Peter Damroth
Leading Member
A new photographer friend is considering this software...What have been your experiences? Is it good for editing?...Easy? .... and any alternatives?
--
Peter Damroth Photography
--
Peter Damroth Photography
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Do you like Aperture?
- Thread starter Peter Damroth
- Start date
Kokomo O
Forum Enthusiast
I recommend it unreservedly. Of course, I have no experience with Photoshop, and only spent a short amount of time trying Lightroom 3 beta, which I found to be quite similar, but without the filing features. And that's really an enormous difference. As for editing features, while there are some differences in functionality, Aperture basically has all the user-friendliness you've come to expect from Apple products, so you can start using it immediately, get great results and ramp up to even better results quickly.
webfrasse
Senior Member
Only he can tell. Download the trial and compare with Lightroom (which is the main competitor and also has a trial). Only he can tell. You will find that Aperture users like Aperture and Lightroom users like Lightroom which isn't so surprising;-)
You can also search these forums and google. The subject has been beaten to death already...
Aperture does however not compare to Photoshop as I saw in this thread. Aperture is a DAM solution with some edit capabilities. Add plugins and it gets really good in editing as well. Same goes for Lightroom.
Mikael
You can also search these forums and google. The subject has been beaten to death already...
Aperture does however not compare to Photoshop as I saw in this thread. Aperture is a DAM solution with some edit capabilities. Add plugins and it gets really good in editing as well. Same goes for Lightroom.
--
Mikael
quackagator
Well-known member
No more free trial
Dr Chandra
Well-known member
The free trial is still available on Apple's UK site:
http://www.apple.com/uk/aperture/ (bottom right hand corner).
p.s. I like Aperture and wouldn't want to use anything else.
http://www.apple.com/uk/aperture/ (bottom right hand corner).
p.s. I like Aperture and wouldn't want to use anything else.
Peter Rongsted
Senior Member
I like it. A friend recommended it four years ago and I was on the trial of version 1.5 when Apple released version 2.0 - at a lower price
Aperture is really more of an organizer than an editor. I like the adjustments you can make to a photo. I think I take less the 5% of my photos to Photoshop Elements.
Main alternative is Adobe Lightroom. It is very powerful but I do not like the user interface. I could live with it if I had to but I really prefer Aperture.
Peter
Dude Steve
Forum Enthusiast
The main competition is Lightroom, though there are others.
Aperture is way better for managing pictures than Lightroom.
Lightroom's strength is more on the editing side, but Aperture has most of the editing capabilities I need on a daily basis.
I have a free license for Lightroom 3 and I paid for a copy of Aperture 4. I chose Aperture 4.
Both are pretty easy. Aperture is more intuitive and flexible to me.
Aperture is way better for managing pictures than Lightroom.
Lightroom's strength is more on the editing side, but Aperture has most of the editing capabilities I need on a daily basis.
I have a free license for Lightroom 3 and I paid for a copy of Aperture 4. I chose Aperture 4.
Both are pretty easy. Aperture is more intuitive and flexible to me.
Joe Mitchell
Leading Member
First of all let me confess, I am a BIG Apple fan, I mean REALLY! I used to work for an Apple reseller years ago, I have used Apple Mac's since 1984, only really use a Windows PC when I have to. All my photo and video editing is done on Mac's, iPhoto, iMovie, iDVD, Final Cut Pro, get it?
I am a REALLY big fan of Lightroom 4. I really, really wanted to like Aperture. I went to an Apple seminar just to watch an Apple rep expound the virtues of Aperture. It is the only Apple application I don't get along with. I even use iPhoto for quick editing and culling.
Why? It's hard to say. I just intuitively understand the workflow with LR, the noise reduction and handling of RAW images is effortless. In contrast, I never really get Aperture, it just seems to get in the way somehow. And this is from someone who has used Mac's for so long that if I have to RTFM I think I've failed.
YMMV.
Joe
--
Illegitimi non carborundum
I am a REALLY big fan of Lightroom 4. I really, really wanted to like Aperture. I went to an Apple seminar just to watch an Apple rep expound the virtues of Aperture. It is the only Apple application I don't get along with. I even use iPhoto for quick editing and culling.
Why? It's hard to say. I just intuitively understand the workflow with LR, the noise reduction and handling of RAW images is effortless. In contrast, I never really get Aperture, it just seems to get in the way somehow. And this is from someone who has used Mac's for so long that if I have to RTFM I think I've failed.
YMMV.
Joe
--
Illegitimi non carborundum
vdubreeze
Senior Member
Your friend really can't go wrong for $80. I wouldn't be as right off the bat recommending if it were $200, but as a tool, to do what it does, in spite of where it falls down (IMO) it would be bound to be an enlightening experience even if he/she abandoned it later.
It's important, though, that they understand what it is and isn't. It's a great image organizer with strong global adjustments and filters, especially for the photographer who shoots RAW. And if not it's a great reason to start shooting RAW. It's NOT a pixel editor like Photoshop/Elements and many other of that kind, which gives more abilities to easily do selective tonal editing and layering. Aperture has brush on filters and some layering for sure, but they're implemented more as mini function bonus extras than the full function way it is possible in a pixel editor. (LightRoom and any other RAW Digital Asset Management program would be similar in this regard) That said many people find it is all they need for their images. Many others also need the pixel editor in regular use. Some people use Aperture because it is so powerful when using RAW format images for exposure, tonality, etc, but immediately export to their pixel editor for the selective "popping" because, well, for several reasons. : ) A DAM like Aperture is certainly a good place to start, and then the rest can make their way in as the need becomes apparent or not. If you're going to limit yourself to one tool to begin with it's a great way to start.
If they have no image software currently I think it would be a $80 well spent. I wouldn't recommend someone without any image software experience just install it and read the manual and begin, though. The best thing would be to drop by a free seminar at an Apple Store, or elsewhere if you live where they happen (B & H Photo in NYC has fantastic free seminars on many subjects, including the occasional Aperture one.) just to get some groudwork laid for how to proceed. And if they can do that first to see it all working before they choose to leap in all the better.
There are many really good online video tutorials for Aperture as well. Those would be well worth dropping a few bucks on if they do choose this route.
Best of luck to them on their journey.
It's important, though, that they understand what it is and isn't. It's a great image organizer with strong global adjustments and filters, especially for the photographer who shoots RAW. And if not it's a great reason to start shooting RAW. It's NOT a pixel editor like Photoshop/Elements and many other of that kind, which gives more abilities to easily do selective tonal editing and layering. Aperture has brush on filters and some layering for sure, but they're implemented more as mini function bonus extras than the full function way it is possible in a pixel editor. (LightRoom and any other RAW Digital Asset Management program would be similar in this regard) That said many people find it is all they need for their images. Many others also need the pixel editor in regular use. Some people use Aperture because it is so powerful when using RAW format images for exposure, tonality, etc, but immediately export to their pixel editor for the selective "popping" because, well, for several reasons. : ) A DAM like Aperture is certainly a good place to start, and then the rest can make their way in as the need becomes apparent or not. If you're going to limit yourself to one tool to begin with it's a great way to start.
If they have no image software currently I think it would be a $80 well spent. I wouldn't recommend someone without any image software experience just install it and read the manual and begin, though. The best thing would be to drop by a free seminar at an Apple Store, or elsewhere if you live where they happen (B & H Photo in NYC has fantastic free seminars on many subjects, including the occasional Aperture one.) just to get some groudwork laid for how to proceed. And if they can do that first to see it all working before they choose to leap in all the better.
There are many really good online video tutorials for Aperture as well. Those would be well worth dropping a few bucks on if they do choose this route.
Best of luck to them on their journey.
InspectorHud
Well-known member
I actually hated Aperture for over a year because I was fighting it and trying to dumb it down to my old Photoshop and folder method. One day it all began to make sense and it changed everything. I cannot believe it took me so long to accept the philosophy and the simplicity that makes it so effective, but it does take some time to fully understand the concept. So I have gone from swearing at it to swearing by it and I am now a huge fan of Aperture.
N
Najinsky
Guest
This is a great comment. A lot of the more heated discussions in the earlier days of Aperture V Lightroom V Photoshop threads were examples of people with different expectations and philosophies struggling to let go of old (previously necessary) habits.
Aperture liberated the raw workflow from a whole load of processes that previously got you bogged down in management processes and dogma. At it's old price it was invaluable, at its current price it's a steal.
Not all is rosy though, and the new bugs that have littered the version 3 releases give me a lot of concern (because I value the program so highly). V 3.2.3 has introduced yet more horrid preview display bugs (now you can't even display your plug-in edited images without monkeying around with the previews).
I'm going to give it until V4, which I intend to buy and re-test thoroughly, probably on a new Mac. Hopefully, the silly bugs and processing glitches have been addressed (there can still be bugs, that's normal, I just want to see evidence of a better design that isn't so prone to bugs).
I'm not sure what I'd use as an alternative, I'll need to try a lot of stuff. As I now use a lot more exotic glass adapted to different MILCs, I need a lot more lens correction so DXO might be the way to go, but I like the integration between Photosmith and Lightroom, so thats a candidate too. But I'd really like to keep everything centred around Aperture if possible. It's just helps me feel in complete control of my images. Come on Apple, make V4 a killer!
-Najinksy
No more free trial, could mean a new version is about to be released. 
--
"Working for God on earth does not pay much, but His Retirement plan is out of this world."
BRJR ....(LOL, some of us are quite satisfied as Hobbyists ..)
--
"Working for God on earth does not pay much, but His Retirement plan is out of this world."
BRJR ....(LOL, some of us are quite satisfied as Hobbyists ..)
I suspect, it's going to be a stunning breakthrough and success when it is released; and will have a number of those that left Aperture, scrambling back.
--
"Working for God on earth does not pay much, but His Retirement plan is out of this world."
BRJR ....(LOL, some of us are quite satisfied as Hobbyists ..)
--
"Working for God on earth does not pay much, but His Retirement plan is out of this world."
BRJR ....(LOL, some of us are quite satisfied as Hobbyists ..)
ajcook
Well-known member
This really shows you need to try both, because my opinion is just the opposite. I find the Lightroom interface an confusing mess, and the Aperture one astoundingly intuative.
Joe Mitchell
Leading Member
Maybe I need to give it another go. I normally find Apple software intuitive and easy to use. I've tried a couple of times to get in to Aperture over the past two or three years and always gravitated back to Lightroom.
Perhaps as InspectorHud commented I need to just go with it and not compare it to my existing workflow.
Joe
--
Illegitimi non carborundum
DiploStrat
Leading Member
There is macro workflow and there is micro workflow, the latter being more of a question of user interface.
The InspectorHud quote neatly sums up the macro issue - either you get the zen of Aperture or Lightroom or you don't. If you don't, then you love spending hours sorting RAW/PSD/TIFF/JPEG and still ending up nothing more than a pile of files in chronological order.
If you DO get it, then you revel in a deep database that makes it easy to find any image, any time, by any one of a range of criteria, and never having to worry about sorting the RAW from the TIFF from the JPEG.
That takes you to the second issue, the differences between actually using Aperture and Lightroom and the depth of their features. While I much prefer the look and feel of Aperture, and find full screen editing to be a joy, especially on a lap top, there are lots of good arguments to be made for Lightroom, especially now that Lightroom has finally implemented soft proofing, and done it so well.
That said, anyone who is comfortable with either Lightroom or Aperture could convert to the other in less than a week of work.
--
DiploStrat ;-)
The InspectorHud quote neatly sums up the macro issue - either you get the zen of Aperture or Lightroom or you don't. If you don't, then you love spending hours sorting RAW/PSD/TIFF/JPEG and still ending up nothing more than a pile of files in chronological order.
If you DO get it, then you revel in a deep database that makes it easy to find any image, any time, by any one of a range of criteria, and never having to worry about sorting the RAW from the TIFF from the JPEG.
That takes you to the second issue, the differences between actually using Aperture and Lightroom and the depth of their features. While I much prefer the look and feel of Aperture, and find full screen editing to be a joy, especially on a lap top, there are lots of good arguments to be made for Lightroom, especially now that Lightroom has finally implemented soft proofing, and done it so well.
That said, anyone who is comfortable with either Lightroom or Aperture could convert to the other in less than a week of work.
--
DiploStrat ;-)
Peter Damroth
Leading Member
Thank you for all your collective help. My friend feels energized and can go forward with confidence. Thank you again everyone..this has helped!
--
Peter Damroth Photography
--
Peter Damroth Photography
TraceyS
Senior Member
Well, Aperture was on my to-do list over Spring Break... But i might just wait a bit longer 
And I tried the link my browser had to the free trial and it is giving me the same message - go buy it.
--
Tracey
And I tried the link my browser had to the free trial and it is giving me the same message - go buy it.
--
Tracey
I've used both Aperture 3 and Lightroom 3.5, and I personally found Aperture much easier to learn and more convenient. I do think LR is more powerful and has more integration options with other software but for me, it was too expensive and overkill.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum