Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Photography' started by Bob_Chase, Oct 19, 2005.
If you're not a Mac user yet, you will be.
It's been known for some time that Apple has been working on a Photoshop killer. What's surprising is that they're actually releasing it now. It's been speculated that they'd wait until Adobe support of the Mac slipped - as in a PC-first release of Photoshop - before they'd play this card. (Adobe has released other products, that used to get a simultaneous release, on the PC first - it's only a matter of time before the practice happens with PS...)
Haven't seen much about it, but they've got their work cut out for them going against PS. System requirements are pretty damned steep, too. If they're smart, they'll have a free 30 day trial, like Adobe does with PS.
It looks brilliant, but it isn't a Photoshop killer. The nondestructive philosophy prevents any deep editing. In fact, the demos on the site show it being used with an "external editor" (Photoshop).
Aperture might be called an image handler while Photoshop is an image synthesizer. Aperture seems much better suited for photographers than PS, but PS is needed for designers and other digital artists since Aperture is hardly even a bitmap editor at all.
My next computer could be a Mac. Probably not, but it's amazing that I'm considering it.
Of course there's the upcoming Intel-based Macs... while Apple won't supply a system that will boot Windows as well, they're on record saying they won't prevent others from offering such a solution on the new platform. Though, you supposedly won't be able to run the final version of OS X for Intel on a non-Apple branded PC...
Aperture is not a PS killer. If anything it is iPhoto Pro. It looks amazingly cool and I can't wait to get my hands on it, but I don't think that Adobe has anything to worry about necessarily. PS is used for far more than digital photo manipulation.
Finally had a chance to explore Apple's site on this.
The RAW workflow looks incredible. While there are no compositing tools or workable layers, this would satisfy most processing needs for photographers - but you're right, PS needs to stay in the toolkit.
From the buzz I've heard, Apple may well have more up its sleeve in this area... just as they've been making OS X builds for Intel since the beginning, I suspect they have a more robust photo compositing tool in their warchest, waiting for the right moment.
Aperture does look very interesting - but it's pricey. Also, those system requirements are just too high. I'd need a trial version just to confirm that it would run on my machine, since I can't identify which version of the ATI Mobility 9600 I've got in my Powerbook. Plus, I'd need to upgrade to a gig of RAM.
Can't wait to see some reviews on this.
I think we're all on the same page here. It most definitely is not a Photoshop-killer. I've been a PS user since before it was PS and it's a must in any designer's toolbox. But as Steve said Aperture is geared towards photographers--period.
As someone who shoots RAW I've got to say that the workflow is extremely convoluted and time consuming in PS. The results are great but like I said it's time consuming.
On the surface Apple has appeared to have nailed the workflow and "versioning" issues, but not having actually used the product yet, I can't say if they've hit one out of the park.
But it certainly looks like they're pointing at the cheap-seats.
I'm curious to know how Aperture would work with the way I do things. I make large-ish scans (500-600 megs) from negatives, clean 'em up and massage 'em around a bit. Rarely if ever do I assemble things or work with multiple layers beyond using them for quick and easy exposure control.
Having spent about $3000 over the last five years on licenses and upgrades for Photoshop (multiple machines on the network need to run it at the same time, so I need multiple licenses despite being just one person, bleah), the price point doesn't bother me. If it'll do what I need to do at all better than how I'm working now, I'll be picking up a copy.
Unfortunately, all I've seen so far is about how well it works with RAW images. How 'bout 16 bit TIFF files, Apple?
I'd love, absolutely love, a 30-day trial or somesuch. While my machines are chock fulla RAM and disk space, they're a little old on the processor side of things.
Aaron no mention of 16-bit but there is support for TIFF. http://www.apple.com/aperture/specs.html
You might want to check out the various QT movies of the features. I could have sworn they mentioned 16-bit editing but I'm pretty sure it was for RAW files.
Judging by the hardware req's it looks like anything less than a G5 is going to be slooooooooooooooooow.
What's funny is that processor speed has never been a bottleneck for me with Photoshop -- disk access speed becomes an issue once you're maxed out on RAM and working with a gigantic file.
I have no illusions that my G3 400 (with a gig of RAM) will run it, though it runs Photoshop 7 admirably. I'd hope that it would work on my G4 dual 867 (with 2 GB RAM). But if not, I suppose I'll just stick with what I have and wait until my next hardware upgrade.