Jump to content
🇩🇪 Neu: Leica SL3 Reporter ×
🇺🇸🇬🇧 New: Leica SL3 Reporter ×

Preparing for the M

chris_tribble

By chris_tribble
in Leica M9 / M-E

Recommended Posts

jonoslack

jonoslack

Posted
Posted

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I agree Jono. I run both LR4 and Aperture 3, and it's always Aperture that I turn to first.

 

HI Andy - I'm really glad to hear that I'm not alone!

 

What confuses me is that nobody else even mentions Aperture?!:rolleyes:

 

all the best

(p.s. are you going to win the Leica Challenge, because it sure isn't me :) )

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 847
  • Created
  • Last Reply
wlaidlaw

wlaidlaw

Posted
Posted

Jono,

 

I did mention Aperture in my post but sorry to disagree with you and although Aperture is a typical Apple product, nicely designed with an excellent user interface and intuitive way of working, it has been shown by a lot of posts on this website, that its development engine lags behind. It is not sucking the maximum definition out of DNG's and cannot compete on things like selective colour alteration or moiré elimination. It seems to me that with Apple's concentration on iOS over the last few years, the development on Aperture has not been what it should have been. If you download the free full trial version of C1 V7 and have a look at its development engine, I think you will see that it is a good way ahead of Aperture. Sadly I don't think Apple's priorities are going to change in the near future and I cannot see them devoting the energy and money to bring Aperture up to where it should be.

 

Wilson

Link to post
Share on other sites
jonoslack

jonoslack

Posted
Posted
Jono,

 

I did mention Aperture in my post but sorry to disagree with you and although Aperture is a typical Apple product, nicely designed with an excellent user interface and intuitive way of working, it has been shown by a lot of posts on this website, that its development engine lags behind. It is not sucking the maximum definition out of DNG's and cannot compete on things like selective colour alteration or moiré elimination. It seems to me that with Apple's concentration on iOS over the last few years, the development on Aperture has not been what it should have been. If you download the free full trial version of C1 V7 and have a look at its development engine, I think you will see that it is a good way ahead of Aperture. Sadly I don't think Apple's priorities are going to change in the near future and I cannot see them devoting the energy and money to bring Aperture up to where it should be.

 

Wilson

HI Wilson

As far as moiré elimination goes, there was a very thorough post on GETdpi about this last year, and Aperture was so much better than the other programs that it wasn't even funny.

Selective colour alteration is not something I've ever done (or wanted). . . but if you've ever tried to get rid of a telegraph line across the middle of a landscape, Lightroom is a nightmare, and Aperture a dream.

I've frequently looked and used C1, and personally I find the colour profiles rather garish for my tastes (read my tastes, I realise it's subjective).

As far as getting the maximum definition out of RAW files, I've not compared 6ft prints from C1 . . . but I have from LR, and again (and with blind testing), I've found Aperture (again, for my tastes - and those of my blind assessors) to do a better job.

As I say, I spent the first 6 months of this year using LR and Photoshop, and getting back to Aperture was such a relief!

 

To be honest, you might as well say to me:

"If you buy a new Nikon D800E and have a look at its RAW files, I think you will see that it is a good way ahead of a Leica M"

 

As far as I'm aware (shoot me down if I'm wrong) C1 still depends on the 'development' process. So that (like most other straightforward RAW converters) you apply your settings and process the file - to an output file - whether it be to TIFF or whatever. Aperture and Lightroom allow you to make changes which are held in a database, so there is no need to fill your hard disks with web versions / print versions / thumbnails etc. . . . . Just the RAW files and the various versions in the database.

 

But to be honest with you - 6 months of this year is enough time evaluating other software. Nobody has EVER said to me "Don't you think that image would be better off if it was developed in C1" . . . but people have endlessly said to me "Don't you think you should use C1 - it's the best" . . . and when I've questioned them they haven't spent more than a day or so trying out Aperture and learning it's inner depths.

 

When you say

It has been shown by a lot of posts on this website that it's development engine lags behind

I can't say you're wrong - But I can tell you that the amount of incorrect information I've seen around here is legion! . . . and as someone who really has spent time beta testing all three of these software packages, I'm sticking to my own opinion, which is at least backed up by my own experience!

Link to post
Share on other sites
jonoslack

jonoslack

Posted
Posted

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Just a qualification

 

and as someone who really has spent time beta testing all three of these software packages, I'm sticking to my own opinion, which is at least backed up by my own experience!

 

My point was not that I think that Aperture is necessarily BETTER - just that I've real experience of LR C1 and Aperture, and I LIKE Aperture better . . . and that I was surprised at how little it was mentioned.

 

I imagine that for every image there is a BEST processing program, but I'm pretty sure that there isn't a best program for all images.

 

all the best

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dirk Mandeville

Dirk Mandeville

Posted
Posted
Just a qualification

 

 

 

My point was not that I think that Aperture is necessarily BETTER - just that I've real experience of LR C1 and Aperture, and I LIKE Aperture better . . . and that I was surprised at how little it was mentioned.

 

I imagine that for every image there is a BEST processing program, but I'm pretty sure that there isn't a best program for all images.

 

all the best

 

I started with Aperture, and after a few years had to switch over to LR. Apple is simply not giving the resources to Aperture development that it needs to keep up with LR. They are slow to provide RAW support for new cameras, they provide no communication on the direction of the program or when to expect updates, and are generally slow about upgrading the program and adding new and useful features.

 

They also seem to add what I consider to be gimmicks (like the faces feature) that are of little use to me but add bloat to the program and take processing time. But my biggest concern with Aperture was that Apple is very quiet about the future of the program and they aren't shy about abandoning even pro programs if they aren't making a good enough profit. I don't see Adobe abandoning LR and leaving its users in a lurch. I have no such confidence about Apple and Aperture. Also, I was very concerned about the way Aperture stores RAW files in its own proprietary database, hidden from the user. I have heard horror stories about program updates that corrupted the database and lost files for the end user.

 

Those are just a few of the many reasons I switched. Aperture does have a nice user interface, but I really don't understand all the comments about LR being so difficult to understand. It is really pretty simple, intuitive, and easy to understand. You do all your cataloguing and metadata work in the Library module, you hit a button to switch to the develop module when you want to work on an image, and then you have several other modules for doing special things like creating slideshows, printing, etc. The develop module is nicely laid out and post processing an image is quick and easy. What is so difficult to get?

 

I do agree with the comment that cloning something out of an image is a pain in the butt with LR. You can really only do spot healing. I expect that will change in a future update. Until then, that is why I still use PS.

Link to post
Share on other sites
jonoslack

jonoslack

Posted
Posted
I started with Aperture, and after a few years had to switch over to LR. Apple is simply not giving the resources to Aperture development that it needs to keep up with LR. They are slow to provide RAW support for new cameras,

I quite agree about RAW updates - it's really stupid - it can't be such a big job, and it loses them huge numbers of users.

they provide no communication on the direction of the program or when to expect updates, and are generally slow about upgrading the program and adding new and useful features.

Apple never provide communication . . . on the other hand, the recent incremental update was free, and just as major as the LR4 update (which definitely wasn't free!).

They also seem to add what I consider to be gimmicks (like the faces feature) that are of little use to me but add bloat to the program and take processing time.

 

Switch them off - I agree that faces is (for me) pointless, on the other hand I'm aware of some other people for whom it's a real definite bonus. But if you don't want it to waste processing power, just switch it off in preferences.

But my biggest concern with Aperture was that Apple is very quiet about the future of the program and they aren't shy about abandoning even pro programs if they aren't making a good enough profit.

Apple have never said anything about the future of any program - But hey, they are using Aperture on their advertisements for the new MBP machines with the Retina display, added to which there have been two updates in the last 3 weeks . . . so they obviously haven't completely given up.

 

. . and let's face it, even if they did decide to stop developing it, it isn't going to suddenly stop working! Time enough to change to another program then.

 

Also, I was very concerned about the way Aperture stores RAW files in its own proprietary database, hidden from the user. I have heard horror stories about program updates that corrupted the database and lost files for the end user.

 

This is actually why I bothered to reply to your post, because it's really misleading - if you want, then you can store the RAW files in the library . . . if you WANT. This note of yours suggests that you haven't used Aperture since the early days - Everybody I know (but one) who uses Aperture uses 'referenced' files - they aren't stored in the Aperture Library, they're stored in the folder structure you choose. (Just like in LR, but much more transparently)

 

But even if you did decide to store files in the Library - it is a perfectly ordinary (if a little arcane) folder structure. Even if the Aperture database is completely inoperable, the files are still safe and sound . . . but as I say, everyone I know uses referenced files just like LR

Those are just a few of the many reasons I switched.

 

Reasons to have switched from Aperture 1 perhaps!

 

I do agree with the comment that cloning something out of an image is a pain in the butt with LR. You can really only do spot healing. I expect that will change in a future update. Until then, that is why I still use PS.

 

Hmmm I don't think it's going to change quickly- certainly based on discussions I've had with Adobe on the subject - for most LR users it's the one reason they keep upgrading their version of Photoshop . . . . . . . Put a proper clone tool in LR and there will be thousands of photographers who won't update to the next version of PS (like you for instance!)

 

Seriously though - I'm not trying to knock other programs - just to defend Aperture from these arguments (which I've seen time and again)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dirk Mandeville

Dirk Mandeville

Posted
Posted
Apple never provide communication . . . on the other hand, the recent incremental update was free, and just as major as the LR4 update (which definitely wasn't free!).

 

I would expect incremental updates to be free, and major updates to cost money, just as in LR. It is nice if they provided some value-added functionality in a free incremental update, though.

 

Switch them off - I agree that faces is (for me) pointless, on the other hand I'm aware of some other people for whom it's a real definite bonus. But if you don't want it to waste processing power, just switch it off in preferences.

 

Oh, I don't have to worry about it, as I never upgraded to that version. That was the point that I decided to switch over to LR. I checked out Ap. 3, and decided it was time to move to LR instead of upgrading Ap. The version of Aperture that I have is 2.1.4. But I have read of a lot of users having issues with faces in the beginning, and it just grinding the program to a halt. I imagine they have smoothed things out a bit by now. At least in Aperture they do allow you to switch it off in preferences. In iPhoto, which my wife uses, they don't provide an option for you to switch it off. Now that is annoying.

 

. . and let's face it, even if they did decide to stop developing it, it isn't going to suddenly stop working! Time enough to change to another program then.

 

True, it is not going to stop working. I still use my old version for some things. But if you plan to switch your whole library from one program to the other, it is quite a job. And the longer you wait to do it, the bigger the job is. I am so glad that I switched when I did, or it would have been a lot worse than it was.

 

This is actually why I bothered to reply to your post, because it's really misleading - if you want, then you can store the RAW files in the library . . . if you WANT. This note of yours suggests that you haven't used Aperture since the early days - Everybody I know (but one) who uses Aperture uses 'referenced' files - they aren't stored in the Aperture Library, they're stored in the folder structure you choose. (Just like in LR, but much more transparently)

 

I do understand about referenced files, but didn't start out my aperture library that way (I started with ver. 1) and never changed it over. I personally think the LR way is just so much more straight forward. I know exactly where my files are, and I have never had a problem losing one. I agree with you that if you are starting out with Aperture, referenced files would be the way to go. Although, the way Aperture handles referenced files still leaves the door open for some problems. Ex.: Bagelturf - Hazards Of Aperture Referenced Masters -- Bone-Headedness But I suppose the same could be said of LR.

 

But even if you did decide to store files in the Library - it is a perfectly ordinary (if a little arcane) folder structure. Even if the Aperture database is completely inoperable, the files are still safe and sound . . .

 

Apparently not. I have seen quite a bit of discussion on the Apple forums about missing masters with Aperture. Lots of people lose their masters and can't recover them.

 

Honestly, I didn't want to feel like I had to leave Aperture because there was a lot to like about the interface. And if Apple had put more into its development, I think it could have been a great program. But I felt the quality and reliability was higher for LR. I felt like Adobe was more committed to LR for the long run and more communicative with their end users about updates and the like. Camera support came sooner, and they were adding features that mattered (like noise reduction abilities and better raw conversion) over features that didn't (like the aforementioned faces).

 

And honestly, I think Adobe have surpassed Apple in the RAW conversion capabilities. This is one of the reasons Scott Bourne wrote a post about considering switching. Here is the link if you are interested: Here’s Why I’m Seriously Considering A Permanent Switch To Adobe Lightroom

 

Finally, another big reason that I switched which I forgot to even mention in my first post, was simply the amount of user resources available for LR. You search the web for blogs, forums, and other resources for LR vs. Aperture (especially back then but today as well) and there is just no comparison. Tips, tricks, articles, help, free presets, tutorials, whatever. You name it. There are just a ton more resources available for LR users.

 

Overall, for all of these reasons, I am still really glad I switched. I do hope Apple gets their stuff together and continues to improve Aperture though. Competition in this space is good for all of us.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...