Customer Reviews

Apple Aperture 2.1.1 [OLD VERSION]

5 star:		(40)
4 star:		(15)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(10)
1 star:		(7)

 

 

I have been using Aperture since version 1.1, and love it. The few issues/disappointments I had were resolved with version 1.5.x. Version 2.0 takes the performance and capabilities of Aperture to the next level. While I have only been using Aperture 2 for a week or so, I have been thoroughly impressed. (I will update this review as my experience grows.)

In terms of cameras, I use both a Nikon D2X and a Nikon D300. As such, the RAW files that Aperture has to deal with are large 12-megapixel images. And Aperture handles said images with ease. (Bear in mind that I am running Aperture on a first-generation MacBook Pro 17" laptop, running at 2.16 GHz.)

Among other improvements, Aperture 2 provides superior high-ISO noise reduction. For example, images taken with my Nikon D2X at ISO 1600 and ISO 3200 show massive improvements in quality. Not only that, but Aperture's noise reduction finally matches -- or even exceeds -- that of Nikon's own Capture NX software. Comparing high-ISO images side-by-side, it is clear that Capture NX utilizes a high dose of "chroma blur." Aperture 2.0 does not, and the difference is quite visible.

As for other changes, Aperture 2 provides some nice UI refinements, increasing the amount of screen real estate for viewing your photos. More generally, Aperture 2's UI is even more "transparent" than that of version 1.x, i.e., it does not impede your workflow.

Besides the UI improvements, Aperture 2 also adds additional image enhancement options. Among others, Apple added "de-vignette" and "vignette" image adjustments. These allow you to correct for, or add/increase, vignetting from lens optics.

And finally, a few words about performance. I found Aperture 1.5.x to be quite responsive, though it would occasionally become sluggish during certain operations. I have not been able to find any such sluggishness in Aperture 2, a welcome improvement. Plus, the software is even faster and more responsive that Aperture 1.5.x.

The bottom line? Aperture 2 provides welcome improvements over 1.5.x, including superior image quality. If you like Aperture 1.5.x, you will love Aperture 2. And if you shied away from 1.5.x, I highly recommend giving Aperture 2 a try. Download the free trial from the Apple website, and see the improvements for yourself. Try it, you just might like it!

I've been using the free trial of Aperture 2.0 for a couple of weeks now. Within a couple of hours of working with the trial, I ordered the full product.

I was given version 1.5 of Aperture for Christmas, so I was a little disappointed to find that Apple released a new version so soon after I got it. Apple also dropped the price by $100, which now makes it an incredibly good deal for anyone who hasn't bought this type of software before.

However, after getting over the shock of having to spend another $89 to upgrade software that was only 1 month old, I downloaded the free trial to see if it was worth upgrading. In the month I'd owned Aperture 1.5 I had spent quite a bit of time working out what it could do and how to make it use it. I could quickly see that 1.5 was a power piece of software, but it would definitely take some time to get the best out of it.

After upgrading to the trial of 2.0, and watching a couple of the Apple tutorial videos that are online, I was able to get impressive results very quickly. As I already had Aperture 1.5, I had already began shooting all my photos in RAW format on my Canon Rebel XT. I also tried editing some JPEG photos I had previously organized in iPhoto.

Results with RAW format photos are amazing. Aperture makes working with RAW so easy. I am able to correct exposure problems, which is just not possible with JPEG. I had a image that had lots of white in waves crashing over a rock. By adjusting the exposure in Aperture, and by using the highlight and shadow adjustments, I was able to bring out an amazing amount of detail, turn an average shot into a great one. The automatic correction of exposure levels makes a big difference to many of my shots.

With JPEG images, the results are less impressive. This is not a limitation of Aperture, but a limitation of shooting images in JPEG which loses a lot of the information that was actually captured with the camera's sensor. You are still able to make adjustments, but making big adjustments quickly introduces noise into the image. The tools available in iPhoto 08 produce good results with JPEG, and I wouldn't pay for Aperture if I only shot JPEG images. The automatic exposure correction that worked so well on many of my RAW images is not available on JPEG images.

If you have a camera that can shoot RAW images, such as almost all digital SLRs, and a few compact point-and-shoots such as the new Canon PowerShot G9 12.1MP Digital Camera with 6x Optical Image Stabilized Zoom, I would definitely recommend shooting in RAW and getting a trial of Aperture to see if it works for you.

You should be aware that shooting in RAW creates much bigger files, so consider this when making your decision. Getting the most out of Aperture means you have to shoot in RAW, and the biggest cost in moving from JPEG to RAW will be larger memory cards and hard drives.

Aperture is so easy to use that I'd recommend it to anyone with a basic knowledge of photography that wants to learn more. Download the free trial, shoot some RAW images with your camera, and only order the full version if it works for you.

If you shoot in RAW and manage large numbers of photos, you need to give very serious consideration to Aperture 2. The program provides truly outstanding RAW conversion tools - greatly superior to Adobe's free Digital Negative Converter. It provides very flexible, easy-to-use tools to compare and rate photos, including stacks, ratings and comparison tools. The library management tools are truly outstanding, giving you multiple levels of keywords, a variety of tools for organizing your shots, and a hierarchical system for organization. And it links tightly to the photo editing application(s) of your choice.

Batch processing is well-supported, both on import and on photo selections. Essentially all data associated with the photos - both image details and EXIF - can be handled individually or at a batch level.

Famously, Aperture makes its edits to photos by linked mathematical formulas; the RAW photo itself is not touched. So manipulations can always be reversed. This also keeps the photo database from growing through duplicate files; there's just one file, and a series of small files representing the edits.

Aperture isn't perfect. While it is adequate for simple edits to photos, you'll still need a tool like Photoshop of Elements to perform serious adjustments to your photos. Aperture does a fine job of working with those photo editors. And Apple can be slow - sometimes, seriously slow - supporting the RAW formats of newly released cameras. In the case of the Olympus E-3, the camera was released for five months before Aperture could import its RAW format. There are always worksarounds - Adobe DNG if nothing else - and in fairness to Apple, its Aperture RAW converters are outstanding, but be prepared for a wait if you have new model camera. And Aperture demands significant resources: at least G5 (an Intel chip is better), at least 2 GB RAM (4GB _much_ better), an approved video card, hard rive space adequate to your projected ibrary and a backup or removable drive to hold a backup (a "vault").

Perhaps best of all, Aperture lets you define your own workflow. Adobe Lightroom, by contrast, pretty much imposes its workflow structure on you. You can do things in the order you want, not the order some programmer wants.

If you are new to Aperture, I recommend the Classroom in a Book tutorial, Apple Pro Training Series: Aperture 2 (Apple Pro Training Series).

I could not be happier with this program. I have some 25,000 shots, and add 1,000-2,000 per month. It has been flawless. And I've never lost a photo.

My highest recommendation.

I'm a professional photographer, and after extensively testing both Aperture and Lightroom, I'm throwing my hat on the Aperture side.

Lightroom, to be honest, is a great application. The layout is easy to understand, and the modules guide a first-time-user. I also find the plugin architecture compelling, allowing me to preview changes before applying filters, and then having the ability to delete and adjust applied filters. Having said that, Lightroom is clunky. It seems to be more of a Photoshop product than a digital image catalogue product. Quite frankly, nothing will replace Photoshop--it is the end all and be all of photo applications. However, I need something to convert RAW files to workable JPEGs, and need an easy way to adjust white balance, exposure, tones, and noise. Although Lightroom makes this process reasonably easy, the module system (though helpful at first) begins to irritate me. I hate the thought of switching between one module and another simply to make one adjustment. I also don't like to follow a structured format--that is, I don't want to first view my files and select them, THEN move on to the editing module to apply changes, THEN work on web development. To me, that's too structured.

Aperture, on the other hand, allows me to do everything at once. I can browse my RAW files and rate them; if I find one I like but needs exposure control, I can bring up the transparent HUD, make my adjustments, and skip to the next file...all without being forced to switch between modules.

Aperture 2 is a superior product, much better than the first version. It is much faster than Lightroom (I'm running a Mac Pro with dual core 2.66ghz, 9gb RAM). Importing files is a lot easier--hell, I can even start browsing photos before they're all downloaded. The interface is nice and clean (although, I must admit Lightroom's interface is more attractive to me). Aperture 2 also has multi-display support--something Lightroom lacks. And the Loupe tool comes in handy every single time I use the application.

In short, Apple has done an incredible job building upon Aperture 1, and updating this fantastic application. As a professional photographer, Aperture is absolutely essential, no less so than Photoshop.

I had switched to Lightroom because of performance issues with Aperture 1.5 and, too, at the time Lightroom had a more extensive array of develop tools, but I always preferred the mon-modular work flow of Aperture. The minute 2.0 was released, I switched back and am very pleased that I did...Aperture now has all the features of Lightroom and more and the performance issues are no longer an issue. Both are great apps, but for me, Aperture is the one.

The program is very easy to use and very powerful. It takes a lot fewer steps to post process files than in photoshop and I can process dozens or hundreds in a sitting and very rarely have to turn to photoshop because Aperature's own tools are powerful. The interface is elegant too. The problem is speed. I have a dual core 2.8ghz iMac which is well above the minimum spec for the program. Most of the time Aperature is very fast but sometimes it will grind to an absolute halt. It might take three minutes to load one image. The problem seems to be one that is getting worse as I add more and more pictures. When it goes down the whole system gets so unresponsive that I feel like i'm on a 1986 Mac Plus again.

I've used Aperture since it's initial release. It won out over Adobe's product only because it became available first and I had a mighty need to organize my photos and work flow. My frustrations with the initial release of the Aperture 1.x series was non-intuitive menu items, viewing problems and sluggishness when downloading photos much less while running photoshop or some other memory hog. Aperture 2.0 is a pleasant surprise by a company that seems to listen to their customers. The menu items are much easier to understand and use and the performance on my Macbook Pro is not perfect but much much faster.

I have LIghtroom and Aperture on my MBP. I have decided to uninstall LIghtroom after using both for about a year now. Both are excellent,but with Aperture integrating my images into all my other programs is effortless. Also the price is now more competitive and the ability to use Photoshop style plugins make it a no brainer. Highly recommend.

As someone who comes from an IT background, who has been a Photoshop user since version 3, I have to say the latest version of Aperture is a grand slam out-of-the-park home run. I used the trial versions of Adobe's Light Room, and Aperture, and came away from my experience with a clear preference to Apple's product primarily because Aperture's user interface is much more clear and intuitive.

A number of 3rd party developers have been busy making plug-ins for Aperture, but I've found, once you understand to basic tools included in this program, you won't find it lacking much at all. On those occasions you might want them, you can pop out of Aperture into Photoshop with ease.

If you feel you've outgrown iPhoto, and have any doubts this is the tool for you, download the free demo from Apple and take a test drive. Apple's site has 50 free tutorials to show you all the core elements and get you started. You'll be back to Amazon soon enough to get your copy...

I used this product on a trial basis after shooting over 100 photos for a local dance performance. I was able to quickly crop, tweak, eliminate red-eye and perform a lot of other things quickly. I have Photoshop CS, but I have to upgrade in order to import my Nikon D300 images, so I thought I would give this a try as it is a less expensive answer than upgrading.

Obviously it is not as powerful as Photoshop, but I have found it to handle a lot of the basic photo modifications well. Aperture is not quite as complex or intimidating to use and doesn't require reading a book in order to figure out how to do the simple tasks. If I have a single photo that I need to spend a lot of time with or want to really change its' appearance drastically, it's off to Photoshop or Nikon Capture. If I have 50 pictures that need only minor tweaking, I'm using Apple's software.

I doubt that there's much Aperture will do that Photoshop won't, and if one takes the time to learn how to program Photoshop batch functions, maybe large numbers of photos can be handled just as quickly. But I do not think that many people could be as productive as quickly as they can with this software. It has Apple's hallmark intuitive processes that you would expect to be a part of the package. You can export a selection of photos to low or high resolution jpg files very easily. And for those who've not yet learned to shoot in the native RAW formats of their Nikons or Canons, you will be surprised to see just how many sub-par unprocessed JPG files can be transformed into winners by shooting in RAW and using the features in this software.

It's fairly priced, pretty powerful, and relatively simple to use. So shoot RAW, tweak, upload, print, frame up those stunning 8x10 photos in your office and start hearing people tell you how good a photographer you are!