Help w/ CS4 vs Aperture 2 for a film user

[mdozier]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This is my first post here.

I'm hoping for some advice. I shoot film with an MP and M6 and presently use a local lab to scan. I am going to purchase a scanner to scan the negatives directly and would like advice on CS4 versus the "new" Aperture 2. I do not presently have either software and I am an avid, fairly accomplished Mac user.

I have searched the forums for discussions of Aperture vs Photoshop and they seem to be mostly a couple of years old.

I'm not too concerned about getting over my head in how to use the packages but with a +$400 difference neither do I wish to "overbuy".

 

Any advice is much appreciated.

thanks in advance

Matt

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[robsteve]

Matt:

 

Think of Aperture as your image file and contact sheets, Photoshop as your darkroom.

 

Aperture will help organize your images and apply some changes, Photoshop will be for creating the finished print.

 

You probably need both if you are going to do a lot of work on the images. You could get away with just Photoshop if you do not need your images cataloged and will just organize them yourself in a hierarchy of folders on a drive.

 

Robert

[Guest malland]

If you're doing B&W, the best combination by far is Aperture 2 and Silver Efex, see:

 

GRD2 + Aperture + Silevr Efex --> Film-like results without tears - Rangefinderforum.com

 

For colour, use Aperture with Color Efex, the colour equivalent if Silver Efex. You can do everything in Photoshop, but it would be much, much more difficult and time consuming.

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

Flickr: Mitch Alland's Photostream

[mdozier]

Robert,

I believe that is far and away the clearest most succinct comparison I have ever read. It sure beats wading through the mounds of opinions I've read so far.

Thank you very much for the information.

Matt

[mdozier]

Mitch,

Thank you. I haven't even investigated the Efex packages. I'll do that next.

Thanks again,

Matt

[Guest stnami]

The versatility of photoshop beats everything else hands down ............ most aperture/ Lightroom users also have the "playstation"

[John Thawley]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Robert,

I believe that is far and away the clearest most succinct comparison I have ever read. It sure beats wading through the mounds of opinions I've read so far.

Thank you very much for the information.

Matt

 

Except it is inaccurate.

 

JT

[mdozier]

JT,

Thank you, would you mind elaborating?

[John Thawley]

JT,

Thank you, would you mind elaborating?

 

Certainly.

 

Let me preface my comments by stating my Photoshop experience began with version 3.0 in 1996. I've been using Aperture for approximately 2.5 years and have taken Apple's certification course.

 

As stnami stated, "The versatility of photoshop beats everything else hands down". That said, though, how much versatility do you need? As a quasi power user, I can tell you, in the past few years, I was only using 10%-15% for post processing of my photos.

 

Yes, I use it extensively in creating composites, graphics, retouching etc. etc. - I call those steps PhotoCHOP. If you look at the fine works that stnami creates, you can see the depth and power of the program in the hands of someone who's comfortable in that environment and has the vision and skills to work fluently with the tool. It's probably not an unreasonable statement that the program is so versatile, there exist people with skills specific to different strengths of the program.

 

But... to be sure, ALL the tools necessary to process images from minimum to extreme exist in Photoshop.

 

Aperture, on the other hand is probably best described as an operating system for photographers. As a working professional, if my computer is open, chances are there will be email, a web browser and Aperture running.

 

Aperture handles EVERYTHING in my photography workflow. From importing off the memory cards, to managing file storage, sorting, rating, adjusting, copyright, and on and on. It manages everything from camera to output. And, it provides flexibility in the way it does these things so as each user can tailor it to their own workflow.

 

To state it's for cataloging or storing your files, is barely scratching the surface. I shoot and process over 100,000 images per year. And, I work on deadline.

 

Whenever I read someone stating Aperture is for this... or Aperture is for that... it's a pretty safe bet they haven't learned the program. They've opened it, tried it, found a part of it they understand or works like something they used to use... and they just fall back on the way they've always done it.

 

Aperture does what it used to take 3 programs to do. I could sit here typing for hours... (I'm typing now as Aperture is uploading images up to my Photoshelter account.

 

NOW.... here's what's important to you and what you need to think about.

 

How many images do you think you'll be handling? You mentioned film, so I'm guessing you're probably not going to be putting out 100,000 images per year.

 

If I'm right, you might be better working with Photoshop and Bridge. It may provide you with all the organization you really need... and certainly, you can manage all your scanning and editing with it as well.

 

What you really want to think about is developing and figuring out your basic workflow. Outline a start to finish process of how you picture yourself working. From negatiive to digitizing, to adjusting, managing and archiving. Once you have an outline, look at the different software and see what suits your needs.

 

I could easily state that Aperture will do what you want to do. Mainly because it's so flexible for creating and managing a workflow. But, if your workflow is not going to be all that busy, Photoshop and Bridge just might fill the bill.

 

I posted a thread on Workflow in the workflow board on this forum and there is also a workflow article posted to my blog at Motorsports Photographer ~ John Thawley :: Photography of American Le Mans, Grand Am, SPEED World Challenge - Journal.

 

Hope that helps.

 

JT

[robsteve]

But, if your workflow is not going to be all that busy, Photoshop and Bridge just might fill the bill.

 

Isn't that what I said in the last sentence of my post above?

 

Robert

[mdozier]

Thanks to all for the input and education. I downloaded a free trial of Aperture 2 and now have access to CS4 through a friend.

Spent about an hour and a half with our business sales rep at the Apple store on Aperture 2 and CS4 yesterday afternoon. He's also a photographer (2nd income) and I'll be able to evaluate both for the next 30 days.

JT, you are correct I'm nowhere near 100k images a year, but I'm pretty happy with iPhoto and the organization and posting abilities but for work I needed more image control and manipulation.

 

I was very impressed with the interoperability of the 2 packages. Working in Aperture and accessing p'shop while in Aperture for some of the editing seemed pretty seamless. No surprise that Apple software is easy to use for a Mac guy.

 

Anyway, I really do appreciate all the input and advice.

 

Thanks again,

Matt

[John Thawley]

Isn't that what I said in the last sentence of my post above?

 

Robert

 

But in your previous statement, you alluded to needing "both." I just don't think that is the case.

 

Aperture is far more seamless. However, given the fact that his need to scan files first, seamless is pretty much out the window before he even gets started.

 

The improvements to Bridge are what will be a boon, not the overhead of Photoshop.

 

IMO.

 

JT

[mdozier]

If you're doing B&W, the best combination by far is Aperture 2 and Silver Efex, see:

 

GRD2 + Aperture + Silevr Efex --> Film-like results without tears - Rangefinderforum.com

 

For colour, use Aperture with Color Efex, the colour equivalent if Silver Efex. You can do everything in Photoshop, but it would be much, much more difficult and time consuming.

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

Flickr: Mitch Alland's Photostream

Mitch,

I followed your links and went to your flickr site, lovely work. I'm trying to see if I can download the free trial of SilverEfex to work with my free trial of Aperture...

It looks like a fairly intuitive product to use all things considered.

Thanks again,

Matt

[andybarton]

Don't forget that Aperture needs a powerful Mac and a shed load of Ram. No, make that a garage load of Ram.

[Guest malland]

Andy, I'm running Aperture on a 17" high resolution MacBook Pro with 4GB of RAM. That's not a particularly high-powered machine and RAM is cheap these days.

 

Matt, glad you liked the pictures and thanks for the kind words. Yes, Aperture and SIlver Efex are very intuitive and easy to learn. However, you should have a look at some of the videos on the Nik Software website to understand how to use the U-Point Control Points. Also, the Aperture videos are good and will help you to quickly start using the full power of the software.

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

Flickr: Mitch Alland's Photostream

[macgarvin]

. . . I'm hoping for some advice. . . . I am going to purchase a scanner to scan the negatives directly and would like advice on CS4 versus the "new" Aperture 2. . . .thanks in advance

Matt

 

Matt - welcome.

 

I was curious that you did not mention Adobe Lightroom in your choices as I would say that was the closer equivalent to Aperture when choosing at least in terms of processing images? Any particular reason? Different people seem to get on with one or the other better, and you can trial that for free as well I think. I'd say that photoshop was necessary in addition to either if you liked burning or dodging or doing manipulations different parts of the print when in the wet darkroom, both Aperture and Lightroom are stronger on whole image manipulation (although this is gradually choosing). You say that you are an avid and accomplished Mac user, so when buying your scanner you perhaps might consider something like the Epson Perfection V750 Pro Scanner which is astonishing with negs and prints for the price, and which comes with Silverfast scanning and manipulation software which is a bit of a fiddle, but has quite a few presets for getting the best out of different film stocks, dealing with grain etc.

 

If you are intending to do printing, and you care a great deal about colour fidelity and sharpness on the print matching what you see on screen, then then the means to do this - 'softproofing' - is in Aperture, though you will need to develop some skill/trial and error. You can't do this in Lightroom. It’s even easier in photoshop especially with a plugin called Photokit sharpener, but that's yet more money.

 

Last, I learnt a huge amount from the website Luminous Landscape, and I highly recommend their Lightroom video tutorial (none for Aperture I'm afraid) as money well spent.

 

Most important of all, you are about to have a great deal of pleasure!

 

Malcolm

[mdozier]

Malcom,

Thanks for you for your input. I had no experience nor did I know anything about Lightroom. I'm about to go search and see.

I've focused on Ilford, Tri-X and ektachrome so I can again begin processing myself (control freak) and a scanner is my next purchase as the Cannon is not quite cutting it. I'll look at the V750 next.

My interest in the software is 2-fold, I prefer to print from negative when I can, but I can see a huge advantage in "post production" adjustments that used to be limited in the dark room and are now available through software. I don't have access to a darkroom any longer so this will have to "suffice".

Today I loaded the Aperture 2 trial and this afternoon I loaded the CS4 trial (30 days each). I've had an issue trying to get the SilverEfex to work with the trial versions.

I'll now chase the Lightroom and see what I can learn.

I've been to luminous landscape and I'll head back to do some education.

Thanks again for all the input from everyone. What a great site.

Matt

[stunsworth]

I use Lightroom in conjunction wih Photoshop. As described by Robert above, Lightroom is mainly used for cataloging - though I do also use it to adjust RAW images before continuing with Photoshop. Editing in Photoshop is as simple as a right click on the image in Lightroom and selecting to edit in Photoshop. If you want to create a panorama in Photoshop - something that it now does very well - highlight the images and select the panorama in Photoshop option.

 

I'd agree that Lightroom has a whole lot more that I barely use, but then so does Photoshop. There's a 30 day trial of both on the Adobe website. The 30 day trial of Photoshop is for CS4.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear