Farewell Aperture

I don't use Aperture myself but had been hoping for a major upgrade to the interface that would result in it being superior for me as a storage and access program to multiple iPhoto libraries managed by iPhoto Library Manager with the very powerful PhotoLine as my external editor.

When I did try Aperture I found it ran like treacle on OS X.6.8 on my 2010 15" MacBook Pro. Between of the lack of speed and the clumsy interface, I gave it away.

I have watched with interest the continuing optimism of users about a new version coming out.

I was close to people who used Final Cut Pro when the ground was cut from under their feet. They were not amused. I have been told that it has been built back up to a pro standard -- but I wonder how many old users are still using it.

I've seen Apple just dump other great software -- Appleworks/Clarisworks was excellent. Cyberdog was just great in its day and obviously a way to move forward. And that so on and so forth.

On the question of dropping a software -- well, I am of the belief that if it performs still, it does not need to be dropped.

For starters, I am sticking with OS X.6.8. I can't be bothered with the more recent OS changes. X.6.8 works. I have been assured that one day soon Apple wiil stop issuing security updates for it. I presume on that day, the sky will fall on my head.

I still use Canvas X on Mac (which is one reason to stick with X.6.8, it needs Rosetta -- which hasn't been supported for the best part of 8 years now (I think it is). There is still no app that matches its overall capabilities and it still does (nearly) everything I want in the print domain. I have supplemented it with PhotoLine for photo work -- a very powerful app which does all the modern stuff including 64 bit (Canvas's image editing is about P'shop 5 standard but with some very interesting capabilities because of its interactivity between raster and vector), and Sandvox for building websites (yes, Canvas can do all that too, with some limitations but Sandvox does most of it better and offers a far superior workflow!).

(Interestingly, ACD is now saying it will launch a new Canvas for Mac this year.)

I still use Eudora for email, iPhoto 8.1.2 for my photos (I operate at a considerably lower professional level than you), and Personal Organizer for my calendar, alarms and contacts. From where I sit, none of the successor apps matches these oldies.

BUT -- there is a caveat. I am 72 -- I am winding down my work and don't need to plan 20 years into the future as I imagine OP and many others do.

I would not suggest for one minute that someone in mid-career or starting out should think of adopting these oldies.

Nor would I suggest that buying into Aperture and the speculation of a major upgrade that seems to have been going on for years is the optimum way to go at this time. It has been too long between drinks. If Apple does come out with a major upgrade, well and good. But the signs are not favorable.

Cheers, geoff
 
I'd love to use Aperture more for commercial work but the following features (or lack of) compared to Lightroom stop me -

Poor (comparatively) noise reduction.

Brush for local colour temperature adjustments.

Automatic removal of hot pixels in high iso images.

Lens distortion database adjustments.

Thing is I have no interest in subscribing to Adobe anything, have no confidence in Lightroom staying out of the cloud and no confidence in Apple ever getting their act together and delivering what seemed so promising in Aperture v1. With Apple's enormous pile of cash they could pretty much do anything they wanted regarding software development of pro software but seem happier to concentrate on consumer apps and their os. Shame.
 
You gotta remember the vast majority of Apple's business is on mobile devices. And even on OS X devices photographers like the sorts who hang here, "pro" or serious hobbyist, are a smallish group compared to every kid with a smartphone. They of course do not have to service the folks here, and in fact the argument can be made that you already have a decent DAM that is only marginally different than Aperture, i.e. LR. Or even others that can used in that way. It's rather a niche field by comparison.

The only reason I even pay attention to this is that there is a need for photo organization for those that are completely unorganized. Folks here, even without ANY DAM software, could keep their photos organized. You all actually talk about "workflow." Apple's problem (and Google's) is the box-full-of-snaps crowd. A family with iPhone photos taken from each family member on their home LAN and in Photostream, Instragram, Facebook, etc. Combined with all their relative's photos send from emails. Throw in video, photos from cameras, scanned stuff, and so on and you've got a DAM problem that is potentially thornier than even what a busy pro might face. Getting to the place where someone can say "Siri, I wanna see all pictures of mom at grandpa's birthday party last year" is the prize, I would expect.

Rob
 
I'd love to use Aperture more for commercial work but the following features (or lack of) compared to Lightroom stop me -

Poor (comparatively) noise reduction.
Agreed. Although, for low-rez event work (straight to web) Aperture is fine and the subtle improvement made by batching Dfine through PS isn't worth the time since my clients wouldn't even notice. Also, it looks like Apple is improving their NR engine for their next-gen photo app. Details here:

Brush for local colour temperature adjustments.
Interesting thought.
Automatic removal of hot pixels in high iso images.
My cameras handle this.
Lens distortion database adjustments.
My cameras handle this, too. I think part of the reason Apple hasn't invested resources in this is that they see more and more camera makers taking this on in-camera.
 
My cameras handle this, too. I think part of the reason Apple hasn't invested resources in this is that they see more and more camera makers taking this on in-camera.
But don't you find there to be a sizable trade off for the processing time between shots? My K5 does very acceptable lens distortion correction but the extra time needed before it's ready for the next shot has it generally kept off unless I can feel the strong need in advance of the shot and I have the time to wait. I like that it's there but use it only some of the time it may be needed due to that.
 
My cameras handle this, too. I think part of the reason Apple hasn't invested resources in this is that they see more and more camera makers taking this on in-camera.
But don't you find there to be a sizable trade off for the processing time between shots? My K5 does very acceptable lens distortion correction but the extra time needed before it's ready for the next shot has it generally kept off unless I can feel the strong need in advance of the shot and I have the time to wait. I like that it's there but use it only some of the time it may be needed due to that.
My Panasonic m43 gear writes the lens correction data into the RAW files, and Aperture applies the corrections when I process them. There is no delay involved at any stage. My GX7 shoots about 6fps, and Aperture renders the RAWs just as fast as it does my old Canon RAWs. This is not a switchable feature, and JPEG performance is just as fast.

I wasn't even aware that there were delays associated with lens correction on other brands.
 
My Panasonic m43 gear writes the lens correction data into the RAW files, and Aperture applies the corrections when I process them. There is no delay involved at any stage. My GX7 shoots about 6fps, and Aperture renders the RAWs just as fast as it does my old Canon RAWs. This is not a switchable feature, and JPEG performance is just as fast.
I wasn't even aware that there were delays associated with lens correction on other brands.
Might be the way Pentax implements it. Definitely adds a bit of molasses to the works when turned on.
 
One thing that makes Apple great is their ability to pinpoint focus specific projects to make them great. The put the efforts of an entire company into 1 thing to make it as good as it can me.

For this reason I believe they are abandoning Aperture. Their focus is elsewhere and they don't like to waste resources.
 
I would be happy to if you actually pointed out what I said that was inaccurate or indeed childish :-)

Although I am disappointed with the announcement I will wait and see how this plays out before making any rash decisions

K
 
At least all the endless speculation and wishful thinking can end now that Apple has made official what most who were being honest with themselves had concluded a couple of years ago.
 
no text
 
At least all the endless speculation and wishful thinking can end now that Apple has made official what most who were being honest with themselves had concluded a couple of years ago.
--Agree Don. A sad day for us all. Hopefully the integration Apple brings will provide some reprieve.

 
its worth reading this


Joseph is a friend and former work colleague at Apple - he has worked with and for Aperture for all its life

His analysis of what we know and what it means is pretty fair from my point of view

K
 
I don't like the cloud based part- at all.

I won't make any hasty decision about moving just yet but I feel like I have been kicked in the teeth by Apple.

I'm not happy.

I'm so upset I may even ditch my Mac and get a Windoze PC. :(
 
He sounds like a dumb optimist in denial, suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.
Why? I thought it was a well thought out article and enjoyed reading it. And a lot of his points do make sense - perhaps not for the true professional photographer (who probably does most of his work in Photoshop or something of it's ilk anyway), but to probably 75% - if not more - of Apple's audience.
 
He's grasping for straws in an attempt to spin this into positive news, because he wants to believe that it is, but it's not. Apple has stabbed him and all Aperture users in the back. Photos will never be an Aperture replacement.
 
Photos will never be an Aperture replacement.
So sayeth Tim Cook. Oh, wait, you're not Tim Cook? How about God? Are you God? No? Just making stuff up? Never mind, then.
 
Apple has stabbed him and all Aperture users in the back. Photos will never be an Aperture replacement.
Watch the linked video on developments in Core Image. Apple may have stabbed both Aperture AND Lightroom as most of what made up the image manipulation part of these programs will now be available in the Mac OS.

This is huge as it means that you no longer have to write tons of code to produce an image editing programs, you simply need a user interface and parameters to pass. Think about it, now you can stack all of the image editors you want (Nik, etc.) into one long non-destructive workflow.

And all of the image management part of Aperture and Lightroom gets moved directly into the Mac OS as well, across multiple computers and devices.

This could be huge. (Or it could be nothing.) I am reminded of all of the folks who predicted that nothing would replace a photo browser+RAW converter+pixel editor workflow - and then significant numbers of pros simply started using Lightroom and Aperture.

Patience. We will have to see how this all works out.

Link: See "Advances in Core Image"

--
DiploStrat ;-)
 
Last edited:

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top