“If you glanced at the new features in Aperture 3, it would seem easy to pass off the audio/video and Faces and Places features as gimmicky things for hobbyists, but the value of these features will grow on even for hardened studio nuts,” Girard reports. “Seeing the power of the Places features makes me wish I’d GPS-logged our trip through Japan, because it would be satisfying to navigate those squiggly tracks and photos with my girlfriend.”
Girard reports, “For pros who just want to get work done, Aperture 3’s improved interface, flawless curve adjustment, multiple maskable edits, and 64-bit update are more than enough reason to upgrade. Add the metadata improvements and the high-ISO RAW conversion, and you have an essential upgrade.”
Read the full review – extensive, as usual, and recommended – here.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Fred Mertz” for the heads up.]
Sorry, but Aperture does not even come close to Adobe’s Photoshop Lightroom. And Apple has not even come close to fixing the massive number of bugs in Aperture. Spend half an hour in the Aperture support forum and look at how many people are complaining about poor performance on state of the art hardware. Aperture excels at brining 8 core machines to their knees.
Aperture is the *LEAST* snappy software out there.
So Adobe has a troll permanently monitoring MDN?
Well I have spent a lot of time in Forums trying to help those that have somehow arrived in imaging hell.
Mine has been the usual Apple experience of flawless upgrade and smooth performance thereafter on two computers. Cant speak for quad cores though.
Curves makes all the difference and Brushes can help a lot too. I like the slideshow feature for combo video and stills content.
Happy bunny here.
@RickMac
There’s a Lightroom 3 Beta available and a 30 day trial of Aperture.
Go see the gulf in speed difference between the two for yourself.
I do prefer Apertures interface. But it does still bring my Dual Quad core to its knees. Lightroom is ridiculously fast on my setup.
Like almost all of my professional colleagues I was using LightRoom although didn’t get the last upgrade. When Adobe launched their ugly and dishonest attack on Apple, I said that’s it. I’ve started moving the entire library to Aperture and not looking back. If I am doing this so are others. Way to go Adobe.
And another thing, something professionals never seem to question, Photoshop is an unintuitive hairball, originally conceived by line code geeks. It’s like having to learn a new language, and although I am fluent in it, it needs to go away. Work flow should be more like the iPad.
Love the comment from the guy who says it’s no good because it’s not for Windows!
I cannot believe for one second there are more than 7 photographers left in the world who are not on Mac OSX…
He must be one of them.
And if anyone has any doubts, 3 is an amazing piece of work, it makes photography post capture a complete joy.
Beware of Aperture’s crappy metadata implementation!!!
http://www.beardsworth.co.uk/3431/what-has-aperture-done-to-my-xking-metadata/
I’ve stopped buying Adopy products ever since the company started scamming users with their calling bug fixes as upgrades so that they could extort money out of their customers. What despicable business practice!
Aperture 3, brush on effects, amazing intuitive touchups…
It’s the first version that I can use extensively, and from import to output it’s a joy to use.
Sorry but Aperture 3 in clunky and slow. Check the blogs! I’ve upgraded from Aperture 2 to 3 and its been a nightmare at every stage. I’ve done every speed enhancement recommended. If you like to watch a spinning beach ball for long periods of time or have to force quite Aperture, then Aperture 3 is the program for you.
Don’t believe me, check the blogs.
Sorry Mr. Jobs, this one does not live up to Apple’s normal standards
CourtJester & Picman
Oh Puhlease is “bring an 8 core machine to it’s knees” the current Adobe astroturfing phrase?
And, is it just me or they behaving more microsoftian than Microsoft recently?
The thing that brings an 8 core Xeon workstation to it’s knees is playing a simple HD youtube flash video.
I am serious (-and on any OS- I have tested in W7, Deb and OS X) the drain flash puts on my fairly recent 8 core xeon workstation just playing back 1 stream of HD is unbelievable.
Flash sucks & Adobe sucks, as do almost all of their products
(nearly all of their products are dated inefficient and overpriced) The sooner they are gone from prominence the better.
Who will bring on the photoshop killer? Autodesk?, Corel?, some lessor known but highly creative and agile group?
Do it! Do it now!!
My guess (from talking to other pros) that well over half of their user base would jump in a heartbeat given an alternative.
Most Aperture complainers had to go to the blogs to find out Aperture’s problems.
The odd Aperture has a point.
I’m running Aperture 3 on a 2.4GHz MBP and a 3.06GHz iMac. All my work is with RAW files, very little JPG, and that older images, or TIFF scanned from old slides.
Have yet to notice, since 3.0.3, Aperture either bringing them to their knees, nor notable infinite spinning technicolor pizzas of doom.
I don’t doubt that some are having performance issues with it, but I suspect a lot more aren’t.
@Macarina, Picman, ChrissyOne, BDD and others who have (what are clearly) PEBKAC issues with Aperture 3–there is plenty of good advice, tips, and hints here:
http://www.macintouch.com/readerreports/aperture/topic4419.html#d15feb2010
@ Don
So Apple’s use of non-standard metadata is a user-error issue to you? I suppose that’s fine if you only use Aperture and iPhoto.
I would actually really LIKE to switch to Aperture, because I’m quickly losing hope that Lightroom will ever have an iPad component. But not if it means my copyright information doesn’t follow my files around. Maybe you should read the article I posted.
Oh… and you might have not followed the link to the main article… mea culpa for not posting both. Read here:
http://www.controlledvocabulary.com/imagedatabases/aperture3.html
@Uncle Fester’s cousin
“Who will bring on the photoshop killer? Autodesk?, Corel?”
Not those two. Autodesk has dragged their feet and fought progress as much as Adobe.
Adobe’s Photoshop team has known for years their flagship product is an unintuitive hairball, but, and I know this will come as a shock to many of you, Adobe management doesn’t feel like redesigning it. My fantasy is, in the ultra-secret Special-Ops building at Apple, several floors are devoted to a full-function Photoshop-killing version of Aperture, and other floors contain the Google-killing AppleSearch project.
Looking forward to using Aperture 3. Its going to cost me a lot of money though. I’ll have to replace my PowerMac G5 in order to use it. I’m a happy Aperture 2 user right now and I’m really looking forward to it. Just need Apple to release some new Mac Pro’s so I can decide whether I go that route or go with an i7 iMac.
I do not use Photoshop, Lightroom or any part of the Adobe Creative Suite. I’ve been using Aperture for a couple years and upgraded to version 3 recently. My machines meet and far exceeds all specifications. I’ve even spoken with the pro-apps support group.
That said, it is the buggiest and most unreliable Apple application I have ever used. I love iWork. That is awesome. However, I am one of the many posters on Apple’s discussion forum raising concerns and venting over Aperture.
Just imagine, a professional application that I use to manage about 16,000 images (mostly in RAW format) takes 5 minutes to export ONE single 1024X1024 jpeg image. The features are great – no doubt. But this application is unstable and unrealiable. I’m tired of the freezes and crashes. My twelve year old asked me, “Dad, Macs actually crash?”
Those i7 iMacs are pretty sweet. Hoping I can still get one this year.
Got 9,500 Sony alpha DSLR shots in my Aperture 3.0.3 library on a 2009 Macbook. Faster than 3.0.2 &c;. Nice look, feel and usability. Only problem I’m having with speed or features is that using retouch is a bit like pouring treacle on a cold day. Hopefully in 3.0.4 …
I’m a little over 22k images in my main LR catalog, on a 3 year old 2.33 Core 2 Duo iMac with 3GB ram. Retouching isn’t bad… some of the sliders can get sticky, especially curves. What’s slow is navigating the library and waiting for thumbnails to redraw.
Youse people and your fancy pants imaging systems. I still crush minerals (love that hematite) to get me some earth pigments, and paint on my walls. I have been doing this in Lascaux for well nigh 10,000+ years. So you whipper-snappers just go on with your fake imaging. Leave me to my spit and fat, and my special inks. That’s the way real people do it, and if you disagree you are wrong–because I said so. Technology, smechnology.
Now back to my stick figures…
I am one of the worlds biggest mac nuts…. I have purchased more apple products in the past 10 years than most people would believe…. I also own quite a few shares (avg in at $60/share)….
I preface that to show I am no adobe troll…. Lightroom should not be compared with the waste if money, aperture 3.
Not only do I own version 3… I bought 1 and 2. Each time hoping if would do the job….
Sorry Apple…. Lightroom kicks butt!
@ChrissyOne: “Oh… and you might have not followed the link to the main article… mea culpa for not posting both. Read here: http://www.controlledvocabulary.com/imagedatabases/aperture3.html “
And you might not have read the content at the link I posted. Just one of the entries there to address the supposed metadata “issues” with Aperture:
———————————–
Lix N. Paulian
“In reply to David Gordon, I have to say that most of the issues raised by ‘controlled vocabulary’ regarding metadata in Aperture are invalid. Aperture does not delete any metadata from an imported picture, but there are elements that are not displayed in Aperture (e.g. ratings and custom fields). Apple states this very clearly in the Aperture user manual:
“‘You can import and export XMP sidecar files in Aperture. However, Aperture displays only metadata that adheres to the XMP 1.0 specification. Ratings, label values, and custom metadata created by third-party applications are not supported.’
“However, after an export from Aperture no data will be lost, including original ratings and custom fields. One note however: if you want to export also metadata assigned/modified inside Aperture 3, then you have to export a version, and not the master (remember, in Aperture the master will not be modified).
“The use of external editors (e.g. Photoshop) is also seamless, as long as the method recommended by Apple is used (apparently the guys did not read the Aperture manual). The normal way is to configure an external editor in Aperture ‘Preferences’ and go via the ‘edit with external editor’ menu. Thus a new version (TIFF) will be created from the master and all Photoshop edits will be performed on this version. Use export version to obtain a picture that is not devoid of metadata (‘orphan work’) if you need to deliver it to a client.
“Apparently there are some misunderstandings on how Aperture manages its assets, and there are substantial differences between handling a master and its version(s).”
———————————–
I absolutely love and look forward to John Siracusa’s reviews of each major OS X revision.
Ars Technica is the bomb for facts and thoroughness!
You’re right… I didn’t see that bit way down that gigantic page, I just read a few entries at your link point. Thanks for the info.
I still don’t see anything about Aperture that seems worth the trouble to switch. But by the end of the year I hope to have that new iMac and I’m going to test Ap 3 against the final version of LR 3 and make the decision then. I really hope Adobe doesn’t screw us on this. It’s my favorite app ever. But I’ll go Aperture long before I’ll buy a frikkin’ PC.
Aperture shills are a funny folk. They have *NO* idea what they talk of when the open their mouth hole about photography software. No Apple software is more clearly documented at being slow, buggy, and virtually unusable for the vast majority of users.
Adobe is handing Apple their ass with Lightroom. It is a phenomenal piece of software that is getting better and better. This comment coming from a Mac user since the Mac SE days.
I don’t like Adobe software – i just don’t like the user interface or the cramped screen layout, especially in After Effects…
That said, I don’t much like Aperture either. It is a resource hog and my 2yr old 4Gb 2.4Ghz Intel Core Duo Macbook Pro dies in the arse whenever Aperture is running – same with iTunes actually…
I don’t do much fiddling with images, except perhaps cropping them, and have yet to find a compelling reason to use Aperture instead of iPhoto…
And does anyone know how to find an image in either Aperture or iPhoto from within another app? Uploading photos to any site is very time consuming and I end up exporting a copy of the image from Aperture to the desktop so I can upload it… Painful – there must be an easier way…
I’ve used both LR and Aperture and think Aperture is far and away the better program. I actually find Aperture faster than LR.
And the interface of LR? What a piece of sh*t.
The rivalry is good for all end users though. Speed can always be increased, but I definitely find A3 is improved, the color correction tools in aperture are more intuitive as well.
I was editing 65MB Leaf files the other day and could edit remarkably quickly in Aperture 3.
@ byronic
Lightroom can export directly into Flickr and a few other sites too.
I’ve been using iView Media Pro, which MS bought and turned into Expression Media and put it in stasis. I actually like the separate catalogue metaphor, but it’s really long in the tooth and I’ve been mulling switching to Lightroom or Aperture. Some have even suggested using Bridge.
I don’t have an axe to grind, or foam-at-the-mouth hatred against Adobe, Freehand and Flash excluded. NO software is perfect, you just learn to deal with the pros and cons, just like any and every other tool you use, digital, analogue or whatever. Sure, Photoshop is bloated, but I like it and use it, in my limited way and it pretty much does what I want. I’ve used it since version 1, BTW.
That said, most of the real photographers I know gnash their teeth at the slowness of Aperture. I haven’t bothered to try Lightroom or Aperture, so maybe when my new i7 15″ MBP arrives this week, I’ll take them both for a spin.
Is there some side by side comparison review somewhere?
Don:
If you and ChrissyOne read a little further down on that MacUser page (after Lix N. Paulian’s comments), you’d see other reports from people that support the claims made in my article.
Even Paulian notes in the tests they did that “4. Obviously, some fields were not visible in Aperture”
What exactly that means is not clear at all. I did some fairly extensive testing and posted the full results via a link http://www.controlledvocabulary.com/imagedatabases/aperture3.html on my site.
Paulian notes for the fields that were not preserved that, “I attribute the lost fields either to the false data I included (some of them are rigidly defined), or to the fact that they do not adhere to the XMP 1.0 spec.”
It’s not clear if Paulian filled out every single field or not, so if you make your living by licensing photos, you might want to check the results I found to see whether or not those fields are seen by others. IMHO, professional photographers should be very concerned.
As the IPTC Extensions are not supported in Aperture 3, (which are part of Photoshop CS5) anyone taking the time to fill those out might want to see whether those survive a trip through Aperture 3 as well. I’ve tested with Photoshop CS5, CS4 and CS3 as well as Photo Mechanic and all of those preserve these newer values (all stored in XMP) even though not all currently show those values in their respective metadata viewers.
David