSharpenOperation as the value
8) Quit Property List Editor

9) Restart Aperture and enjoy your customized HUD!

Other operations that appear to work are

RKRedEyeOperation (Red Eye)
RKStraightenCropOperation (Straighten)
RKCropOperation (Crop)
RKDustRemovalOperation (Spot and Patch)
RKChannelMixerOperation (Monochrome Mixer)
RKNoiseReductionOperation (Noise Reduction)
RKSharpenOperation (Sharpen)

Sepia and Color Monochrome seem to be handled by parameterized versions of RKImageOperation and I haven't experimented with adding these.

all I can say is WOW! you rock

--

Everybody brings joy to this room; some by entering, some by leaving.

I think the ACR NEF conversion is still a bit better.

Aperture is awesome and I did order it but I hope they improve the RAW conversion. ACR's conversion is smoother and less grainy, while Aperture seems to be noisy and has some funny gradations to shadow areas.

Some of this (I think) might be attributed to black point clipping. The Aperture conversions are less contrasty than the ACR conversions.

One thing I am REALLY impressed with was the speed. WOW. Fast. Awesome. I think the program really has some potential again.

The interface is a little different than 1.5.6 but I am re learning it quickly.

I have noticed that the RAW sharpening in Aperture has no perceivable affect. Some bugs are to be expected I guess... Also, it doesn't have the CA removal tool/lens correction ability that LR/ACR has.

I have just been messing with the trial so I haven't been able to convert my library over yet but I have heard it is still very fast with 100k + images.