SportsShooter.com - Scathing Aperture 1.0 Review

	Lake Forest \| CA \| USA \| Posted: 5:54 PM on 12.05.05
	->> The easiest way for me to speed up my workflow is to buy one of those beastly computers needed to run Aperture, and keep the software I already have. Today shooting in RAW is the exception, not the rule; I don't see that changing anytime soon.

Bob Croslin, Photographer

St. Petersburg | FL | USA | Posted: 7:42 PM on 12.05.05

->> I posted this Galbraith's list but I'll post here as well:

I was able to convert several 1Ds MKII captures last evening with a friend's version of Aperture and I found the conversions to be inferior to DPP. Aperture rendered skin tones that weren't anywhere near as good as DPP and there was some very unacceptable noise in the shadow detail. I didn't even bother to compare Aperture to ACR. Another thing that blew me away was that Aperture apparently will not install on my newish dual 1.8 G5 tower because my graphics card is incompatible. That kind of hardware dependency is a real achilles heel IMO. I'm happy to sit on the sidelines and wait for v 2.0.

btw - I've since found out that there are some "workarounds" to get Aperture to install on "older" machines like mine and that it apparently runs fine. I don't think it's any coincidence that Apple sells software with such stringent hardware constraints when they are also in the hardware business.

Steven Georges, Photographer

	Long Beach \| CA \| USA \| Posted: 11:47 PM on 12.05.05
	->> Bob, you make a good point. Up to now I've been taking the word of Heinz Kluetmeier, Joe Buissink, and Richard Burbridge on the quality of photos Aperture produces. One of the reasons I use Nikon Capture for RAW photos was because Ron Taniwaki told me the quality from my D2h would improve with it. He was right. I'll get my copy next week, time will tell if Bob was right.

Evan Parker, Student/Intern, Photographer

Seattle | WA | USA | Posted: 3:03 AM on 12.06.05

->> So far, there's been 1 (one) (as far as I can tell) person posting to the message boards who's actually put their hands on Aperture. Just One. And he made the conversions on a friend's computer, meaning he didn't have a week or two to set up and tweek the software for the best possible outcome. (No offense to Bob, just the reality)

How many people on this site bashed Aperture for its "shortcomings" weeks before the software was even available? More than I can remember.

Most of us photographers use programs such as Photoshop, Photo Mechanic, iView, Extensis Portfolio, and others. Most of these are past version 5, and some nearing version 10. Anybody remember Photoshop 1? How was it? Fast and efficient and perfect? Is CS 2 fast and efficient and perfect?

The reality is that most of us have not used Version 1 of a program in a very long time, if ever. I started on Photoshop 6. In this time of instant-gratification image replay on the backs of our cameras, we've come to expect new products to be problem-free, inexpensive, easy to learn, and full featured, and we don't want to spend any time learning their new ins and outs and features. If the product fails any of these traits, we complain, whine, point fingers, cry, and threaten to go back to film.

So it's time to step back for a minute. Aperture is a completely new program trying to break a lot of ground, and hoping do a lot of things that have never been done before in the same program. It is also a Version 1. Unlike Canon or Nikon cameras, we can't call up our favorite local rep and ask them a birrage of specific questions and get quick answers. We have to be patient. We also have to be willing to invest the time to LEARN a new piece of software and a new workflow, not just try to impose our current workflow on it, and give up when things don't work in the first 12 hours. How many of you have completely mastered all the useful tools in Photoshop? How many of you made Ansel Adams quality darkroom prints? I don't expect I'll have done either of those by the time i'm 79 years old, if I try a little bit every day, and i'm not even 23 yet.

Some of the issues people have found and described in the past few days (especially on the Rob Galbraith forums) aren't really problems at all, they just didn't know where the specific command was. Some of Aperture's "shortcomings" were deliberate features for specific reasons, and will be developed and modified in the future. And yes, it does have some serious issues as a program, and so did Version 1.0 of Final Cut Pro, which is now a driving force in the film industry.

After all that, what's my point? I think we all just need to sit back, get the facts, and be a little more patient. I've never seen aperture in action, and from all I've read I already have some opinions about it. But i'm going to keep those to myself, and when I've used the program in my workflow for a month or two, I'll think about making them public.

Mike Isler, Photographer

Santa Barbara | CA | US | Posted: 3:23 AM on 12.06.05

->> I agree with everything said. I merely posted this so that people who are inclined to drop $500 on a piece of software that just started shipping, have a little more information about it...since the reviews highlight things not made completely clear in Apple's marketing. I too would love to "test-drive" Aperture, but I'd like to wait for more information about it. And Evan, I agree with you about it being v1.0, but v1.0 is different from a beta version where bugs are expected. You would expect a polished product in a v1.0, especially when there are other capable programs on the market (it's not breaking new ground here... just speeding up the workflow and giving you eye candy for the most part). I've used Photoshop since 3.5, and yes, it has come a long way since then... but even back then it was quite capable and was best in its class.

Perhaps we're trying to address the same end here... pointing out that is Version 1.0, and if you have high expectations, you might want to hold on to your $500 for a little while.

Dave Amorde, Photographer

Lake Forest | CA | USA | Posted: 3:30 AM on 12.06.05

->> Evan, I give you my short reply: If Apple honestly expects me to buy $4000 worth of hardware to run their $600 (or whatever) software, it better be damn good - and I don't care what version it is. If it truly is as limited as people are claiming (and I have no reason to doubt them), and the requires are that steep (which Apple admits to), then they would have been smarter to announce their next generation hardware platform, and throw Aperture 1.0 in FOR FREE to get us hooked.
It's not like they're entering uncharted territory here.

Michael Troutman, Photographer

	Carmel \| CA \| USA \| Posted: 3:38 AM on 12.06.05
	->> It's hard to imagine anything superceding the PhotoMechanic/Photoshop CS combination. Furthermore, if Aperture was available cross-platform, it would have greater impact as a photographic tool. Great review, "alarm bells" and all.

Brady Creel, Photographer

	College Station \| TX \| USA \| Posted: 4:37 AM on 12.06.05
	->> I'm not impressed in my first day using it. Takes too long for photos import.

Bob Croslin, Photographer

St. Petersburg | FL | USA | Posted: 10:57 AM on 12.06.05

->> Evan - here's the rub, Aperture is $500 and is intended to be a RAW capture tool first and foremost and a workflow tool second. Why would anyone want to shell out that kind of cash for RAW conversions that are substandard to what Canon gives away for free. Furthermore, if you want to spend $500 on something that can do it all Capture One is already on the market, is incredibly robust and produces the best conversions of any software out there. I'm sure Apple will ship upgrades over the coming months to imporve Aperture but Apple should have gotten the captures correct right out of the box.

John Lee, Photographer

San Francisco | CA | USA | Posted: 11:27 AM on 12.06.05

->> i've messed around with aperature a few times, been going to - and still going to -- various apple sponsored and independent aperature seminars. this is what i see:

i think aperature is not meant for deadline photojournalists. even in photoshop cs/cs2, raw adds a few extra seconds into the workflow. so if aperature is basing itself entirely on raw format, then i think deadline pj should stick to good old photo mechanic and photoshop jpegs.

with that said, i shoot a ton of raw (i'm not under as tight of deadlines as, say, someone sending pix back to the office from a night football game). i also am a diehard photoshop guy. just used to it. but i'm taking a very close look at aperature to see whether i can use it in my work.

the strength of aperature is not in toning, but in file management and archiving. the "vault" feature is pretty darn cool. it intelligently backs up files onto separate portable hard drives when you plug them in. good for remote storage of very important files.

i also like the fact that i'm not messing with the original raw file, and that any changes i make is in the metadata.

if i had to think up of a workflow involving aperature, i guess it would be:

1) load raws into aperature for archiving.
2) do BASIC raw adjustments (no sharpening)
3) export jpegs or tiffs into photoshop.
4) do all the big stuff on photoshop.
5) send to editors/clients.

now, that's only if i'm working from the massive frigging quad processor g5 with a gazillion gigs of ram and terabytes of hard drive space. i'm not going to even think about using aperature on a laptop remotely.

does this mean that i'm going to running out and spend $8k on a quad g5 and two 30" cinema displays? only in my dreams. i agree with the earlier statement that apple is in the market to make you buy new hardware. why do you think they keep coming up with new versions of the ipod?

i'm holding out for version 2, cause as much as i like the idea of aperature, apple needs to revamp some things.

*** oh, one nifty thing i do kinda like, is that book printing feature that aperature's got. no, not the crappy iphoto version. this one has better design capabilities. and according to brad mangin, who's got some serious high-up connections with apple (not steve jobs, i don't think) he's seen an actual hard copy of this book and says it looks genuinely fantastic. some serious high resolution.

yeah, book schmook. but one think i can see it being good for is to custom print different books to send to different clients and editors. and i think each book is about $30-$40, depending on how involved it is. coming from a guy who spent $200 alone on my fancy portfolio case and days printing up my pix on a canon i9900 (printer cost, paper and ink...), i think i like the book thing.

Monty Rand, Photographer

Bangor | ME | USA | Posted: 6:49 AM on 12.07.05

->> After some of what I've read here and other places I may still plan on buying aperture, but only because I can get it at educational pricing which is $149. If it wasn't for that I wouldn't buy it and I may still pass. As others have said, I'm sure this programn will be better when version 2 rolls out. I just don't see it being fast and doing things I can't already do albeit a few more programs. The thought of aperture is great, but I think it's falling a bit short from what I've read.

Robert Smith, Photographer

Brandon | MS | USA | Posted: 3:25 PM on 12.07.05

->> I have Aperture and here's what I have found:

Raw conversions are NOT as nasty as people are making them out. Still, Not quite as good as C1 but decent. I'm sure they will have this rectified in a short time.

Exif Data is NOT eaten upon export. You check a box and it will export the exif.

Transferring images to PS for additional editing and back is a snap. Much easier than any other conversion software that I have used.

Basic workflow is Very Much simplified and faster.

I'm not suggesting that this program does not have areas that it can improve on. I know that Apple will make the necessary changes down the line to get it up to speed. They got it right with Final Cut Pro after several upgrades. The main thing for me is the workflow time. I have cut it in half. I have read many reviews on Aperture from people who have "Played" with Aperture or has a "friend who says" that it has problems. I found this software much more friendly and useful than what I have been hearing on the boards.

My 2 cents

Michael Muszynski, Student/Intern

Chicago | IL | USA | Posted: 7:00 PM on 12.08.05

->> Posting from the apple store in downtown Chicago. I walked in here hoping to see what Aperture can do, and I have to say I'm disappointed. It beach balls on a Dual 2.7GHz G5, one of the newest machines here.

As with all of Apple's pro products, it's confusing. I'm sure it will take a bit of using to learn how to use it, but I'm not sure if it's worth the cost personally.

Also, Monty, the educational price online is $249, not $149.

austin calhoon, Photographer

los angeles | CA | USA | Posted: 8:19 PM on 12.08.05

->> We purchased Aperture the day it came out and I have been using extensively.

My impressions:

-Importing feature is slow, about as slow as a drag and drop from a USB 2 card reader into a folder. CS2 converter is much much much faster.

-Editing large studio folders is a breeze. Very nice comparision tool built in that allows to whip through files, tagging the good and trashing the bad as I go.

-This software is not built for speedy conversions. Do not expect to import, sort, correct and export in a reasonable amount of time...It's just not going to happen. As we say, go get a cup of coffee and wait.

- Lift and Stamp tool is brillant in theory, though there is a bug which disables a batch Lift and Stamp and a program restart is required??? This doesn't happen every time, which is very strange. (note: This only happens on one of the two machines Aperture is installed on, very annoying)

- Also the conversions are slow to process large batches, RAW converter in CS2 is much faster.

- iView is much faster for tagging and allows the syncing of annotations to the root file. There are no easy keyboard shortcuts in aperture...i.e. I don't want to push three keys at a time to rate something!! Give me a 1-2-3-4-5 rating system.

- Overall the program has a lot to improve upon. Importing/exporting, batch correcting, and allowing the export of the original raw file---
these are biggest problems I've found...

On another note, It is very nice to see my files in neat stacks and organized.

RAW file converter drives me crazy with out-of-sequence files and I shouldn't have to use Bridge to import the files into CS2 to keep them in order.

Don't count it out just yet, I think Aperture was released very disabled.

It will get better though I personally would wait for version 2 before purchasing.

Cameron Davidson, Photographer

Arlington | VA | USA | Posted: 8:25 AM on 12.09.05

->> Here is a good spanish review of Aperture.

They compared the raw conversion to Capture One. (Where Aperture fell short, as I would expect in a first release)

The tested all of the features in the program and I feel that this is one of the better reviews of the program. More in depth than the ArsTechnica review with less bile.

The reviewer feels that the program is good - not quite ready yet - but hey, it is version 1.0 and Apple has a history of getting their programs right.

Here is the link for the English translation via the google language page;

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.caborian.com%2Find...

Delane B. Rouse, Photographer, Photo Editor

	Washington, DC & Seattle \| WA \| US \| Posted: 10:41 AM on 12.09.05
	->> Michael, fyi...the online educational price may be $249 but numerous school bookstores are selling it for $149 if you walk into the store. This was confirmed by me calling several Philadelphia area university bookstores to ask for pricing. delane

Lucas J. Gilman, Photographer

Denver, CO & Jackson Hole | CO | USA | Posted: 11:12 AM on 12.09.05

->> Hello all,

I just purchased Aperture yesterday. Spent the evening watching the DVD Tutorial on how it all works and I have to say it's quite a powerfull program. With that said I will say it does have some major drawbacks, which I'm sure as everyone says they're sure to address. I love the fact the key wording is so simple and how you can sample keywords & captions etc. from an image with much ease. The book publishing function is also cool. The web gallery and smart web gallery will help me immensly, as this is how I show non-local commercial clients images from shoots (the colors look really good on the web pages with no work to correct for color space)

My main wish is that you could use Aperture as a browser/archiving software and launch another App. to convert the raw, at least until they get it completely dialed in the raw conversion department.

By no means do I have a grasp on this new tool, but will say it has def. potential. I did some side by side comparisons using Aperture 1.0 and Capture One Pro 3.7. The images are all shot with a D2X and 17-55, with Elichrome Rangers as the light source. I did not change anything in the images, added no sharpening, contrast, colour correction etc. just outputed them form there raw form with both programs. Aperture does a pretty nice job.

If you'd like to see the test go to: http://lucasgilman.com/aperture/index.html

Overall:

+ Ability to look over large amounts of images in my archive quickly
- Can't launch another application to convert images.
+ Book publishing/web gallery software is really easy to use and very cool.
- Takes a lot of drive space to save images as every image sent to photoshop is saved as a 16bit tiff copy.
-Takes a long time to import large libraries of images (haven't tried to download a card yet)
+The loop and abiltiy to compare multiple images rocks.

I'm sure it will have more pluses the more I get to know it.

Willis Glassgow, Photo Editor, Photographer

	Florence \| SC \| USA \| Posted: 2:05 PM on 12.09.05
	->> I have not purchased or used it, but the major drawback for me is cost. Is it really worth the money?....For me, right now. No. But it does look very nice and if I had money to burn I would buy it in a second.

Oscar Reixa, Photographer

	Vigo \| Po \| Spain \| Posted: 3:15 PM on 12.09.05
	->> A review comparing Aperture with Capture One at: www.caborian.com (in spanish)

Monty Rand, Photographer

	Bangor \| ME \| USA \| Posted: 5:08 PM on 12.09.05
	->> Price for me is $149. I called to confirm. Not sure why there's a difference in the education pricing.

Delane B. Rouse, Photographer, Photo Editor

	Washington, DC & Seattle \| WA \| US \| Posted: 5:27 PM on 12.09.05
	->> Also...to receive the educational price you haave to purchase from the education store (brick and morter on campus) or online. You can not receive the education discount at Apple Retail stores for Aperture (you can for hardware). Delane

Jason Orth, Photographer

	Lincoln \| NE \| USA \| Posted: 11:53 AM on 12.13.05
	->> FWIW: Another review - again, not scathing but certainly not an endorsement. http://www.outbackphoto.com/artofraw/raw_22/essay.html

Thomas Boyd, Photographer

Eugene | OR | USA | Posted: 12:34 PM on 12.14.05

->> Here's a more level-headed and comprehensive review of Aperture:

http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/prodtech/reviews/article_display.jsp?vnu_conte...

Part II will talk about the Aperture update.

PDNonline:

As this article was getting readied to run on PDNonline.com, we received an invitation from Apple to get a hands-on look at an update to Aperture, already in beta, and designed to address some of the concerns raised by early adopters. Part 2 will run next week on pdnonline.com.

Tony Donaldson, Photographer

Los Angeles | CA | USA | Posted: 12:55 PM on 12.14.05

->> I'm reviewing it for one of the magazine. I've read the arstechnica review, and am not sure what kind of experience that guy actually has in photography. It is so far a very interesting and useful app with a STEEP learning curve, like Apple's other pro apps (e.g. Final Cut Pro), but I think once you master it, like Photoshop, FCP, etc. the use becomes seemless. What I've done of the raw conversions have been quite good.

Gil Batzri, Photographer, Assistant

Oakland | CA | USA | Posted: 1:44 PM on 12.14.05

->> Not having read either the PDN or ArsTechnica reviews my initial observation is this (be warned I am about to be snarky)

The PDN review is bracketed on two sides by advertisements from Apple for the software being reviewed on the page. The AT review seems to be lacking this embellishment from Apple.

I always wonder about things like that.

I am about to read them so I can't comment beyond this. Not owning a G5 anywhere but my day job I don't see buying this unless they crossplatform a future version, but I am not holding my breath.

Gil Batzri, Photographer, Assistant

Oakland | CA | USA | Posted: 2:44 PM on 12.14.05

->> Having read both of the reviews now, The PDN "review" is not up to snuff (in my humble opine).

I really differ on it being the more level headed and comprehensive review. I think it almost reads like a press release with some gentle admonishments on lacking features or issues.

The AT review is much more comprehensive and is much more of a review by my thinking, he actually used the software and gave some opinions on it. The tone was definitely more sarcastic/arch in the AT review, but the meat of the thing, including the addendum is much more useful to me (were I looking at a purchase) then the PDN review, which was more like an overview. While the author is not a "professional" photog, he is very versed in photo production, that much is clear from reading the thing.

He is a Mac user, but not an evangelist, which is refreshing. I think that was a sharp, well done review, (aside from his tone & a couple references I didn't get) and I would definitely look at his reviews in the future.

Thomas Boyd, Photographer

Eugene | OR | USA | Posted: 4:30 PM on 12.14.05

->> I referred to the PDN review as level-headed because they actually took the time to address shortcomings in other reviews with Apple and fully explained the issues.

The two biggest problems are the RAW conversion and stripping out IPTC info on export.

The PDN article explained that Apple will fix the IPTC problem in the next recent update: "An interesting footnote here is that an exported Package actually contains a text file for each image in the set that contains the IPTC data. While Apple's working on modifying this behavior so raw data may more easily be exported, it's a no-brainer that someone will release a conversion tool to go at least from an Aperture package to a RAW+XMP output."

I haven't read that anywhere else.

It also fully explained that issues surrounding the RAW conversion. Some conversions look better than Adobe, some look worse, and some look the same. They then got comments from Apple who said, "Apple's development teams performed numerous double-blind tests of Aperture vs. ACR and Capture One conversions, he added "we are totally open ears on this. We understand raw is a deep issue."

The PDN article also did comparisons themselves with other software: "To us it seems Aperture leans toward accuracy, while ACR leans toward saturation, and Capture One focuses on detail."

That's what I mean by level-headed.

Thomas Boyd, Photographer

	Eugene \| OR \| USA \| Posted: 12:11 AM on 01.01.06
	->> Here's an update to the ars technica review: http://arstechnica.com/reviews/apps/aperture-followup.ars

Bob Croslin, Photographer

St. Petersburg | FL | USA | Posted: 11:27 AM on 01.01.06

->> I've used the updated version of Aperture and I still say the conversions are less than stellar. I feel that Aperture's dependency on the OS is a liability. Now not only do you get to buy the $150 v 2 upgrade to Aperture but I would assume it will only run on OS X v 10.5.* that will also cost you another $150. As a workflow tool it has promise but my workflow is just fine without spending $500 and forcing myself to adjust to Apple's vision of workflow. To be fair, that's also been my biggest complaint about Capture One. Great conversion tool but forcing me outside of my otherwise tried and true workflow doesn't make much sense to me.

Return to --> Message Board Main Index