Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Rangefinder Forum > Image Processing: Darkroom / Lightroom / Film > Photo Software

Photo Software Discussions of all the photo software - except scanning software which is in the forum with scanners.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes

Don't believe the haters
Old 08-20-2011   #26
emdubya
Registered User
 
emdubya is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Edmonton, Canada
Posts: 15
Don't believe the haters

Quote:
Originally Posted by filmtwit View Post
It has a lot less features then Lighroom, it's slower (memory pig) and well, you're better off using iPhoto
It's true that Aperture 3 does need some horsepower to run it well - you'll likely want a current iMac or Macbook pro to be happy. BUT I far prefer the raw conversion out of aperture compared to lightroom. I also find it much more intuitive to organize, much easier to make selective adjustments, much easier to retouch, much easier to batch edit than LR. It is certainly a professional app and anyone that says it's no better than iPhoto shouldn't be taken seriously.
  Reply With Quote

It runs well on newer macs
Old 08-20-2011   #27
emdubya
Registered User
 
emdubya is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Edmonton, Canada
Posts: 15
It runs well on newer macs

Quote:
Originally Posted by fdigital View Post
For library organization aperture is the best. It's okay at RAW conversions, but not anywhere near as good as LR3 in terms of high ISO noise from RAW files. It's interface is great and very flexible, better than light rooms IMO.

The biggest thing about aperture is that it's an absolute memory hog, and basically doesn't run smoothly or quickly on any mac under 3K, and possibly doesn't run quickly on 99% of all macs. I really wanted to like it, but it's just an absolute drain on computer power and (if you look it up) even the newest iMacs struggle with it.
Add RAM to solve your problems, if you have them. My three-year mac pro does fine with Aperture 3 and the new iMacs & MacBooks benchmark much higher than my machine. (A new video card will bring me right up to speed.)
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-20-2011   #28
gavinlg
Registered User
 
gavinlg's Avatar
 
gavinlg is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne VIC
Posts: 4,766
Quote:
Originally Posted by emdubya View Post
Add RAM to solve your problems, if you have them. My three-year mac pro does fine with Aperture 3 and the new iMacs & MacBooks benchmark much higher than my machine. (A new video card will bring me right up to speed.)
My poor old iMac is maxxed out of ram - 3gb.
I've also tried running it on there other computer in the house - a current macbook pro with 4gb ram and same result.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-20-2011   #29
hteasley
Pupil
 
hteasley is offline
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,950
Quote:
Originally Posted by fdigital View Post
My poor old iMac is maxxed out of ram - 3gb.
I've also tried running it on there other computer in the house - a current macbook pro with 4gb ram and same result.
That sounds odd. I ran it on a variety of >1 year old Macs, desktops and laptops, and found it quite speedy. That was its one clearly superior virtue to LR, that I saw.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-20-2011   #30
back alley
ɹoʇɐɹǝpoɯ moderator
 
back alley's Avatar
 
back alley is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: searching for the perfect bag!
Posts: 37,659
mine is a macbook with 4 gigs...slow as molasses...
__________________
heart soul & a camera

x-e1/23/56/16-50


http://crated.com/backalleyimages
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-20-2011   #31
ramosa
Registered User
 
ramosa is offline
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 920
After having used Photoshop and then Lightroom on PC for a few years, I have been on Mac with Aperture for a year. Zero complaints. Aperture is definitely not slower in my use and is free of many of the "hiccups" of Lightroom. Aperture, along with Nic plugins, does everything I need--and its workflow and photo management are much better for me.
__________________
Leica M9 + 35x2/50/90
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-20-2011   #32
back alley
ɹoʇɐɹǝpoɯ moderator
 
back alley's Avatar
 
back alley is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: searching for the perfect bag!
Posts: 37,659
i really wanted it to work...it was cheaper than even pse and i like to support apple...but it was deathly slow...at least my trial version...maybe i had it set up improperly?
__________________
heart soul & a camera

x-e1/23/56/16-50


http://crated.com/backalleyimages
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-20-2011   #33
hteasley
Pupil
 
hteasley is offline
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,950
Quote:
Originally Posted by back alley View Post
i really wanted it to work...it was cheaper than even pse and i like to support apple...but it was deathly slow...at least my trial version...maybe i had it set up improperly?
Don't know what improper setup might look like. I just installed with all the default settings, and ran it. Scrolling through the library was smooth and very fast, and it did not require the time LR does to show full-resolution on images. But other things, I liked less, and overall I like LR more.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-20-2011   #34
back alley
ɹoʇɐɹǝpoɯ moderator
 
back alley's Avatar
 
back alley is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: searching for the perfect bag!
Posts: 37,659
i'm back to old & familiar...just bought pse 9...
__________________
heart soul & a camera

x-e1/23/56/16-50


http://crated.com/backalleyimages
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-20-2011   #35
mob81
Registered User
 
mob81 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 436
I use aperture 3 on my 3 years old iMac maxed to 4gigs or rams, no problems and didn't find it slow! I tried LR and it was way slower in my iMac than Aperture.
I really like how easy to edit and orginize photos.
__________________
Mohammed

My Flickr

My Blog
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-20-2011   #36
wgerrard
Registered User
 
wgerrard's Avatar
 
wgerrard is offline
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,513
I bought Aperture about a week and having been using it and going thru the videos at Lynda.com.

Working on a 2.66 Ghz iMac with 4 gigs of ram, it's been OK. I think it would be prudent to create multiple libraries and multiple projects within libraries, to get away from the cpu-sucking business of loading a single giant library.I.e., probably better for new users not to dump years worth of files into Aperture all at once.

I like the interface much better than LR's, but that might be down to familiarity with Apple's design ways. I do like the fact that photo edits are maintained as little scripts that modify images on the fly. That means whatever you do,you're doing it with the single image on the screen.

Frankly, I haven't been impressed with any photo software's litheness or ease of use. They all seem to be fat apps with a zillion options.
__________________
Bill
-------------------------------------
This is my only legible signature.
  Reply With Quote

Runs great on my old Mac Pro from '06
Old 08-20-2011   #37
andydg
Registered User
 
andydg's Avatar
 
andydg is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: California
Age: 50
Posts: 121
Runs great on my old Mac Pro from '06

I've been running Aperture since its initial release. There have been times that I thought LR was better, it was while Apple was still working out the bugs in the program. Even though my Mac is the slowest Pro out there with just 2ghz xeons, I do have 12GB of memory installed. The most I've seen it use 3Gb. LR on the other hand I've seen grab more than 1/2 what is available on my machine.
I do turn of the faces and at times turn off 'generate previews', it can slow things down. Also the majority of my images reside on another HD outside of the Aperture library, even though the library now is just under 70Gb in size. (Just don't make the mistake of deleting that directory that contains the images, I did that years ago and lost my son's birthday images when he turned 7.) Still kicking myself for being so stupid.
I still have LR, but don't like it all that much anymore. AP does all I need for the images I scan from film and slides.
As for additional memory upgrades on newer Macs, try OWC, they offer higher memory amounts than what Apple specifies. Mine for example will hold up to 32Gb, while Apple initially said it could do 16Gb.
__________________
It is time for me to slow down to analog speed.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-21-2011   #38
wgerrard
Registered User
 
wgerrard's Avatar
 
wgerrard is offline
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,513
Smart move to load up on memory, Andy. Much more important than CPU speed for apps like this.

I suspect Aperture rewards a little thought in how you use it and how you organize your files.

I'll check out OWC for this 2008 iMac. More then 4 gigs would be nice.
__________________
Bill
-------------------------------------
This is my only legible signature.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-21-2011   #39
bwcolor
Registered User
 
bwcolor is offline
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: S.F. Bay Area
Posts: 2,301
OP is done with this topic, but others aren't. The solution to the need for memory is to buy memory. I also keep my library on an external four drive raid tuned for speed. Eight core/16GB 2008 Mac Pro with fast hard drives and Aperture is fast and does exactly what I want it to do. Memory is cheap these days and core to core the newer processors are much faster. Video/photo centric computers with lots of power have drastically fallen in price. Hardware is cheap today when compared to 2008 and Aperture 3/Recent OS X seem to be better tuned to take advantage of multiple cores. I don't think that I would be better off with iPhoto.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-22-2011   #40
noeyedear
Registered User
 
noeyedear is offline
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by hteasley View Post
I've used every version of Aperture, but haven't found one yet that wouldn't crash (and I have a beefy Mac Pro to run it on). Since it stored everything in a giant package file when I first started using it, I got scared that it would corrupt that one big file and I'd lose my pics. So I moved to Lightroom.

I've since learned that you don't have to store your images that way in Aperture, but I've come to like Lightroom more.

I think they're both pretty equally capable. Each has some weird omissions.
I too have had every Aperture version and crashes are so very very rare I can't think Aperture is the real problem. I had it almost grind to holt on my old machine. It runs very nicely on my new iMac.

Kevin.
www.treewithoutabird.com
__________________
Kevin.
www.treewithoutabird.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-23-2011   #41
hteasley
Pupil
 
hteasley is offline
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,950
Quote:
Originally Posted by noeyedear View Post
I too have had every Aperture version and crashes are so very very rare I can't think Aperture is the real problem.
Very rare is not non-existent. LR doesn't crash for me, Aperture would crash occasionally. And since my Aperture library was, like I said, in its database-ish package file, even rare crashes were enough to put me off it entirely.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-23-2011   #42
wgerrard
Registered User
 
wgerrard's Avatar
 
wgerrard is offline
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,513
Quote:
Originally Posted by hteasley View Post
Very rare is not non-existent. LR doesn't crash for me, Aperture would crash occasionally. And since my Aperture library was, like I said, in its database-ish package file, even rare crashes were enough to put me off it entirely.
Packages are accessible from the filesystem. Right-click and choose the "Show Package Contents" option.

You can also keep your image files in the filesystem, organized as you wish, and work with them without pulling them into a library.
__________________
Bill
-------------------------------------
This is my only legible signature.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-23-2011   #43
hteasley
Pupil
 
hteasley is offline
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,950
Quote:
Originally Posted by wgerrard View Post
Packages are accessible from the filesystem. Right-click and choose the "Show Package Contents" option.
Yes, I know. I still trust a package less than I trust a folder, because file operations work on packages that don't work on folders (without confirmations, anyway). And I'm uncertain what's maintaining the package's internal directory structure (whether it's the file system, or an internal directory).

And note I mentioned that it was Aperture's default, which it set me up with right away, not that it doesn't work on flat files.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-23-2011   #44
tom.w.bn
Former RF User
 
tom.w.bn is offline
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Germany
Posts: 2,848
Packages are a nice way of hiding internal folder structure from the user. OSX knows that this is a folder structure and does not work with a single big file. You notice this when you backup the library with time machine for example. Time machine only shows the size of the new images to be backed up.
When you open a file with photoshop from within aperture and you do a save-as operation, you see in photoshop that you are in a normal folder.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-23-2011   #45
wgerrard
Registered User
 
wgerrard's Avatar
 
wgerrard is offline
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,513
If asked, I'd say I prefer maintaining my own file structure. On the other hand, that quickly begins to get complicated when you have lots and lots of files in different stages of tweaking. I've lost a significant number of files simply because I couldn't remember what was where.

My first go with Aperture was sans a library. That quickly became more hassle than it was worth, because everything you do in Aperture assumes a library. My library is as safe and secure as any other folder on the machine.

As usual, backups are much more important.
__________________
Bill
-------------------------------------
This is my only legible signature.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 22:15.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.