jcfig 4 Posted April 26, 2006 I'd like to hear some feedback on it. Thanks Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Craig Ruaux 0 Posted May 4, 2006 I bought a copy yesterday. I've not used 1.0, so I don't have a baseline to compare it to, but so far I am relatively happy. I'm running it on a 2.0 GHz MacBook Pro with the stock 1 GB ram (I'm ordering another gig today...). As it stand's it is the fastest RAW convertor I have for the D200, I don't have CS2. It has some annoying interface slow downs, that's for sure, but then I thought about how much data it is handling and decided to give it a break Importing 450 D200 RAWs from a network drive, thumbnailing them and stacking them into 15 second stacks took about 15 minutes. Most of that seems to be the time taken to transfer the files back from the network drive (it is only on 100BaseT). Importing and thumbnailing 30 D200 raws from a Sandisk Extreme II 1 GB card in a USB 2.0 card reader took about 3 minutes. I'm still learning the interface stuff, but so far I am finding it "okayish". I got it for $149 with my academic discount, I think it is worth that, but I'm glad I didn't pay $500 for 1.0 full edition. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcfig 4 Posted May 4, 2006 Thanks! I'll be using with D-70 images, which are a bit smaller, on the same machine you have. I think I'll buy it. thanks for the post. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
anthp 0 Posted May 5, 2006 I tried out 1.0 on an ibook 1.33 with 1.5GB RAM. It worked ok with D70 images, but wasn't as fast as Bibble. It was about the same as CS2 and waaay better than Nikon Capture - but that isn't hard. When 1.1 came out, it no longer worked (the resolution of the ibook prevented it from running). Looks like I'll be waiting for a MBP to make it work properly. Craig, even if you had paid the full price, there is a rebate available. My current converter of choice is Bibble. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcfig 4 Posted May 5, 2006 Apple just posted another update today (v 1.1.1) which fixes the White Balance bug and adds some improvements in speed. I'm pretty sure I'll end up getting it, but I'm going to try the demo version of Bible first. thx Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Craig Ruaux 0 Posted May 5, 2006 Yeah, 1.1.1 definitely adds "teh snappy" to 1.1, I downloaded the update last night. I had an issue with some corrupted old files that crashed Aperture after the update, deleting those files from the library solved the problem. I was never really able to get my head around Bibble's workflow. What has really been killing me lately, though, is version control and the massive proliferation of files that this entails. Thus my willingness to give 1.1.1 a go. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcfig 4 Posted June 8, 2006 I went ahead and purchased Aperture and so far I've been very pleased. Performance is excellent on my MBP and not only are the interface and organizational features great, I've been able to correct my photos without going to another application (at least so far ) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fdog 3 Posted June 9, 2006 jcfig, glad you're happy with picking up the software. Sorry I didn't pass this on earlier (I was away), we have Aperture 1.0 loaded on the Mac. (Obviously not the Windows box) Nobody used it after the initial interest; for me, Photo Mechanic has it beat in every way, especially in editing. Still, since it works for you, good one on ya. All the best, James Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RogerC 4 Posted June 9, 2006 To me, a lot of things are competative with it in editing, but nothing touches it in selecting images from a shoot... but I take a lot of the same subject, and it's particularly good at letting you pick the best of a series quickly. It's saved me a lot of time, even if it does bog down at times (my laptop is old). And the easy backups are wonderful. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hoovermd 0 Posted June 9, 2006 To me, a lot of things are competative with it in editing, but nothing touches it in selecting images from a shoot... but I take a lot of the same subject, and it's particularly good at letting you pick the best of a series quickly. It's saved me a lot of time, even if it does bog down at times (my laptop is old). And the easy backups are wonderful. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Agreed! I'm no pro and I pitch many more than I keep and this tool is super. the ability to auto-stack based upon a time gap is invaluable. This helps me separate the wheat from the chaff quickly. I'm no editing expert but the tools provided do OK fo rme. Afterall we all only crop our photos anyhow right? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fdog 3 Posted June 10, 2006 To me, a lot of things are competative with it in editing, but nothing touches it in selecting images from a shoot... <snip> <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Just a "language" difference...for us, having the Photo/Graphics Editor look through your images and pick out the ones to pass on to the city desk/sports desk/ etc is called editing. What the shooter does with the selected (edited) photos kind of depends on the slang de jour, i.e. manipulating, processing, photoshopping, darkrooming, cleaning, trimming, etc. All the best, James Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
loftus 42 Posted June 11, 2006 I have both Aperture and Photomechanic; and I am relatively new on both. As I upgraded to 1.1.1 and use Aperture more, I like it more. Using Aperture it seems I can do more of my 'manipulating' of images without going to Raw and CS2, which is convenient. It appears that the only drawback of Aperture vs Photomechanic is that it has to run on a fast machine with lots of RAM. In fact Aperure will only run on the last generation of PowerPC and the new Duos. Be interesting to see if Apple builds a PC version - also Adobe has a Lightroom Beta which appears to be positioned to challenge Aperture. Jeff Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
