“It saddens me to say that Aperture’s innovations are only skin deep. If it could deliver on the promise of being both fast and produce flawless results, it would be the dream package. At this point it is an expensive and questionable alternative to Camera Raw, a free extension to Photoshop, and Adobe’s Bridge which can batch produce better quality images in arguably less time. For US$500 (Photoshop itself retails for US$750), there is no excuse not to be aware of professional needs like a high-quality sharpen tool, DNG exporting or more basic things like curves, a sampler tool for RGB pixel readings, or retention of EXIF data on output,” Dave Girard writes for Ars Technica.
“Maybe by 2.0 Apple will have the foundation sorted out. At this stage Aperture is a big, expensive misfire and considering the hefty price tag, I can’t think of a reason to recommend it. Reading this review, you may think I sound jaded, but I am genuinely angry for those who shelled out US$500 for a program that promised professional results and failed to deliver. Thanks for coming out Aperture, now get off the stage,” Girard writes.
Full article here.
Advertisements: The New iMac G5. Built-in camera and remote control. From $1299. Free shipping.
Apple USB Modem. Easily connect to the Internet using your dial-up service. $49.00.
The New iPod with Video. The ultimate music & video experience on the go. From $299. Free shipping.
Connect iPod to your television set with the iPod AV Cable. Just $19.00.
Related MacDailyNews articles:
Apple’s revolutionary Aperture: will all Mac applications work like this someday? – October 21, 2005
Apple’s Aperture more revolutionary than you might think – October 21, 2005
Apple’s new Aperture signals that Photoshop is no longer invulnerable – October 20, 2005
Pro photographers see Apple’s Aperture as complement to Adobe Photoshop – October 20, 2005
Does Apple’s Aperture threaten Adobe’s Photoshop? – October 20, 2005
Apple’s revolutionary new Aperture software a must have for every professional photographer – October 19, 2005
Apple introduces Aperture, first all-in-one post production tool for photographers – October 19, 2005
Crap spelling there guys..sorry. Had a couple of big whiskey-macs! It’s cold here!
Hey now that’s commitment to Apple hey? A “Whiskey-Mac” in case you didn’t know is whiskey and (Stone’s) ginger wine. Recommended!
My copy of Aperture is on order, but from reading and the huge demo I got at Apple yesterday: it totally does what a real pro needs. I don’t know where that writer was coming from… sounded like he has some agenda. Ya, it will improve in time, but Apple totally understood and nailed the pro workflow problem.
Aperture replaces for me (a working pro… http://www.huthphoto.com):
Extensis Portfolio for Catalogging (new version (8) seems rushed out by Extensis… and I was on the Beta team for Portfolio 7, and have logged major bugs they haven’t fixed in 8)
PhotoMechanic for fast editing
MacBibble or Camera Raw for Raw Conversion/batching
And adds…. the ability to whip through hundreds of images and only show clients the best of each series.
A sane backup system so that everything is backed up even before I can get it to DVD’s.
It will allow me to give clients proof prints that look decent without hours of PSP tweaking. Maybe I’ll bag film totally, even when someone only wants tons of giveaway snap prints.
It will keep me out of Photoshop for a large % of my images that only need tweaked and save me gobs of time.
Hope that’s some real info to balance the hysteria and flaming
cheers,
Ken
Betty,
It seems your only contribution is to point out posts that don’t contribute a lot. How are you helping anything?
huthphoto: sounds like you’d better keep going with Bibble. I’ve switched to ACR but I remain a fan of Bibble.
Kassandra, may I have the honor of taking you out on a date!
I think a few assumptions in the article are debatable and for what’s there the article could have either focussed on Bridge more or discussed the added value features of Aperture while making tool comparisons with Photoshop.
Assuming that Apple will go with a 1.5, 2.0, 3.0 version update system for improvement of a new Pro-App is making a very close parallel to the way Adobe released inDesign without considering the significance of Apple point updates. Adobe has taken until a few weeks ago to get rid of the colorspace error in Acrobat with five (5) count them point updates. Many of the Adobe point updates are fixes for crashing bugs or regressions. Aperture is in 1.0 so we won’t see public regressions. If you read the article and scan down the list of cons in the conclusion it should be apparent that the vast majority of the problems are easy to remedy without redesigning large parts of the UI. Many of the issues are exactly the kind of thing that would not come to light without a base of consumer testing and can be changed to fit the market better based on the feedback already presented. I would write of most of the issues to a .1 update, but there are a few glaring issues (histogram, curves, import) that may be taken care of in separate installments. I think Apple is easily capable of remedying all the complaints addressed with a few free point updates, but the underlying algorithms for import and some filtering may prove to be tough in house fixes or require some money spent outside of the Apple fold. I do expect the issues to be cleared for free before the next version of Aperture and the next release should be bringing us new features. This is not to say that Apple did not drop the ball on some things regardless of how much they have on their plate right now.
Bridge…erm…I could shoot of a bigger error list in my choice of areas and it would make the Ars conclusion look like a single point. With all the sorting options and a rotate tool Bridge always assumes that a landscape resolution is a horizontal landscape shot. Ok, that’s one. I’m not making it that long. Graphic converter crashes in its strange browser mode..Database system…erm yeah ok , but what iPhoto does behind the scenes is completely whacked.
If you are looking for a portfolio system or an additional tool/toy to use in your photographic workflow then Aperture presents a promising option. It’s promising and that’s an issue of faith. If you don’t think that Apple can turn a product around then you need not Apply…but then again you’re running it on a Mac so that’s almost a no brainer.
I suppose some of the sort features might wait for Leopard. After all, not being able to sort in column view is not unique to Aperture and providing consistent APIs over the OS makes development a breeze. On being PPC only…by now Apple would have transitioned it to x86 even if they bought the damn thing w/o comments in the code from a russian website. Would you want to hear how many problems there were with speed running Aperture on an intel based ibook in the first few days of the x86 transition? This article doesn’t gloss over that, the floral imac reference and bragging rights graphics card clearly show that the author knows it needs top of the line expensive hardware and that’s not going to change w/ the introduction of x86 macs.
If I was about to go wild w/ my RAW collection I might go out and buy Aperture. This article did nothing to influence my choice regarding the acquisition of this product, but did give Apple a good laundry list for point updates.
Had the ArsTechnica review been of a Microsoft product, would you all be dissing it so much? The reviewer raises some extremely valid points. For a $500 product, with such stiff existing competition, I would expect Apple to do better. We don’t do anyone any favours by religiously defending Apple when it releases a lemon. Aperture is a nice concept executed poorly. Sheesh, even the minimum specs for the program are a total joke compared with what rival products require. Roll on version 2.0.
Bilbo… if I have to explain it to you… then I doubt you’ll get it anyway…
RainFreak, I just freed up my calendar and now you are hawking on Kassandra? how is a girl to get any action…. Veronica you around? maybe we could hook up? ps I still have your 2cents ;P
xo
Betty
Betty and Veronica,
Just wanted to let you 2 ho’s know I borrowed Freddies Mystery Machine and ran over Archie (and his punk friend Reggie) in the Riverdale High school parking lot.
Now you ho’s work for me. And I want my money!! If I catch you 2 doing girl-on-girl pron with that slut Josie, you know I best be getting paid!!
BTW – I haven’t tried Aperture yet, but since I shot some new rolls of Scooby banging Daphne, I will be giving it a shot tonite. Bet you all didn’t know Daphne was a beatiality freak (and she likes midgets as well).
MacDude: “…when did a 1.0 version ever be perfect?”
Answer: When I invest my money and time in it.
Macdude – you obviously are just an internet chatschoolboy. don´t use your computer for much more.
Amazing all the whining Mac boys here trying to defend Apple´s not so good product.
It´s a computer company, not a religion.
I agree with Reality Check.
t’s the same thing with a lot of Apple’s software offerings… a little half-baked (Soundtrack, iPhoto, GarageBand etc.)… All great ideas, but all more-than-a-little sluggish and buggy. I sincerely hope Apple keeps on these projects, polishes them up and corrects the problems. If Apple really had all these software offerings that actually worked as Steve said they would then I don’t think there’d be a Windows user left on this planet. As it stands well…
Then again, I can’t see a SINGLE REASON ANYONE in their SIGHT MINDS would shell otu $300+ for MS Office!
MW: “yes”
-Yes, they are idiots…..
MacDude: “…when did a 1.0 version ever be perfect?”
When a company (Apple) charges $500.00 for it, then it better be close to perfect. If Apple is is going to release a product with so many issues then they should only charge $99 for it. Why do we have to be they’re paying beta testers?
This article is spot on in it’s criticisms of Aperture, and all this ‘cussin & cursin’ by the fanbois is really sad. No wonder the rest of the computing world wonders what our (Mac users) problem is.
Relating to the disses I’ve seen posted here:
1] The author is perfectly qualified.
“… while I’m not a professional photographer, I work with high-end digital and scanned images as a commercial retoucher and formerly as art director for a fashion magazine. I also shoot as a hobby and often use the RAW format for maximum control over images, so I understand the needs of a professional…”
2] He doesn’t compare Aperture to PhotoShop, and is very specific in his criticisms.
“It saddens me to say that Aperture’s innovations are only skin deep… At this point it is an expensive and questionable alternative to Camera Raw, a free extension to Photoshop, and Adobe’s Bridge which can batch produce better quality images in arguably less time. For US$500 (Photoshop itself retails for US$750), there is no excuse not to be aware of professional needs like a high-quality sharpen tool, DNG exporting or more basic things like curves, a sampler tool for RGB pixel readings, or retention of EXIF data on output.”
3] He’s also very clear about the program’s limitations, and how he was himself hoping for more from Apple:
“I’d like to get excited about things like instant books and the light table, but if the base technology in Aperture is flawed, it can’t be the high-end imaging hub it wants to be. The quality of Aperture’s RAW converter is bad, and for an application that’s selling point is iterative nondestructive RAW editing, that’s like building a house on a plate of Jello. It doesn’t matter how nice the Ming vase looks next to the Fabergé eggs, or how fast the place heats up; it’s all built on a bad foundation so the chances of anyone wanting to live the good life there are next to none.”
Also of note is the clear language in a relatively obscure topic (in’s & outs of pro digital photo editing), and all of the high quality graphics that really help the reader ‘get’ what he’s talking about (and which this guy obviously spent some time and expertise on including).
Frankly, the flamers here need to shut the hell up. Shame on all of you – if a person can’t accept the conclusions of a review like this, then objectivity and intelligence just don’t run in your family.
stupid riverdale punks . . . think they’re better than me
Odyssey67, I was going to post something along the same lines, but you beat me to it.
For the record I am a Mac fanboy, but I am also a profesional photographer. With that in mind I was soooo hyped by Apeture and the preview movies. I don’t think it has delivered on its promise because all of the speed of handling my photo organization and workflow means NOTHING if the output of the program renders my multi thousand dollar SLR as noisy and flawed as a small chip digicam. Not that digicams are terible, but large chips and high end glass aren’t on the market for looks.
Apple creates and inovate great technology, but this program in its present state is not their finest work. I really want to buy Apeture, but with that want I am forced to wait until the quality is fixed in perhaps 1.5 or 2.0. It saddens me. I was looking so forward to it.
I will do ALL of you up the butt! Right now! C’mon, you pansies!
The criticisms in this article are all valid – Apple should take note. The fact that their RAW image algorithm has been demonstrated to be inferior should be a big wake up call.
For $500 it’s a sure bet the app will move forward. And the interface is really sharp; educational even. Maybe now some shareware battler will take the baton and run … backwards … to about $50 … for us non-Professionals by skipping most editing (we’ll use Photoshop anyway) and filing features (we can make, rename and move folders manually). Oh wait … I just installed Classic to run QuickNailer. Sometimes, if you can’t have the best, less is more.
The review of Apeture I think is pretty much accurate.
To be advertised as a ‘professional’ tool and a $500 price tag, it falls a little short.
Apeture’s interface is very nicely organized, with most everything just a click away – but try looking at it on a 30″ cinema display at maximum resolution and it’s kinda hard to see.
For a professional phtographer’s workflow software, it’s a start in the right direction, but not for the price.
Most of us professional photographers have already developed our own workflow and cataloging system, or have already purchased software. Apple better reduce the price – by at least half, or get busy fixing Apeture’s shortcomings.
No thank you…
Ok.
I stopped reading when he said this:
“Note that while I’m not a professional photographer…’
So I can test a flight suit and say, ” So while I’m not a pilot…..”
I’ll wait for someone who IS a pro to test it before forming any opinions.
That said, so far everyone is not impressed.
A software developer should aim for perfection (or as close to it as possible) in version 1.0 – End of story.
Now then.
What I’m looking for is an ACDSee killer.
Anyone??
–
Oh, and MDN; this crappy ‘ad crammed next to the feedback box’ really sucks. It’s like the M&Ms; advertising special Regis did last New Years. Much too invasive. I’ll check back but for now I won’t be going this far down the page till it’s gone.
They need to be fixed.
They will be.
People like Ars pointing the problems out will encourage Apple to avoid repeating such problems.
So as an Apple fan, THANK YOU Ars.
Here’s looking forward to the Aperture that SHOULD have been. It will be–as a free update. Better late than never. Better early than late. Better RIGHT than early!
Instead, try RAWShooter.
Oh, too bad! It’s only for Windows, and it’s better than Aperture. And, it’s only $100.
I’ll wait for version 1.01 or 1.5 to buy after this article
MW: involved as in “I don’t want to get involved.”
i dont know what other company could release a better first release of a product. version one of a product always has a couple of things wrong with it. theyve actually taken the time to research what exactly a photographers work flow is. Most software companies dont do that and adobe sure is hell dont. The only way adobe make progress is buying other companies, ie macromedia because they were too shit to be able to release a wysiwyg web design package that acutually worked. or a flash product either.
adobe have no imagination.