24 replies to this topic

[Craig Ruaux]

Aperture 2.0


Apparently including raw support for the d300, d3, 1DSMK III, faster 'optimised' database and extra juicy sweet filling.

Maybe less beachballs too. We can only hope.

[dhaas]

Just watched the enhanced RAW processing.......Amazing capability for Mac heads.

Like me

dhaas

[loftus]

On paper the upgrade looks very sweet; if speed has improved as claimed, I'll be very happy I stuck with Aperture rather than moving to Lightroom.

[craig]

Which video demonstrates amazing capabilities? I watched quite a few of the raw conversion videos and read the section on new raw image quality features but didn't see anything I'd describe as amazing. Perhaps the results are, but that can't be shown in a video.

When I auditioned raw converters recently I chose to see how each converter handled a ColorChecker chart. Such a test is objective and I had a script that could tell me how well, or badly, each converter did. I found, much to my astonishment, that many of the most highly regarded converters were difficult or impossible to achieve good results with. I did not test Aperture at that time. I would love to see anything that demonstrates anything "amazing" from any raw converter. Meanwhile, I like to see a converter get colors correct.

[loftus]

Which video demonstrates amazing capabilities? I watched quite a few of the raw conversion videos and read the section on new raw image quality features but didn't see anything I'd describe as amazing. Perhaps the results are, but that can't be shown in a video.

When I auditioned raw converters recently I chose to see how each converter handled a ColorChecker chart. Such a test is objective and I had a script that could tell me how well, or badly, each converter did. I found, much to my astonishment, that many of the most highly regarded converters were difficult or impossible to achieve good results with. I did not test Aperture at that time. I would love to see anything that demonstrates anything "amazing" from any raw converter. Meanwhile, I like to see a converter get colors correct.

I spent some time with Vincent Versace a few weeks back and he is convinced that the only RAW convertor Nikon users should use is Capture NX, even if using Aperture/Lightroom etc. With Canon he does not think it makes a difference as he was not too impressed with Canon's proprietary software.
Did you test Capture NX?

[craig]

Not the most recent version of NX. There are a number of people who insist that's the case for Nikon. Current owners of D300's and D3's are claiming that NX is far better than ACR but there's always a lot of negative criticism of ACR. I did my tests with a D2x at the tail end of its lifetime.

I have the current NX but haven't run ColorChecker shots through it.

It's possible to use NX or any raw converter and import the TIFFs into Lightroom. Doing so will still give you access to every Lightroom adjustment, including those associated closely with ACR. I've been considering trying that combination.

[RogerC]

You can tweak the aperture raw converter to your liking.

I do like the aperture 2.0 converter better. Not sure how to describe it, I haven't spent that much time with it yet. Donno.. more saturated, more pop, more something. Maybe smarter contrast or detail out in the wings of the histogram or something.

In high speed mode, where adjustments are shut off, aperture 2.0 screams. My laptop is almost 6 years old, a 1.33 GHz G4, and I can page through raw files like they are small jpegs. No delay at all. This is fantastic for making your initial edits and selects. It's just what I want.

Turning on the new raw converter and all the new stuff when you get out of high speed mode... I think it's slower than 1.1 on my laptop, but that figures, it's doing more.

Overall, I'm very happy with it.

And hoping they announce 17" laptops with LED screens and the new trackpad soon.

[ornate_wrasse]

I spent some time with Vincent Versace a few weeks back and he is convinced that the only RAW convertor Nikon users should use is Capture NX, even if using Aperture/Lightroom etc.

I went to a Nikonians Capture NX class in December. The instructor felt that Aperture/Lightroom didn't work too well in a workflow when using Capture NX. He likes using Photo Mechanic, then Capture NX and then Photoshop if additional work is needed after Capture NX. I don't have PM, Aperture or Lightroom yet and am still trying to decide what would be the best workflow.

Edited by ornate_wrasse, 16 February 2008 - 05:54 PM.

[TheRealDrew]

I don't have PM, Aperture or Lightroom yet and am still trying to decide what would be the best workflow.

You may want to hold off a bit and see what happens when Aperture hits the streets (I ordered a copy earlier today ) to see where (or if) it may fit in the workflow. Even if the other convertors turn out to be preferable it looks like a nice toolset.

Of course some of it may be puffery, but it seems that Apple took a long hard look at Aperture to improve it and really make the application more mature and they dropped the price to $199 (like Lightroom). Apple claims the engine is rewritten to focus on RAW conversions and being to bring the application up to date quicker for new cameras. Guess we'll see.

[RogerC]

I went to a Nikonians Capture NX class in December. The instructor felt that it Aperture/Lightroom didn't work too well in a workflow when using Capture NX. He likes using Photo Mechanic, then Capture NX and then Photoshop if additional work is needed after Capture NX. I don't have PM, Aperture or Lightroom yet and am still trying to decide what would be the best workflow.

there's no one answer for everyone. The system has to work the way you do. And these things have steep learning curves, you need to take the 30 day free trials and really live with the aps, really give them a fair trial. You can't back away after 5 minutes if you don't get the interface immediately. It's a hard problem, you can't expect the solution to work instantly.

and this may be blasphemy, but to me there is more than just the quality of the final output. The ap also has to let you work with your photos, back them up, etc, do other things... if it gets you a great final image but it takes hours to get there, you won't get there that often.

[cor]

I cant imagine going without Lightroom (or Aperture, but no mac here) anymore. I generally dont do a whole lot of post processing so I dont really need or want to move every single image to tiff (what..3 times larger?). The few images I need to work on for something i'll pick from LR and send to Capture or PS after the fact, if I need to. To me image management comes before image post processing. (or at least at the same time)

Cor

[mandarinfish]

Roger is so right; it's much personal preference and one's own needs and methods of doing things. I have an older version of Capture and didn't care for it at all, especially the interface. For a very small minority of my photos, I did prefer Capture's RAW conversion, but overall I preferred ACR's conversions. Now I use Lightroom and the workflow just works for me. I use Photo Mechanic to rename, cull, and stamp basic IPTC info on my images every time I download. Then I import them into Lightroom and do the bulk of my processing there. If necessary, I can roundtrip into PS, but I find I rarely need to do that. I do generate PSD files after this and use all the PS automation I've set up to generate all my web versions.

And lastly I import the PSDs into Imatch, where I add additional custom property information and use scripting to generate SQL data for my web gallery database. Unfortunately, Imatch is windows, so for now I'm stuck with that. I'm playing with Iview to see if it'll do what I need, but it seems to have some limitations. If I could define my own custom metadata fields in Lightroom I might be able to get by without a separate database.

I also have Aperture 1.5 and plan on upgrading it and delving into it a little further to see how it compares to Lightroom for fitting into my particular workflow. I have not spent alot of quality time with it so far.

[ornate_wrasse]

I use Photo Mechanic to rename, cull, and stamp basic IPTC info on my images every time I download. Then I import them into Lightroom and do the bulk of my processing there.

That was another point my instructor made, i.e. to use PM to stamp basic IPTC info as well as name/date on his images. His point was that if someone were to steal an image, you had the info to prove the image was yours. Doing the stamping of the data on the image meant there was no need to place a watermark on the image.

Linda, we are just going to have to get together for coffee/lunch somewhere in this great town we live in. I promise I'll buy if you'll teach me all about your workflow.

[echeng]

I am really enjoying the new Aperture so far. The improvements are significant. I'll have more to say when I've put it through more.

[mandarinfish]

That was another point my instructor made, i.e. to use PM to stamp basic IPTC info as well as name/date on his images. His point was that if someone were to steal an image, you had the info to prove the image was yours. Doing the stamping of the data on the image meant there was no need to place a watermark on the image.

Linda, we are just going to have to get together for coffee/lunch somewhere in this great town we live in. I promise I'll buy if you'll teach me all about your workflow.

I'm always glad to share what I know, Ellen, but I'm the first to admit that my methods aren't the right choice for everybody. Mine are tuned to produce the data for my website, and also to incorporate all the film stuff that I still do along with digital. I try to simplify as much as I can, but it's always a struggle.

Much of what I do in PM is doable in Lightroom or Aperture as well; they both have support for IPTC metadata. There seems to be overlap in many of the tools these days, as the software packages strive to be the overall right tool for everyone. They all have strong and weak points, though.

Hmmm, looks like the Aperture upgrade package is finally in stock. Think I'll mosey over there .

Linda

[loftus]

I couldn't be happier with an upgrade. Aperture now really flies for me on both my laptop and MacPro. Previews, switching back and forth from from preview with a double click etc seem to work flawlessly and instantaneously as they should. Background tasks working well without the spinning ball, I love it! Last week I reinstalled Leopard with the 10.5.2 release on my MacPro after previously going back to Tiger. I was just about to switch back to Tiger again with all kinds of weird problems like lines of dead pixels across the screen, OS quiting, freezes etc, when Apple released the Leopard Graphics update last night. Seems to have fixed everything (fingers crossed).
Merrily using Aperture and Leopard at the moment!

Edited by loftus, 19 February 2008 - 04:38 AM.

[Chuck Jensen]

I am really enjoying the new Aperture so far. The improvements are significant. I'll have more to say when I've put it through more.

Hi Eric,
I was checking back to see your opinion on Aperture 2 now hat you have had some time with it? I am getting a new Mac and am wondering whether to get the Aperture, Lightroom or Photo Mechanic for the workflow.
Decisions, Decisions?
Also, It doesnt appear that Proshow Gold is available in a Mac Version I dont think. What slideshow software would you recommend for Macs?
Cheers,
Chuck (Hups)

[PRC]

Think Eric is out of town on a trip Chuck - so there may be a time lag in response.




Paul C

[Nakedwithoutcamera]

I have a hard time figuring out that software.

[loftus]

Hi Eric,
I was checking back to see your opinion on Aperture 2 now hat you have had some time with it? I am getting a new Mac and am wondering whether to get the Aperture, Lightroom or Photo Mechanic for the workflow.
Decisions, Decisions?
Also, It doesnt appear that Proshow Gold is available in a Mac Version I dont think. What slideshow software would you recommend for Macs?
Cheers,
Chuck (Hups)

I think all 3 programs offer trial downloads you may want to try. I have used Aperture since it's release and liked it but Version 1 had real speed issues. Version 2 flies, and on a new Mac should be awesome. I prefer the interface providing everything directly available from one window. I also think the sort and stack workflow on Aperture beats Lightroom and is Aperure's strongest point.
I have not looked at Photomechanic in a while but the earlier versions were more limited for editing purposes.
The main advantage of Photomechanic was it's speed of downloading - I'm not sure it's as much of an advantage anymore vs Aperture 2's improved speed, particularly now that one can review in Quick Preview mode. It takes a little time getting a feel for Aperture's keyboard shortcut's, but once oriented, the program is extremely fluid and fast to work in.