10 replies to this topic

[ralphy]

Aperture has been launched in the UK iTunes App section for just £44.99 - latest version too.

Aperture

A veritable bargain!

R

[johnspierce]

Aperture has been launched in the UK iTunes App section for just £44.99 - latest version too.

Aperture

A veritable bargain!

R

Same in the US in the new Mac apps store -- $79 down from $199! I'm a Lightroom guy, but that is a smoking deal!

[loftus]

Pretty aggressive I'd say; I've also been looking at Pixelmator for $29.99. It's getting harder and harder to justify any future Photoshop upgrades when one considers that Pixelmator will probably be a pretty good PS alternative, at least for photographers. Pixelmator + Aperture = $110 vs $700 for PS + Lightroom

[stewsmith]

Is Aperture comparable with Lightroom?

Stew

[loftus]

Is Aperture comparable with Lightroom?

Stew

Yes; discussions on which is better fit into the Nikon vs Canon, PC vs Mac category. Aperture is only for Mac.
If you are interested in reading more about the 'pro' side, Aperture Users Network is a good place to start.
http://aperture.maccreate.com/
On a recent Mac with OS 10.6.6, Aperture runs very sweetly.

Edited by loftus, 08 January 2011 - 06:57 AM.

[stewsmith]

Yes; discussions on which is better fit into the Nikon vs Canon, PC vs Mac category. Aperture is only for Mac.
If you are interested in reading more about the 'pro' side, Aperture Users Network is a good place to start.
http://aperture.maccreate.com/
On a recent Mac with OS 10.6.6, Aperture runs very sweetly.

Thanks Jeff, having just purchased a new Mac I am in the market for some new software. I will follow your link.

Stew

[Tom_Kline]

This has to be the deal of the year thus far. Worth getting even if just to dabble in, which I have doing but for only a few hours. Here is what I have found out: There are some additional bells and whistles over Lightroom in the image editing department. However, there is a major league gap in digital asset management capability, IMHO - it does not delete raw files off the HD simultaneously with deleting them from within Aperture. At least I have not figured out how, thus far. This seems to be stated in the instructions as well.

[loftus]

Are you using a managed or referenced library? Aperture allows you to do both. I use a managed library where all images are kept within an Aperture Vault. In this case when you delete an image it is moved to the Aperture Trash, the image will then be totally deleted when you Empty the Aperture Trash (Aperture Menu item).
I would imagine that if you are using a referenced library, then the file is only removed from Aperture and not your hard drive. (A bonus I would imagine to avoid inadvertantly deleting files) There are numerous discussions on various forums as to the pros and cons of Referenced versus Managed Libraries.
It seems for some folks (Eric mentions this) Apertures keywording system is inferior to Lightroom, and as a scientist Tom this may be a problem for you. I've searched the forums to see if this is considered a major issue by pro photographers who use Aperture, and have not seen this mentioned as a problem elsewhere except on Wetpixel. For species classification purposes I can see where this may be a problem. For me it is of no concern as my approach to keywording is pretty rudimentary.

Edited by loftus, 08 January 2011 - 01:10 PM.

[Tom_Kline]

Are you using a managed or referenced library? Aperture allows you to do both. I use a managed library where all images are kept within an Aperture Vault. In this case when you delete an image it is moved to the Aperture Trash, the image will then be totally deleted when you Empty the Aperture Trash (Aperture Menu item).
I would imagine that if you are using a referenced library, then the file is only removed from Aperture and not your hard drive. (A bonus I would imagine to avoid inadvertantly deleting files) There are numerous discussions on various forums as to the pros and cons of Referenced versus Managed Libraries.
It seems for some folks (Eric mentions this) Apertures keywording system is inferior to Lightroom, and as a scientist Tom this may be a problem for you. I've searched the forums to see if this is considered a major issue by pro photographers who use Aperture, and have not seen this mentioned as a problem elsewhere except on Wetpixel. For me it is of no concern.

I have not figured out all the Aperture jargon out yet. I have the raw files separate from the library so "referenced" would seem more likely. I opted to leave the files as is when importing, just like with Lightroom. I have not studied up on "managed" but I can't see incorporating the raw files into the library itself, if this is what it means, as it would result in a multi-terabyte file.

I expect to continue to use LR to manage the bulk of my images and may use the export function within LR to export limited selections. Key-wording may thus not be an issue. For example, I am currently working on a slide show (to be given in Fairbanks in March) of just over 200 images, which I could export and then experiment using Aperture's version of slide-showing as well.

Edited by Tom_Kline, 08 January 2011 - 01:13 PM.

[loftus]

I have not figured out all the Aperture jargon out yet. I have the raw files separate from the library so "referenced" would seem more likely.

Correct, you are using a Referenced library, and yes if you have that many images could result in a multi terabyte library. It is possible to have multiple smaller managed libraries as well, so that these could then be stored on smaller drives. Some people like sports photographers and press photographers with very high volumes create a new library every year. These can all still be accessed from within the Aperture interface. by Switching Libraries in the Aperture Menu. Each library is then backed up to it's own Vault or multiple vaults for multiple backups, which is a nice feature of using Managed Libraries.

Edited by loftus, 08 January 2011 - 01:23 PM.

[Tom_Kline]

Correct, you are using a Referenced library, and yes if you have that many images could result in a multi terabyte library. It is possible to have multiple smaller managed libraries as well, so that these could then be stored on smaller drives. Some people like sports photographers and press photographers with very high volumes create a new library every year. These can all still be accessed from within the Aperture interface. by Switching Libraries in the Aperture Menu. Each library is then backed up to it's own Vault or multiple vaults for multiple backups, which is a nice feature of using Managed Libraries.

Sounds interesting. Too bad this cannot be done while keeping the images separate. It is reassuring seeing the files!
Easy to make multiple copies as well (using the OS). LR is relatively weak when it comes to manging at the upper level like multiple libraries (not possible). I have my images in folders organized by year and more recently by sub-year (last two years in four parts each). This is to keep the number of images per folder at a reasonable number, < 10K after some pruning). I use a simple sequential file and folder numbering system with folders from each camera separate within each year or sub-year folder - it is easy to spot any missing files, folders; easy to make multiple copies, all at the OS level (not in LR).