apple aperture? - Page 2

emdubya · 08-20-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by filmtwit

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.

emdubya · 08-20-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by fdigital

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.)

gavinlg · 08-20-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by emdubya

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.

hteasley · 08-20-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by fdigital

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.

back alley · 08-20-2011

mine is a macbook with 4 gigs...slow as molasses...

ramosa · 08-20-2011

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.

back alley · 08-20-2011

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?

hteasley · 08-20-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by back alley

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.

back alley · 08-20-2011

i'm back to old & familiar...just bought pse 9...

mob81 · 08-20-2011

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.

wgerrard · 08-20-2011

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.

andydg · 08-20-2011

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.

wgerrard · 08-21-2011

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.

bwcolor · 08-21-2011

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.

noeyedear · 08-22-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by hteasley

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

hteasley · 08-23-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by noeyedear

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.

wgerrard · 08-23-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by hteasley

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.

hteasley · 08-23-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by wgerrard

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.

tom.w.bn · 08-23-2011

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.

wgerrard · 08-23-2011

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.