Customer Reviews

Apple Aperture 1.0 (Mac DVD) [Old Version]

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Okay--so I loaded Aperture in my dual 2 gig G5 and it certainly is chocked full of features designed for the professional photographer. Everything from loading native RAW files at breakneck speeds, to sorting and cataloging RAW master files using extremely comprehensive filing and search features, and last but not least, to the editing and processing of files for export to printers, slideshows, a built-in website and book publishing. It really is a program designed to cover a photographer's complete digital workflow.

As far as being a Photoshop killer...NO WAY! In fact Photoshop is actually integrated into Aperture's workflow, in case you need advanced editing or compositing features not included in Aperture. It really isn't even an Extensis Portfolio killer, although for non-professionals like me, it probably is. I, for one, won't be buying the upgraded version of Portfolio. However, there are certain cataloging features in Portfolio that assist you in retrieving archived files that do not reside on your available hardrives (i.e. files saved to CDs and DVDs). Aperture only deals with the files on storage units that are currently available to the program. Therefore, I think professionals that have thousands of archived files to sort through will still want to use Portfolio for advanced searches. Adobe Bridge, however, is completely unnecessary if you have Aperture, so I guess it is a Bridge Killer.

Besides the fact that you can do just about everything you want to a photo, without leaving the master RAW file, it also provides you with various sorting features that harken back to the days before digital--when photographers sorted their slides on light tables with a magnifying glass (usually an image viewer or lupe). According to Apple, the digital light table and lupe features were suggested by and tested on photographers who still shoot slides. Of course, there are many things that this program can do much quicker on the digital light table then a photographer could do in the past with slides on a real light table, such as instantaneously sort all the slides into piles according to subject, or sort automatically into piles based upon when or where the photos were taken, or, for that matter, by any other sorting criteria you could think to add as embedded metadata. And the digital lupe feature can be adjusted for both size and magnifying power.

For the majority of photo editing jobs, I don't think people will need to use Photoshop, since Aperture handles basic color correction, levels, cropping, rotating, etc. just like Photoshop. However, what Photoshop has that Aperture does not, is the ability to add in plug-ins that handle advanced Photographic effects...Nik filters being a perfect example. And Aperture does not include any advanced compositing features (i.e. masking, layers, etc.). It will be interesting to see if in future versions of Aperture, they build in a feature that will allow third-party plug-ins or advanced compositing, but for the moment those features are only available in programs like Photoshop and Painter. So while this program is not a Photoshop killer, some photographers who do not already own Photoshop (are there any??) may not find a need to buy Photoshop if they purchase Aperture first.

Aperture also seems to eliminate the need for me to use Nikon Capture (I have a Nikon D2X), since it seems (at least at first glance) to include all the RAW editing features available in that program. I hope so because Nikon Capture continues to freeze just about anytime that I try to use it for batch processing large amounts of files, and I hate using Adobe's "limited feature" RAW editing plug-in. And, of course, Aperture's main selling point (at least for me anyway) is its ability to allow pictures to be edited for printers, or other presentation mediums, without having to convert native RAW files (i.e. this is accomplished through the use of non-destructive templates much like a digital video editing program). Neither Photoshop nor Capture can do that at present, which is a real time-consuming pain in the ass if you shoot mostly in the RAW format like I do.

Overall, I think Aperture is everything I was looking for in an all-in-one program that can take you all the way through the digital workflow process without having to switch formats and software. The program also seems at first glance, to be a very easy program to use. Most importantly, like Final Cut Pro, it was designed by Apple for use exclusively by high-end Mac computers, so unlike other software manufacturers, like Adobe, who try to design their software to run just about the same on Macs and PCs, Aperture is designed to take advantage of the features unique to the Mac operating system. By designing programs that run exclusively on their own proprietary software, Apple always seems to end up with programs that are easier to learn how to use, as well as programs that operate faster and better.

So, after one evening's use, I would give Aperture five out of five stars. More importantly, I believe that it was worth the $499 I paid for it. Would I buy it if I didn't shoot in RAW--No. Would I buy it if I didn't have a 12.4 megapixel DSLR--maybe. But I do shoot in RAW, and I do have a camera that uses lots of memory, so I think this program is going to be a lifesaver.

Aperture does not, nor did Apple advertise it to, be a replacement for Photoshop! Photoshop is the Emporor God of Pixel-oriented image editors (with a bit of object-oriented graphics thrown in). Giving the program a negative review for it not replacing Photoshop makes about as much sense as giving it a negative review for it not being a sports car! That being said, as a photographer, I end up opening all of my Canon Mark II ds 17 megabyte files in Photoshop to do minor tweeks and adjustments. You have to look at the whole, full resolution file in order to pick your good shots. So when deciding whether this is a good product (or for understanding the rather bizarre negative reviews that really miss the point) try opening 250 files from a photoshoot to do your first or second pass review using Photoshop and Adobe Camera Raw . . . Not only does it take many hours, it takes hours of hands-on time. There is not a way to do this as batch processing because you have to make some minor decisions on how to open the files and it leaves 250 45 megabyte (or so) Photoshop files open at once. (Opening into Photoshop roughly triples the file size or so.)

I have a Dual Processor G5 with a new graphics card (more on this later) and 6 (yes 6!) gigs of memory. No way . . . the program will always crash with that many files open of that size, and there really is not way to do the kind of comparisons you want to do in order to decide which images you want to go ahead and print (or get ready for on-line resizing and optiminzation (an Image Read/Photoshop job for sure), composite, or any number of other things.

In addition, on a per file comparison, Aperture imports a single one of my large Canon Mark II files about 10 times faster than Adobe's camera raw. I don't know where the reviewers suggesting Aperture is slow are coming from, they cannot be comparing the import to Adobe's Camera Raw. And Camera Raw (like Aperture's Import function) is just plain wonderful! For example, it just about eliminates any White Balance issues . . . it just almost always "nails" a neutral whitebalance (or easily lets you leave it as is or warm it up, or cool it down as you open the file. Has saved me much time fussing with skin tones.

Aperture makes makes opening and comparing 250 large files in an hour doable. Rather than thinking of it as iPhoto on steroids, it is closer to say it is CS 2's Adobe Brdige on steroids, plus a bunch of extras . . . The interface is related to Apple's other pro applications like Soundtrack or Final Cut. iPhoto is an application for consumer level digital photography. Adobe has another program (Light Table) in late stage beta testing that looks like it will go toe to toe with Aperture. Aperture is also not a full digital asset management program, but if you are only working in photography, with some tweaks to your work flow and archiving system, you probably won't need one. Bridge--for photography--also is not needed.

About the file structure . . . The Aperture Library is the correlary to old-school negatives. This is one reason the file structure fixed and any adjustments are not made to the imported files. If you screw up your edits, you still have the original files. When I have a really good image (I am principally an art photographer), I may end up with five or six different Photoshop versions for different print sizes, printers, compositing and the like. Aperture (when I really get it integrated into my workflow) should greatly reduce the number of versions of files that I have, and imposes a structure helpful in keeping track and searching through files. When I have "lost" a file from a couple of years back, I have usually been able to find it with a couple of quick Boolean searches, without resorting to increasingly lengthy and bizarre file naming and path (folder) structures. Aperture really lived up to Apple's claims in this regards. Much better than Adobe's Bridge on this. Much, much, much better.

Aperture not allowing changes to the raw image files is similar to using an "Adjustment Layer" you toggle on and off on a Photoshop file. Limiting the types of file structure in the Aperture Library allowed the programmer magicians to make the thing work. Frankly, when looking at the advertisements Apple had, I wondered how much of this was hype . . . by forcing a specifc file sturcture in the library (aka database of raw images) the Apple guys were able to come up with a way to rapidly push around lots of pixels in and out of memory and on to and around the screen, with incredible speeds. If you are not working with lots of big files (if for example, you can use iPhoto without the program crashing), Aperture is not for you, it would be a waste of your time to learn the program (not trivial) and money.

About the system requirements: The program is hardware dependent. I did not imagine my one year old G5 dual processor tower with lots of memory, would have a problem running the program. However, I had to buy a new $300 graphics card, something I figured I didn't really need since I don't play lots of real time animated computer games. Or at least I thought I would be able to check the program out before I decided if it was worth it to buy a new graphics card. Forget it, you need one of the new graphics cards listed: the program will not even start up with an card that is two years old. Apple does not sell (or at least not many) graphics cards, except for the ones that come as original equipment with a Mac, so they have no vested interest in artificially pushing folks to buy new cards (from other manufacturers). Aperture apparently pushes lots and lots of tasks on to the graphics card in order to make all the magic work. Photoshop does not do this, so in that sense (in terms of managing your image files by inspecting them), Aperture makes much more efficient use of the latest and greatest equipment (than Adobe Bridge).

I also have a Powerbook 17" G4 that is about six months old. Yes it runs Aperture, but not really well. Sometimes it freezes on the Powerbook. I imagine that won't happen on the new Macbook Pro's with the dual core processors, but I haven't checked that out yet (and won't be in the near future . . .). Aperture also makes good use of my dual display set-up. I have a 23 inch Cinema Display (the older ADC ones) with a second 19" digital Nec flat panel. I keep the images on the Cinema Display (has better color calibration), and the other stuff and program windows (so I can surf while waiting for the library to load) on the NEC panel. Same (like lots of folks) when running Photoshop--Image on the large good Cinema Display, Palets and Dock on the Nec.)

Those are the good things, here are the things that are not quite there yet:
1) The Camera Raw importing function does not process quite as nicely as the Adobe Camera Raw. A really noisy low light image may not come out quite as nicely, so you might have to fix it a bit more using Photoshop. (It is only on the odd shots where this shows up, and they tend to be the kinds of shots where you almost always need to go use Photoshop anyway to clean up the noise or other oddities);
2) The basic set of Curves functions are pretty standard these days, Aperture should have 'em.
3) Photoshop's Camera Raw has a couple of additional importing function that Aperture does not have. There is only one I ever use though is the vignetting sliders. It is a quick way to "burn the corners" of your photographs and you can preview the effect before applying it. Burning the corners is often such an easy and good adjustment, this would be nice to have; and
4) Aperture should get with the standard for meta data. You might want to look at a file 20 years from now, with whatever program is around, so it will need to read the standard meta data (data about the image (time taken, date, size, photographer, equipment, etc. etc.) appropriately.
5) The integration with Photoshop (or some other standard editor) could be/should be, one key stroke.

A minor comment about the interface. Yep, I agree, I am kind of tired of the titanum-esque colors and current fonts on all of the pro applications. The functionality is elegant and powerful though. That it is standard across Apple Pro applications is a basic Apple design requirement, and has been since the LISA. Some of you whipersnappers don't remember the old days where every single program had a different interface for everything (like saving or printing). Apple upped the ante and by controlling the basic hardware and software, forced design standards on third parties that allow everyone (now) to open just about any program on any computer or operating system, and be able to find your way around. With the Pro applications, Apple has another level of standardization on the interface that speeds up the learning curve. What it is not is a Photoshop interface. At first I was disappointed in this since I've spent so many years learning Photoshop, but Aperture interface works better for what Aperture does (than trying to make it look on the surface like Photoshop).

Overall: I think this program will be stupendous for pros (or photo students) to work along with Photoshop, once a few fairly minor things are corrected. It is a professional program aimed at people who make their living with photography (or part of it), and is priced as such, not as a consumer product. (It is fun though, so I imagine many consumers will want to pay in learning curve time and money for it, but this will be the exception rather than the rule.) It will save me lots of time once I have fully integrated it into my work flow. It does have a significant learning curve. I only gave it four stars because of the minor issues I (and others) have identified; which I hope Apple will fix in the next major release (perhaps Aperture 1.5).

If you buy this program, do yourself a favor and concentrate on what it DOES do, and not what it doesn't do.

It's NOT a Photoshop replacement. It's not even fair to compare it with Photoshop. Photoshop is a pixel editor. Photoshop isn't designed JUST for photographers. Aperture ISN'T a pixel editor. It WAS BUILT FROM THE GROUND up for photographers.

It's a workflow/image management solution.

You can replace Portfolio or iViewMultimedia Pro with Aperture and find yourself with the bonus of being able to do some minor image adjustment.

The real power of the program is in its ability to compare and select images, sort them, rank them, keyword them and store them.

The RAW converter is a little rough around the edges. The printing function worked perfectly for me and the color management was flawless. Slide show is cool but doesn't export. Web galleries are super easy to build and more valuable than Photoshop's web galleries.

The program NEEDS a fast Mac with lots of RAM and craves dual monitors.

This is only the first version. Photoshop isn't perfect and it's presently on version nine!

I hope (and expect) Apple will improve and update this program quickly and often as the professional photo community gives Apple feedback.

For now, if you want to compare and select and manage your images, this is a great way to do it. Otherwise, wait for version 1.5.

UPDATE: Apple provided a bug fix, version 1.01 that addresses many of my initial concerns. I think the program now does a much better job with white balance and image export. The overall performance is also improved. The RAW converter is still a little rough but it will be updated the next time Apple updates the Operating System. I'd add a half star now to my review if I could.

I shoot event photography. Primarily wedding. 2MHZ G5 w/ 5G of RAM and a 1.5MHZ Powerbook w/ 2GB of RAM.

This is the second review of this product for me, I deleted the first after giving the editing tools more of a chance.

THE GOOD.
This tool is great for going through your photos, making selects, rating and keywording and organizing them into folders. The metadata features allow you to customize searches and create albums limited only by your imagination. Truly great. The "stacks" tool is especially remarkable for sorting, along with the full screen viewing option. You will make your sorting decisions quicker, period. The viewing options: light table, contact sheet, full screen, stack are wonderful. The output options, at least on the Demo DVD, are great, although you can read below to see why I haven't explored them yet.

THE DISSAPOINTING.
As an image editor, this app is marginal at best.... Photoshop is amazing, but tedious for large volume edits. This fixes that...almost.

This should have been a saving grace and in some ways it is, but in others it is not. There is virtually no training on how to use these adjustment tools. I was frustrated w/ this at first but after a few tries found them to be pretty good and not terribly difficult to learn. The amazing timesaver is the excellent "LIFT & STAMP" tool allowing you to take adjustments or metadata or both along with just about any other change you've made to an image and instantly stamp as many others as youd like. From there you can tweak the stamped items a bit if needed but you don't start from scratch. Awesome. I'm sure training books/DVD's will remedy the lack of training to truely maximize these tools in the near future (Apple's DVD tutorial virtually ignores adjusting images and the book is a VERY broad overview...of everything).

But I can say that no book or tutorial will cure the sluggish performance of some of these adjustment tools. Even on my G5 w/ 5 GB of RAM (yes RAM), it is sluggish with the straiten and "spot & patch" tools. And I'm not doing any mindblowing adjusting... The other gripe on these adjustments tools is that they can't seem to be localized to only a portion of an image with a "history brush" like tool. You sharpen the entire image or nothing, if I want to sharpen eyes or edges but leave skin soft...there is no way that I can find to do it.

THE VERDICT:
I bought this to save time. It saved me time in sorting and organizing and basic editing...the Lift & Stamp is awesome but overall editing is sluggish at times. You will save time with volume edits, but you will still need PS for involved edits with brushes and and compositing.

I'm an apple nut...3 macs, Final Cut Studio, and now this...hopefully the shortcominngs will be acknowleged and overcome in future releases especially the adjustment tools performance and lack of "history brush" like option. In the end, was it worth $500...for me, yes. I see major potential in a very elegant and consistently "Apple" interface.

I have been using Apple Aperture for a little bit, now -- still getting used to the interface and learning about it. It is installed on my PowerBook G4 with 17" screen, 2 Gb memory.

It seems to run fast enough, even before I installed the 1.01 update. I suspect that those who have been complaining about how slow it is have too little memory installed. You should have at least 1 Gb RAM. Flipping through raw files was instantaneous. It does take a long time to import a file; about half again as long as it takes to copy it.

The interface is filled with annoyances. Dark grey screen. Ugly menus. Someone at Apple appears to have a real titanium fetish. It can be adjusted lighter, but Apple recommends dark backgrounds as giving truer colors.

You can set in Preferences a single external photo editor. I set mine to CS II. It allows Photoshop to open a file as either a TIFF or PSD, no other format. Aperture completely bypasses Photoshop's RAW editor. If you want to use another editor for a project, then you will have to change your Preferences.

Aperture stores all files in a single file called the Aperture Library. Double clicking on this library will open Aperture. The files are accessible only through Aperture. You will have to export a file if you want to use it with another program. The raw files remain untouched in the Library; Aperture will not allow any access to them at all. You can import files from your camera or the computer, or it will import your iPhoto libraries and albums intact.

Files are organized in Projects, Albums, and Versions, basically. You can use any naming convention you want that is compatible with the file systems you use. The raw file is the only real file in the Library. The Library simply stores a summary of all the editing data to date to recreate the various versions of the original. It appears to even understand and keep a summary of Photoshop manipulations. If you export a file, manipulate it, and re-import it, Aperture will treat it as a new raw file.

Aperture will not keep track of off-disk files, but you can create an Aperture Library on any hard disk. Aperture will also create a Vault -- a place where you can back up your files -- on another disk. Deleting a file from the Library will also delete it from the Vault the next time you back up your Library to that Vault. You may have more than one Vault. I use SoftRAID with my PowerBook, but the Vault does seem to be a nice touch.

Rating your photos is very quick. Since most of mine are obvious rejects, Aperture may be a useful tool to get rid of a lot of the dead wood taking up disk space. Keepers can be quickly compared and rated on a five star scale.

I don't recommend trying to import a large number of photos at once. It can put your machine out of commission for hours. Instead, I would recommend importing old photos as needed for new projects.

Various views are available and are quickly reached with various hot keys. I like the filmstrip view and the light table the best, though I have a tough time seeing how they can call a dark, titanium gray background a light table. :-)

The basic editing tools in Aperture are adequate for most tasks, but Aperture's editor is not powerful enough to replace something like Photoshop. Since none of the changes are actually made to the original photo, you have unlimited Undo.

Additional features included in Aperture include books a la iPhoto's books. I haven't tried that yet, but I probably will try to develop a mission annual with it. It also includes several sample web pages and it will automate exporting those pages to your .mac account (how handy, provided you buy a .mac account). I have not had a chance to look at all the printing options yet.

I would rate Aperture to be iPhoto on steroids. The organizational tools are very good and, if I really need to work with Photoshop's raw reader or Nikon Capture, then I can quickly export a version of the photo for their use without fear of harming the original and re-import it without fear of over-writing the orginal with a photo of the same name. I did not like iPhoto at all; it kept too many copies of your pictures in too many locations and was a disk space hog. Aperture saves me disk space, and for that reason alone I like it.