Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Enthusiast Zone > Art & Graphic Design > whos excited to try Aperature from Apple?

whos excited to try Aperature from Apple?
Thread Tools
deermatt
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2005, 11:14 PM
 
http://www.apple.com/aperture/ Just released , it looks like a nice RAW converter and maybe apples version of photoshop? check it out.
photography is beautiful
     
deermatt  (op)
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2005, 11:18 PM
 
hhahahahhahahaha , did you read the recommended system for this program?? "dual 2ghz powermac g5 or faster, 2gb ram, x800 xt ati radeon or better"

i dont think ill ever own a dual 2ghz or faster powermac g5, and have never owned a system with 1gb ram , let alone 2gb .. geesh..
photography is beautiful
     
loki74
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2005, 11:39 PM
 
Hmm.. Ive got a dual 2.5 with 2.5 GB of ram, so I guess im set there... what I dont have is the 500 bucks laying around to buy it.


Ahhhh we need to start a thread about this one in the GUI forum... its another look, as far as I can see. looks like something between Aqua and ProKit, with a iTunes-esque smooth, dark gray gradient titlebar.

Watch the quck tour of nondestructive image processing. Not only is what they demonstrate cool and clever, its funny! About half-way through, I swear the guy says "sepia" like "speier." I heard of "idea" being "idear," but "sepier?"

...I hope I'm not the only one who finds this amusing. At any rate, the app looks very cool as far as features go. But I probably will not get it, since I don't know a whole lot about RAW images... how does RAW relate to HDRIs? If it has anything to do with HDRI's I may very well get it. HDRIs are a godsend in making 3D renderings look realistic. MonteCarlo+IBL (no, the other kind of IBL!!) = sweetness.

"In a world without walls or fences, what need have we for windows or gates?"
     
jersey
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2005, 11:40 PM
 
yeah....i think it looks great....but i dont think my 1ghz pb will handle it very well. plus i bet they use some b.s., like they did with motion, where it wont even install on certain machines. oohhhhhh...i get pissed just thinking about that one.
     
powerbook867
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The midwest...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2005, 08:01 AM
 
I was really excited about this app, until I looked at the system requirements. My 1.6 G5 PM does not make the cut, and a new machine is out of the question at this time.

When I look at the new powermac prices, and I keep in mind the switch to Intel is coming down the road, I have to wonder where I go from here. There are times now that my machine gets bogged down w/ photoshop elements when I have 20-30 pictures off my camera open. I even shut all the other apps down that I normally keep running, but the flow is by no means fast. I would think 1.5 gig of ram would be sufficient.

I just have to wonder what the new PM's w/ intel chips are going to cost and how long I can wait. Linux tempts me, with Ubuntu looking fairly solid on the desktop side w/ me building my own system from Newegg. I do unix administration and could handle the setup/config...

Sigh...back to topic...Looks like a nice app. Too bad the system requirements are so steep, it costs 500 dollars and I'd need a new machine just to run it....
Joe
     
production_coordinator
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2005, 08:42 AM
 
I can't count the number of times I've seen "professional" photographers at the Apple store buying up $3K systems... I think Aperature is simply an amazing way to hook them on the platform. In 3 years, this program will probably run on most hardware.
     
art_director
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Minneapolis, MN U.S.A.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2005, 11:33 AM
 
This application is not for most of us. It's made for professional photographers and it addresses many issues seen in the photo world.

As production_coordinator stated, professional photographers buy the high end equipment, they have to. And, when you command $2,000–$10,000 day rates it's not really an issue. Further, if you're a studio shooter, you want and need faster machines loaded with RAM. I certainly would be pissed if I hired a photograper to shoot a job and he / she spent the day watching progress bars.

I recently did a job with a few commercial guys and the RAW file issue was a flippin' pain. One shooter had no clue about shooting RAW vs. JPEG and he fooked up by giving me the wrong file types despite our pre–pro request. Needless to say he's off my list. Funny thing is he's been shooting for 25 years but is new to digital – which is what you'll find with many shooters on the street.

This app appears to be for professional photographers, as stated by Apple. It's also good for professional art directors and designers who work with digital files. Because of the RAW issue it fills a gap that PShop does not.

If it's even half as fast as what the demo shows with the loop feature and image browsing I'm throwing down and getting it. PShop chokes on some of that stuff – browsing wise and zooming. Mind you I'm running a Dual G5 with 2.5GB RAM.

The one question I have is about Nikon support. They mention the D50 but not the D70. That concerns me as I have a D70.
     
art_director
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Minneapolis, MN U.S.A.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2005, 11:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by production_coordinator
I can't count the number of times I've seen "professional" photographers at the Apple store buying up $3K systems... I think Aperature is simply an amazing way to hook them on the platform. In 3 years, this program will probably run on most hardware.

I don't think it's a matter of it running on other machines. It's more a matter of processing power needed to complete tasks on large image files.

There's no need to hook photographers on Macs – they're already hooked and will remain so. In all the studios I've shot in over the course of my career I have seen precisely zero (0) PCs with the exception of the occasional servers.
     
Demonhood
Administrator
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Land of the Easily Amused
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2005, 01:10 PM
 
apple's flash movies have certainly piqued my interest in this app.
and it's only $250 with education pricing.
     
devmage
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jul 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2005, 01:30 PM
 
I'm just an amature photographer who really has an interest to go pro at some point

I think the application looks amazing, I was totally into it myself. I have enough hardware to support it, its droping the $500 for it that I don't want to do The educational price someone mentioned is more reasonable, I was going to go back to school anyways

They mention the Olympus E-1, which I hope means Olympus support in general. I'm about to drop a grand on a Olympus E-500 here shortly.

I wonder if some of the features are going to make it into the next iphoto. I like the expanded design abilities on the books which I have recently got into doing. I wonder if ILife will see an update in 2006.
     
art_director
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Minneapolis, MN U.S.A.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2005, 01:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by devmage
They mention the Olympus E-1, which I hope means Olympus support in general. I'm about to drop a grand on a Olympus E-500 here shortly.

Just curious as to why you're going with an Olympus. Everyone I know who shoots digital (pros) goes with Nikon or Cannon with the majority going with the former.
     
devmage
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jul 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2005, 01:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by art_director
Just curious as to why you're going with an Olympus. Everyone I know who shoots digital (pros) goes with Nikon or Cannon with the majority going with the former.
It's funny because I get that a lot, some of the reasons may be more emotional than logical. I've been using Olympus camera's since I've owned a digital camera. They have always provided me with excellent images and reliability.

Of course if the E-500 had not been release I may not have choosen the Olympus. The E-300 was definetly not quite there yet as SLR's go. Of course I'm looking at the lower end SLR camera's. If you compare the E-500 to it's competitors it is quite the fine camera. It has a beautiful 2.5" display, the wavefront technology to clean dust from the CCD (no one else has anything for this) and features that match the other cameras. It is also much more comfortable to hold than any of the canons I tried out.

Take look at this link:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PROD...00speccomp.HTM

In all the reviews I have read of it people had good things to say. Of course as I get more into photography who knows how I will feel later.
     
deermatt  (op)
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2005, 04:53 PM
 
the only digital worth using is nikon and canon, and i live by canon.. also , im a part time professional photographer, and i dont have half the system it "recommends" haah
photography is beautiful
     
art_director
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Minneapolis, MN U.S.A.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2005, 04:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by deermatt
the only digital worth using is nikon and canon, and i live by canon.. also , im a part time professional photographer, and i dont have half the system it "recommends" haah

Part time professional photographer?
     
powerbook867
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The midwest...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2005, 08:32 PM
 
interesting read from some more professional photographers on Aperature. Not trying to fan the fire, but I'm always looking for impressions in the professional community that I hope to some day be a part of (I'm not a member of sportsshooter, but would sure like to be...).

http://www.sportsshooter.com/message...html?tid=17858
Joe
     
devmage
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jul 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2005, 09:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by powerbook867
interesting read from some more professional photographers on Aperature. Not trying to fan the fire, but I'm always looking for impressions in the professional community that I hope to some day be a part of (I'm not a member of sportsshooter, but would sure like to be...).

http://www.sportsshooter.com/message...html?tid=17858
Thanks for this link it was very interesting to see what the pro's think of the app. It definitely appears to be a photolab type app you won't be running this on you laptop any time soon unless them new intel ones kick major butt. I doubt anyone will be throwing away photo mechanic any time soon. I also think it's funny people keep running article "It is not a photoshop replacement" I think thats pretty obvious. While it may be for me because the kind of things you can do in Aperture is about all I ever did with photoshop my skill set doesn't go any further than that. My wife is the one that can make the app dance for her.

I was watching the profiles on the Aperture site which I some how missed the first time I was there after seeing a link on the sportsshooter site. I think Joe Buissink was correct that it does appeal to Amateur photographers as well. It is has a lot of what I wished Iphoto was. I hope they incorporate some of the features into the next rendition. Though I believe I'll have to get Aperture

One thing I'm wondering, I heard them talk about Core Image, but no where on the requirements does it say it Requires Tiger. If they are using Core Image I'm assuming it does anyone seen any info on this? I work for a paper and we are not yet using Tiger but I could see this tool being very useful to our photo lab.
( Last edited by devmage; Oct 21, 2005 at 09:17 PM. )
     
Ciber
Junior Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2005, 12:34 AM
 
I'm guessing the required specs are aimed at a pro photographer working with RAW files at a fairly fluid speed. I'm sure that just like motion you will be able to run it decently on machines below spec.

Apple just doesn't want to piss off pros by recommending some lower specs like most pc software does and then they getting pissed off because they feel it's not running fast enough.
     
deermatt  (op)
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2005, 01:25 AM
 
yeah , part time professional if that makes sense.. when work comes , I do it, and get paid, but its not my main job.
photography is beautiful
     
CaptainHaddock
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Nagoya, Japan • 日本 名古屋市
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2005, 07:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by art_director
The one question I have is about Nikon support. They mention the D50 but not the D70. That concerns me as I have a D70.
Nikon has been encrypting the RAW data on some of their cameras, and wielding the DMCA as a legal club to stop Adobe from building RAW support for Nikon cameras into Photoshop. (The idea is that Nikon wants its customers to be forced to use Nikon's crappy software.) If Aperture lacks support for some Nikon cameras, this bone-headed move on Nikon's part could be the reason.
     
rslifka
Forum Regular
Join Date: Dec 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2005, 09:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by CaptainHaddock
Nikon has been encrypting the RAW data on some of their cameras, and wielding the DMCA as a legal club to stop Adobe from building RAW support for Nikon cameras into Photoshop. (The idea is that Nikon wants its customers to be forced to use Nikon's crappy software.) If Aperture lacks support for some Nikon cameras, this bone-headed move on Nikon's part could be the reason.
Long since been cleared up.

Rob
     
production_coordinator
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2005, 10:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by art_director
Funny thing is he's been shooting for 25 years but is new to digital – which is what you'll find with many shooters on the street.
I've found this to be very true. Many are shooting both (film when they can, digital when they are forced to do so). Many that I talk to still don't feel completely comfortable shooting digital only. I think it is because they aren't comfortable having digital files only.

Most professional photographers I know have little interest in the technical end of things. They simply want to take amazing photos.
     
rslifka
Forum Regular
Join Date: Dec 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2005, 11:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by production_coordinator
Most professional photographers I know have little interest in the technical end of things. They simply want to take amazing photos.
Possibly why Galen Rowell comments that engineers don't typically make good photogs - too concerned with the gadgetry?

From the Aperture short takes, not a single one of the pros touched the computer.

Rob
     
Goldfinger
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Belgium
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 25, 2005, 04:15 AM
 
I'm VERY interested but it's not in my budget at the moment (need a new system first). System requirements are over the top as well. I guess it's because of all the eye candy in the app.

iMac 20" C2D 2.16 | Acer Aspire One | Flickr
     
art_director
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Minneapolis, MN U.S.A.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 25, 2005, 09:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by production_coordinator
I've found this to be very true. Many are shooting both (film when they can, digital when they are forced to do so). Many that I talk to still don't feel completely comfortable shooting digital only. I think it is because they aren't comfortable having digital files only.

Most professional photographers I know have little interest in the technical end of things. They simply want to take amazing photos.

The guys who shoot digital as their mainstay are far ahead of the pack. Of course, it's a double edged sword. Some clients want digital files while others want film. It's very difficult for some people to ride the line.

Recently I've been through many a debate about digital vs. film. IMO both have their pros and cons:

DIGITAL PROS AND CONS
Digital gives you instant results that you can pull up on a computer screen and know you got the shot. That part is fabulous. And, with the advances in technology, you can generally get a good file to work from. Then there's the fact that it eliminates time and cost for drum scans.

Most photographers aren't yet comfortable with digital and thus try to push you toward film. Or, if they've made the leap to digital, they're just getting into it – most often. That can mean problems like misunderstanding the need for RAW vs. JPEG files.

Then there's the money. Clients and agencies *believe* digital will be less expensive. Hardly the case. In fact, it can often be more expensive on the production side. Without a piece of film to bring to the lightbox and compare with color corrections in process you don't have tangible reference points for retouchers / color correction. This often creates the need for extras rounds and higher costs. Also, photographers charge file management fees to wrangle and organize the imagery after the shoot – as well they should.



FILM PROS AND CONS
The biggest downside is that there's no immediate recognition that you got the shot. You need to trust the photographer. Generally speaking, if you've hired the right person for the gig, you need not worry. But every so often things happen and you're in a spot without the shot. If only you could have known the day of. We all have to learn this one the hard way.

Once you have your film in hand and your picks made you have to get the high res scans done. If you're lucky enough to work for one of those rare places that has a drum scanner you can probably get the scan turned around in hours. If not, it's usually a day at minimum. That can hurt when you're on a tight timeline – which never happens, does it?

As mentioned, for retouching / color correction, that piece of film is golden.

---

Another thing I should mention is quality of pixels. According to Brad Palm, a retoucher in Minneapolis and quite possibly the best in the world, Nikon pixels are of better quality than Canon pixels. He gets files every day from photographers from around the world and this is his opinion. Given my experience working with Brad (and his portfolio) I'm inclined to take his word as the Gospel.

Quality of pixels? If your pixels are crap then what you can do with the image is limited and the end results may vary. It's pretty simple, really:

Junk in, Junk out.



Sorry, I've gone on a tangent.

( For anyone interested, here's Brad's site: http://www.bradpalm.com/ )
     
art_director
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Minneapolis, MN U.S.A.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 25, 2005, 09:38 AM
 
Hey gang, sorry for going off topic.
     
production_coordinator
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 25, 2005, 11:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by rslifka
Possibly why Galen Rowell comments that engineers don't typically make good photogs - too concerned with the gadgetry?

From the Aperture short takes, not a single one of the pros touched the computer.

Rob
IMHO, it goes far beyond photographers...
     
th3ph17
Junior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: santa cruz, ca
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 25, 2005, 11:48 AM
 
the thing is, are high end studio photographers--like those in the brad palm portfolio-- using canon? or nikon? or are they shooting medium format digital? A 22 megapixel hasselblad is a different world. The lens alone can be worth as much as a pro digital DSLR body.

perhaps the only thing that keeps film going is the Skill of those who shoot it. And the very expensive glass they use. Once more people in that skill range switch to digital, i think the argument will be over. Large format film is another matter...
     
art_director
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Minneapolis, MN U.S.A.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 25, 2005, 11:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by th3ph17
the thing is, are high end studio photographers--like those in the brad palm portfolio-- using canon? or nikon? or are they shooting medium format digital? A 22 megapixel hasselblad is a different world. The lens alone can be worth as much as a pro digital DSLR body.
They're shooting all of the above. That's why I was interested on his opinion of Nikon vs. Canon pixels. He's the guy who works with the highest end and he really knows his stuff.





Originally Posted by th3ph17
perhaps the only thing that keeps film going is the Skill of those who shoot it. And the very expensive glass they use. Once more people in that skill range switch to digital, i think the argument will be over. Large format film is another matter...
I believe film will always have its place. Some results simply cannot be replicated with digital.
     
th3ph17
Junior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: santa cruz, ca
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 25, 2005, 12:36 PM
 
i also believe film will always have its place...if a fire broke out in my apartment i'd grab my 1976 Konica before i grabbed my D60. [well, i'd try for both, but you know what i mean.] I think film has a certain ineffable quality...and that it is more satisfying to shoot a beautiful frame of film than it is to fill a few CF cards.

But digital is going to be more cost effective, more flexible, faster, stronger--able to leap over buildings with bionic sounds. Film will be pushed even further into the highest of high end production. And those chemical results that film gets? Non-binary? Most people can't tell the difference. They even think a lens flare is an effect one ads...
     
art_director
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Minneapolis, MN U.S.A.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 25, 2005, 12:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by th3ph17
And those chemical results that film gets? Non-binary? Most people can't tell the difference. They even think a lens flare is an effect one ads...
You're right, most people can't tell the difference. But we can.
     
rslifka
Forum Regular
Join Date: Dec 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 25, 2005, 02:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by art_director
( For anyone interested, here's Brad's site: http://www.bradpalm.com/ )
Hold on, let me pick my jaw up off the floor The Sony and Nissan ads are my favourite. Very cool.

Re: Film v. Digital. As I'm not (yet?) a professional, my decision came purely from a convenience perspective. With digital, the learning curve is greatly diminished. Coupled with my need for instant gratification, there really is no choice. Digital!

Rob
     
inkhead
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 25, 2005, 10:40 PM
 
Actually I have access to the pre-release , and it runs fine in the just released powerbooks with the 9700.

Originally Posted by Ciber
I'm guessing the required specs are aimed at a pro photographer working with RAW files at a fairly fluid speed. I'm sure that just like motion you will be able to run it decently on machines below spec.

Apple just doesn't want to piss off pros by recommending some lower specs like most pc software does and then they getting pissed off because they feel it's not running fast enough.
     
inkhead
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2005, 12:15 AM
 
Actually it's been determined by a high-end photography mag that is biased to film (i forget the name) that a 13mpixel canon they were reviewing was actually better than a film camera in all aspects including enlargement.

Most pros agree that around 22megapixels, is much much, higher-def than your film based camera captures. but this one actually had a 13megapixel rated higher.

I don't know anyone involved in photography that SHOOTS film. If they do it's like on a saturday, when they are bored and want to do something they haven't done in a long time. Digital is used for everything.



Originally Posted by art_director
They're shooting all of the above. That's why I was interested on his opinion of Nikon vs. Canon pixels. He's the guy who works with the highest end and he really knows his stuff.







I believe film will always have its place. Some results simply cannot be replicated with digital.
     
Westbo
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: ME
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2005, 09:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by art_director
Hey gang, sorry for going off topic.

AD-

I don't think you went off topic. The discussion has kinda evolved into digital vs. film and camera comparisons.

Aperature looks like a great app and I think more targeted to commercial/pro photographers.
I'll have to ask my photog his impression.

Here's my two cents re: digital vs. film

Control: You can review accurate shots as they are being taken. No more streaky polaroids or gawking at frosty upside images while on a wobbly ladder.

Approvals: For those with needy PITA clients, JPGs can be sent for review, comment and approval. No more baby-sitting needy whiny second-guessing clients (at least in the studio).

Convenience: You can walk the door with your shots or have them uploaded/sent.

Quality: I'm gonna go out on a limb and say digital is actually better. No more film grain issues, color shifts due to temp or lighting. Drum scanning does add a copy generation and no matter how good, "stuff is lost". Even the best 4x5 scanned 400-500% gets grainy. (Very few still do or can afford 8x10). The digital files I get are RGB 95-100MB 16 bit in any format I want (JPG, TIF, PSD etc). Enlarge them (literally to the size of a wall) and they'll be sharp as a tack.

Cost: Digital is cheaper. Indeed high end camera backs can run $20-30K, but can be rented.
No more film , polaroids, lab work, scanning charges AND wasted time. Clients want everything ASAP and don't want to pay it.

W2
     
production_coordinator
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2005, 04:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by Westbo
AD-

I don't think you went off topic. The discussion has kinda evolved into digital vs. film and camera comparisons.
I agree

Originally Posted by Westbo
Aperature looks like a great app and I think more targeted to commercial/pro photographers.
IMHO, if it was targeted at commercial/pro photographers, they would have priced it even higher $800+ range). It's obvious that they were going for the prosumer along with he pro. If you are going to spend $1500 on a digital DSLR camera, $3000 on a Mac that will support such a system... what's $500 more? I don't consider someone with $5000 a pro... but the program would make sense even if you are an amateur photographer with a little money to burn.

Originally Posted by Westbo
Here's my two cents re: digital vs. film

Control: You can review accurate shots as they are being taken. No more streaky polaroids or gawking at frosty upside images while on a wobbly ladder.
What's wrong with polaroids? Seriously... what's the difference between trusting a polaroid and trusting a 3" LCD screen with the shot. I agree digital offers more control overall, but saying film has little control isn't accurate.

Approvals: For those with needy PITA clients, JPGs can be sent for review, comment and approval. No more baby-sitting needy whiny second-guessing clients (at least in the studio).

Convenience: You can walk the door with your shots or have them uploaded/sent.
Those both fall under "speed" and hands down, digital wins. The photographer can be shooting and automatically uplading for others to select and upload to sporting events. Film can't hold a candle.

That being said, for proofing, what's the difference if I send JPEGs from the camera or scan in slides? The client doesn't know the difference...

Quality: I'm gonna go out on a limb and say digital is actually better. No more film grain issues, color shifts due to temp or lighting. Drum scanning does add a copy generation and no matter how good, "stuff is lost". Even the best 4x5 scanned 400-500% gets grainy. (Very few still do or can afford 8x10). The digital files I get are RGB 95-100MB 16 bit in any format I want (JPG, TIF, PSD etc). Enlarge them (literally to the size of a wall) and they'll be sharp as a tack.
Consider a Nikon D70 (granted, not a high end digital camera). The max resolution is 3008 x 2000 (or 10" x 6.4" at 300dpi). You can easily get the same quality (if not higher) from 35mm slides without any of the problems you stated above.

NOTE: This is starting to shift. Once, I could easily say film was better. It's balancing out now to where it's difficult to tell... digital even excels in some areas (at the very high end)

Cost: Digital is cheaper. Indeed high end camera backs can run $20-30K, but can be rented.
No more film , polaroids, lab work, scanning charges AND wasted time. Clients want everything ASAP and don't want to pay it.
Again, many of these things are based around speed... and digital has speed hands down.

There are also areas where film beats digital hands down. The list isn't nearly as long as it once was, but they are still out there.
     
Westbo
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: ME
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2005, 09:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by production_coordinator
I agree

IMHO, if it was targeted at commercial/pro photographers, they would have priced it even higher $800+ range). It's obvious that they were going for the prosumer along with he pro. If you are going to spend $1500 on a digital DSLR camera, $3000 on a Mac that will support such a system... what's $500 more? I don't consider someone with $5000 a pro... but the program would make sense even if you are an amateur photographer with a little money to burn.

What's wrong with polaroids? Seriously... what's the difference between trusting a polaroid and trusting a 3" LCD screen with the shot. I agree digital offers more control overall, but saying film has little control isn't accurate.

Those both fall under "speed" and hands down, digital wins. The photographer can be shooting and automatically uplading for others to select and upload to sporting events. Film can't hold a candle.

That being said, for proofing, what's the difference if I send JPEGs from the camera or scan in slides? The client doesn't know the difference...

Consider a Nikon D70 (granted, not a high end digital camera). The max resolution is 3008 x 2000 (or 10" x 6.4" at 300dpi). You can easily get the same quality (if not higher) from 35mm slides without any of the problems you stated above.

NOTE: This is starting to shift. Once, I could easily say film was better. It's balancing out now to where it's difficult to tell... digital even excels in some areas (at the very high end)

Again, many of these things are based around speed... and digital has speed hands down.

There are also areas where film beats digital hands down. The list isn't nearly as long as it once was, but they are still out there.
OK, how does film actually beat digital? As explained, film can be very problematic. I've been at too many shoots were complete batches of film went bad, or color was off or different depending on brand( i.e., Kodak vs Fuji). Processing always required running a test before running the job. Time required at the lab minimum 12-24 hours (with OT). Then there's time and cost of a scan which is based on size. Polaroids historically were used as a way to preview lighting and composition. This whole process has become archaic, clumsy, finicky and unnecessarily expensive. The photog I use throws digital backs on 2 1/4 and 4 x5 cameras, rarely uses 35MM. I preview what he is shooting as he is shooting on a 22" LaCie CRT (vs that 3" LCD mentioned).
     
production_coordinator
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2005, 11:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by Westbo
OK, how does film actually beat digital? As explained, film can be very problematic. I've been at too many shoots were complete batches of film went bad, or color was off or different depending on brand( i.e., Kodak vs Fuji). Processing always required running a test before running the job. Time required at the lab minimum 12-24 hours (with OT). Then there's time and cost of a scan which is based on size. Polaroids historically were used as a way to preview lighting and composition. This whole process has become archaic, clumsy, finicky and unnecessarily expensive. The photog I use throws digital backs on 2 1/4 and 4 x5 cameras, rarely uses 35MM. I preview what he is shooting as he is shooting on a 22" LaCie CRT (vs that 3" LCD mentioned).
Let me start off by saying digital is wonderful. I shoot primarily digital for speed and convenience reasons (quick review, approval, placement and transfer). I an not debating that film is better... that's a silly argument as they are different formats... I'm simply arguing that digital is not superior in all areas... in fact, it's not superior in many areas.

Film still hold it's own with:
- Large Format
- Long exposures
- Color

I guess I'm just tired of people saying film isn't as good as digital, and they are wrong. It's like comparing a record to a CD. You can get superior sound out of a record player... it's a proven fact. But you aren't going to see me on the subway with a record player.
     
art_director
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Minneapolis, MN U.S.A.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2005, 07:51 AM
 
This has evolved into a great discussion. Before adding anything let me ask, should we start a new thread? Many of us posting in this one are in the real world of advertising and design. There are many students who come here that would benefit from our knowledge and experience. So, if you guys don't mind, I think we should start another thread –– which is what I'm going to do in a moment. Cool?
     
production_coordinator
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2005, 08:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by art_director
This has evolved into a great discussion. Before adding anything let me ask, should we start a new thread? Many of us posting in this one are in the real world of advertising and design. There are many students who come here that would benefit from our knowledge and experience. So, if you guys don't mind, I think we should start another thread –– which is what I'm going to do in a moment. Cool?
Probably not a bad idea...
     
devmage
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jul 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2005, 12:15 PM
 
Saw this link posted on digg I thought I'd pass along that has some cometary and more details about aperture.

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/con...id=7-7887-8063
     
tomrock
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Indianapolis, IN USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2005, 06:36 PM
 
If you care, Apple has added a utility to see if your computer can run Aperture

http://www.apple.com/aperture/binary...re_Checker.dmg
     
Demonhood
Administrator
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Land of the Easily Amused
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 2, 2005, 01:45 AM
 
just got my copy today, in case anyone has any questions related to it.

right now it's in the middle of the importing my iPhoto library. 3 hours estimated time. damn. i guess 10,000 photos takes awhile.
     
art_director
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Minneapolis, MN U.S.A.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 2, 2005, 08:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by Demonhood
just got my copy today, in case anyone has any questions related to it.

right now it's in the middle of the importing my iPhoto library. 3 hours estimated time. damn. i guess 10,000 photos takes awhile.


Please give us a candid review once you've had the opportunity to dabble.
     
himself
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Live at the BBQ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 2, 2005, 05:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by art_director
Please give us a candid review once you've had the opportunity to dabble.
Yes, please. I want to ask some questions about Aperture, but I don't know where to start!
"Bill Gates can't guarantee Windows... how can you guarantee my safety?"
-John Crichton
     
RAILhead
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 2, 2005, 05:37 PM
 
Can it read files off an sD card inserted into a media reader? My Pana FZ30 is on the supported list, but I'd like to use the app...
"Everything's so clear to me now: I'm the keeper of the cheese and you're the lemon merchant. Get it? And he knows it.
That's why he's gonna kill us. So we got to beat it. Yeah. Before he let's loose the marmosets on us."
my bandmy web sitemy guitar effectsmy photosfacebookbrightpoint
     
CaptainHaddock
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Nagoya, Japan • 日本 名古屋市
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 3, 2005, 02:27 AM
 
The supported list refers to cameras whose Raw formats can be processed by Aperture. I'm sure it can read any normal image files off any flash memory card.
     
Demonhood
Administrator
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Land of the Easily Amused
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 3, 2005, 02:58 AM
 
it can. if you insert a card into your reader, it'll pop up in aperture. you can import from there, along with assigning keywords and other metadata to it whilst you import.

my 10,000 photo strong iPhoto library took 3.5 hours to import on my dual 2.3 G5.
i just finished watching the tutorial DVD that came with the app, so i'll start writing my review shortly.

first impressions: a lot more powerful and well thought out than i had anticipated.
     
Demonhood
Administrator
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Land of the Easily Amused
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 4, 2005, 11:40 PM
 
cross-posted with the Applications forum

Aperture Review - Dec. 4, 2005

Hardware used: Dual 2.3Ghz G5. 2GB RAM. Radeon 9650. 20" Widescreen LCD.

In the box
1 Install DVD.
1 Apple Pro Training DVD.
223 page manual.
Keyboard quick reference sheet.
Serial number and other bits of paper.

Starting out
The application itself is fairly small (40MB). The rest of the installation DVD is taken up with support material like the manuals and sample images. They're the same Tibetan images you might have seen on Apple's Aperture site. They're pre-grouped, rated, tagged, and even thrown into a light table and web gallery.

The manual appears to be well organized, but I'd recommend watching the DVD tutorial if you're more of a visual learner. It'll probably take longer than skimming through the manual, but it gives you a great overview of what this program can do. You also get to have fun listening to the voiceover actor's peculiar accent. I swear he'd mispronounce something and just keep going, not wanting to do another take.

Importing
The app loads quickly, as it should, since it has no pictures in it. We should fix that. You can import directly from your camera, from a folder on your hard drive, or from your iPhoto library. Since I had around 10,000 pix in my iPhoto, I started there. This was certainly the slowest part of the entire process. Importing my library took approximately 3.5 hours to complete. It maintained the folder structure from iPhoto, the keywords for each photo, and, of course, all the other metadata. The only problem I ran into was that iPhoto allows you (even though I knew it was probably a bad idea) to use slashes in the folder names within iPhoto. Aperture treated everything after the slash as a sub-folder. Not a big deal, but something they should have accounted for.
Importing from my Canon Rebel XT (CR2 files) was quick and without incident. Aperture even asks whether to delete the images off of the card before it ejects it (much like iPhoto, but out of order). You can pick and choose what images to import along with assigning them keywords.



You can import photos directly into an existing project, or, if you choose the library, Aperture will create a new project for this batch of pictures. The program isn't locked out while importing, so you're free to view the rest of your collection while it chugs away.

General Use
Aperture has several different ways to view your photos. The default one shows your library on the left, your thumbnails on the bottom, and your selected picture in the upper right. It looks remarkably similar to this:



You can see that the loupe tool can also be used on thumbnails as well as the larger images in your main display. It's a lot more useful than I had anticipated it being.

Something to keep in mind is that Projects are the main container for pictures, not albums. This is a change from iPhoto. Projects can contain albums, folders, galleries, light tables, etc. In iPhoto you could put a dozen albums into one folder, click on that folder, and view the contents of every album. This is not the case in Aperture. If you wish to attain a similar result, you must make a master project and then create sub-albums for each event.

One of the features I found myself using quite often was the ability to throw multiple images into the main viewer. You can fit dozens, but 2-6 is a lot more realistic for comparison purposes.



A master comparison image (on the left) is chosen, and then you can change the right one to be whatever secondary image you like. This is particularly useful for a series of similar shots when you're choosing your select. This, of course, can be used in conjunction with the new stacks feature. Stacks are groups of images that can be expanded/collapsed in the thumbnail viewer to save space and organize like images. They're generally grouped by time (snapping off 10 images of the same scene within 10 seconds, for example) or grouped manually if you prefer. Stacks are also how Aperture groups actual changes to the image. Remember: Aperture NEVER alters your original image. It only applies filters on top of that. So if you export your image to an external application (like photoshop), it will create an additional version of your master. Changes to exposure, white balance, etc. are not shown as new versions. A small adjustments icon will appear in the lower right hand corner of the image to show that it has an adjustment layer applied to it.

Aperture, surprisingly, becomes another Apple app to sport tabs.



Useful if you're working on multiple projects and have a tendency to forget which ones. Or, I suppose, you're just tired of clicking through them all each time you load up the program.

Slightly more useful is the ability to split your thumbnails between two different projects.



At least, I think it's useful.

There are too many viewing modes for me to go over here, so I'll just show you the full screen mode as well.



It maximizes the space you have for viewing your photos, while moving all the other tools either to the top mini-dropdown or to hovering palettes. Perfect for when you really want to focus on a few shots.

Final thoughts
My video card is the weak link in my hardware. Applying changes and displaying the images could have been snappier, although it was still generally an improvement over iPhoto. This is also the first application to make me feel like my 20" LCD was inadequate. It could also use a few more speed tweaks here and there, as loading my entire library takes far longer than it did in iPhoto.
Overall though, I'm quite happy with it. It's the most well thought out Apple application I've seen in awhile. Lots of nice little touches that'll keep you going "Oh cool, they thought of that too?!" for a few weeks at least (such as Aperture bringing you back to the exact location you were at when you quit the application).

Let me know if you have any questions about the program or requests for screenshots. I'll see what I can do.
     
CaptainHaddock
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Nagoya, Japan • 日本 名古屋市
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 5, 2005, 03:01 PM
 
Hey Demonhood, I modded you up on Slashdot.
     
Demonhood
Administrator
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Land of the Easily Amused
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 5, 2005, 03:34 PM
 
ha! thanks. that'll be my yearly slashdot post.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:44 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,