Hans Roggen Posted February 12, 2008 Share #1 Posted February 12, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) Just found that Aperture 2 is now available in the US Apple store... Hanas Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 12, 2008 Posted February 12, 2008 Hi Hans Roggen, Take a look here Aperture 2 is out. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
fishblimp Posted February 12, 2008 Share #2 Posted February 12, 2008 I've been playing around with Lightroom for the last month or so. Is there anyone here who prefers Aperture to Lightroom and if so, why? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nhmitchell Posted February 12, 2008 Share #3 Posted February 12, 2008 Amazingly, Apple is promoting a "completely new RAW processing engine" as one part of the upgrade. It will be interesting to see if this is a game changer. Nick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eoin Posted February 12, 2008 Share #4 Posted February 12, 2008 Yes it seems v2.0 is using something other than core image support. Interestingly in the OSX 1.5.2 update they added core image support for the Nikon D300 and D3 but this support has not filtered through into Aperture 1.5.6 yet. iPhoto now supports the Nikons but it leaves me puzzled as to why 1.5.6 can't read the files. I must download the OSX and see what's gone on. No sign of it on the European website yet, I will be interesting to see exactly what's new in to image processing department and what colour profiles it will use. I'm getting tired of these crappy pinky skin tones I'm seeing with all (C1, LR, CS3) raw image processors I use. Either that is a flaw in the imbedded lookup table within the DNG or there is something else a miss. Good news none the less, about time, €99 upgrade price I think even with the weak $. Not bad considering 100 new features and I'll possibly only use 5. It better preform or Aperture is dead or only to be used as a DAM front end. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hdrmd Posted February 12, 2008 Share #5 Posted February 12, 2008 I like Aperture as a storage application. You can reference the files anywhere you like, and you can have separate Aperture Libraries on different hard drives. For raw processing, I use CS3. I cannot see the point in LR, since it is essentially a pared down version of Photoshop. I suspect the real reason I use Aperture is that I have used since it came out, and I am comfortable with it. Just my opinion, of course. DR Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
glent Posted February 12, 2008 Share #6 Posted February 12, 2008 Interesting piece in the announcement today was the following paragraph: "Shooting RAW on a camera or camera back not natively supported by Mac OS X? Aperture lets you work with DNGs created from the RAW files generated by most cameras, increasing its breadth of support." Apple has been rightly criticised for not incorporating new cameras into Aperture (via the OS) quickly enough, so maybe this is an attempt to expedite the process until such time full support is provided. Not sure how this would work though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
glent Posted February 12, 2008 Share #7 Posted February 12, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) Also it seems that Aperture 2 provides tethered shooting for all supported cameras! That would be terrific if true for ALL supported cameras, including the M8, and not just for a small sample. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted February 12, 2008 Share #8 Posted February 12, 2008 Amazingly, Apple is promoting a "completely new RAW processing engine" as one part of the upgrade. It can only get better … Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andit Posted February 12, 2008 Share #9 Posted February 12, 2008 I've been using Aperture since version 1.0 came out. I must admit that I just love the way it works (yes I have tried other companies programs but I just find that I enjoy the ease of use of Aperture most). Can't wait for it to become available down in this part of the world. Andreas Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_w_davies Posted February 12, 2008 Share #10 Posted February 12, 2008 I like it. The interface is much better laid out. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cometsoft Posted February 12, 2008 Share #11 Posted February 12, 2008 I like Aperture as a storage application. You can reference the files anywhere you like, and you can have separate Aperture Libraries on different hard drives. For raw processing, I use CS3. I cannot see the point in LR, since it is essentially a pared down version of Photoshop. I suspect the real reason I use Aperture is that I have used since it came out, and I am comfortable with it. Just my opinion, of course. DR I haven't tried Aperture, so I've got no comparison to offer there. But there are a couple statements here that are not true about Lightroom. Lightroom shares camera raw with Photoshop CS3. It's not a pared down version. It is a database system that allows you to manage your photos with keywords, dates, folders, etc.. It also allows you to apply corrections to your raw files that are managed by the database. One of the things I like best about Lightroom is that I can store all operations (color correcting, tone adjusting, dust spotting, etc.) in the database. I don't have to create separate images. It also provides a very easy interface to browse your photos, print them and export them. I used to use Imatch which has a more robust DBMS engine, but browsing the photos was no fun. Also I had to create separate files for any changes I'd make to the original raw files. I'm hoping that Lightroom 2 will have better DBMS stuff and some scripting. You can have separate Libraries in Lightroom, you can use different hard drives for both the catalog and the photos. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
spylaw4 Posted February 12, 2008 Share #12 Posted February 12, 2008 More info here!I must say that I may now try the demo just to see if it offers anything major over LR. I am worried though about the way it stores files. iPhoto was/is notorious for bloated storage, if Aperture is similar then I"ll stick with LR, which must be due for another upgrade soon. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
spylaw4 Posted February 12, 2008 Share #13 Posted February 12, 2008 I have placed this in the Digital forum as well but.... more info here! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hdrmd Posted February 12, 2008 Share #14 Posted February 12, 2008 cometsoft: I stand corrected. I really meant to praise Aperture, and not to demean LR. LR just seems redundant to me if one already has CS3, and does not the storage part of LR. DR Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gIzzE Posted February 12, 2008 Share #15 Posted February 12, 2008 Yeah, all that whacking it in a vault is a right pain, just wanting to send half a dozen pics across a network quickly becomes a chore. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ndjambrose Posted February 12, 2008 Share #16 Posted February 12, 2008 I've used both. I began with LR and then moved to Aperture. Initially I liked LR a great deal as I was a longtime Photoshop user and already had Bridge, which is very similar. Hence zero learning curve and I jumped straight in. But I found that Aperture was better for me because it has superior support for large volumes of files. I've got libraries than run to several terabytes and LR just can't work with them. But in all other respects the two are fairly similar. In fact, give or take a little in the user interface, I'd say they're broadly interchangable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitchell Posted February 12, 2008 Share #17 Posted February 12, 2008 Eoin, I think of you as a big Aperture fan, but now you sound less enthusiastic. Have I got this wrong? I've been with LR, but am curious about Aperture. I appreciate all your contributions to the forum. Best, Mitchell Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eoin Posted February 12, 2008 Share #18 Posted February 12, 2008 No I'm just saying aperture 2 is using a different decode engine, this coupled with a few new features like moire control, highlight recovery and so on. I'm downloading it as I write this along with OSX 1.5.2 so when I have it all DL'd I'll install and have a look. Just a warning to all, before you install Aperture 2 make a note of your existing serial number for Aperture 1.5.6 and keep it safe, you'll need it to re authorise after you remove the trial version. Also do not import your existing aperture library into version 2 as this will upgrade the library and it will not be backward compatible with 1.5.6 any more. Better Idea is to rename your existing Aperture to Aperture 156 and install the version 2 trial. I'll check back later with my initial impressions. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LichMD Posted February 12, 2008 Share #19 Posted February 12, 2008 I agree, they are largely interchangable, when comparing current LR to Aperture 1.5. Will need to play with 2.0 to see if they have created some differentiation from LR. But since I've used Aperture for quite sometime I'll stay with it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjjet1 Posted February 12, 2008 Share #20 Posted February 12, 2008 having recently purchased a new iMAC w/leopard (a great O/S, by the way) and 4gb RAM, i am excited now to try the new aperture 2.0. i must admit up front that i am only a "photo enthusiast" at this stage, so i lack the knowledge and experience of many on this forum. however, i have read the threads here and at other sites for some time, in an attempt to profit from the experience/opinions of others. after reading multiple threads comparing aperture to LR, it seems that neither is perfect, but both have their strengths and adherents. so far, i really like what i see of the new 2.0 interface, and what seems to be a heavy emphasis on making this software more intuitive and powerful. as a veteran of a global computer firm, i truly appreciate that! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.