[Macworld]

Post your comments for Aperture 3.0.1 here

[redgeminipa]

So, could this be a good alternative to PhotoShop? I'm very amateur when it comes to working with images. I've played around with GIMP and LiveQuartz, but if I decide to start doing more, I have a feeling I may need something better.

[hagen]

redgeminipa, on 04 March 2010 - 04:59 AM, said:

So, could this be a good alternative to PhotoShop? I'm very amateur when it comes to working with images. I've played around with GIMP and LiveQuartz, but if I decide to start doing more, I have a feeling I may need something better.

Yes. Aperture (and Lightroom) provide extremely easy adjustments for the vast majority of image post-processing needs. In addition both are built entirely around the concept of non-destructive editing: no changes are made to the actual file until exported or printed. in PS you need to enable smart filters for each layer.

Download demos of both and try them.

H

[benfsmith]

redgeminipa, on 04 March 2010 - 04:59 AM, said:

So, could this be a good alternative to PhotoShop? I'm very amateur when it comes to working with images. I've played around with GIMP and LiveQuartz, but if I decide to start doing more, I have a feeling I may need something better.

If your needs are mainly around color editing, Aperture is better since it integrates tightly with your photo management workflow. If you're trying to do deeper image editing like removing people from a photo, you'll need PS.

[Lentako]

I agree and disagree.

Absolutely download the free demos and try them out before you buy.

However, Aperture is not an alternative to Photoshop IMO. Photoshop is an extremely high powered (and very expensive) image editing program. It is also something that you will have to invest some serious time into to learn how to use.

Lightroom and Aperture should be compared, not Photoshop and Aperture.

Personally, I like LR, but I'm sure I'm in the minority on a Mac/Apple website.

The best advice I would give, is to try the demo for the FULL 30 DAYS before you buy. A3 is a nice looking product, but when you get over the beauty of the layout, you may find that you actually like what LR does for your photos more than what A3 does.

Download the free trials of A3 and LR2. Remember that LR3 is also available in beta and will be out soon. Realize that a lot of what was added to A3 was already available in LR2 and that you may be disappointed if you buy A3 and don't wait to see what is coming in the final version of LR3. I also believe Apple may have rushed A3 to beat LR3 to the shelves - thus some of the huge bugs that made it into the release version.

Lastly, if you are an amateur, stay away from photoshop for a while until you get a handle on either LR or Aperture and get comfortable with them first.

Hope that helps.

Don't forget to google and check out the adobe sight for some possible bias in the other direction as well.

[leicaman]

redgeminipa, on 04 March 2010 - 04:59 AM, said:

So, could this be a good alternative to PhotoShop? I'm very amateur when it comes to working with images. I've played around with GIMP and LiveQuartz, but if I decide to start doing more, I have a feeling I may need something better.

Yes, for many people it will be a replacement for Photoshop. At least until your skills hit a wall, and then you'll want to add Photoshop Elements or Photoshop to your toolkit as external editors. But although I was skeptical that Aperture or Lightroom would ever be able to serve as a substitute for Photoshop (I've used Photoshop nearly every day since May of '92.) I have to say this version of Aperture could do it for many people. You're a perfect example. GIMP is cool and all, but it's not nearly as useful as Aperture for a real functional RAW workflow.

I have to say, once Aperture 3.01 came out, and now with the ProKit Update, it's running like a well-oiled machine. Compared to Lightroom (which I have used for my job for several years) Aperture 3 is a real step up. If you shoot with a DSLR that does video, Aperture really has taken the lead. Using my 5D Mark II at work, using videos and stills I've shot is seamless. Creating slideshows with audio, video and stills is really easy and seamless.

I'd say Apple removed my doubt they could keep Aperture competitive. Lightroom has some advantages, but not any that would make me choose it right now. We'll see when LR3 is no longer beta.

[Urkel]

Im really liking Aperture, but this isn't software that should be recommended to notebook users. All the praise comes from Mac Pro professionals, but most notebook users suffer through a lot of processing waits and lag.

I have a 2009 Macbook Pro and it runs okay but is definitely a power/memory hog so when A3 is running the entire system slows down.

[leicaman]

Urkel, on 04 March 2010 - 07:00 AM, said:

Im really liking Aperture, but this isn't software that should be recommended to notebook users. All the praise comes from Mac Pro professionals, but most notebook users suffer through a lot of processing waits and lag.

I have a 2009 Macbook Pro and it runs okay but is definitely a power/memory hog so when A3 is running the entire system slows down.

I have to disagree somewhat. How much RAM are you using? I'm using it on a 2006 17" MacBook Pro, and it's very usable. But certianly on my Mac Pro it really flies.

[flybynight]

I'm loving Aperture 3. These updates finally make it feel like the whole widget. I used to do a lot of Photoshop round-trips, but now that is going to be extremely rare.

[garyi]

Is it me, or is faces a crock or crap? I have had to tell it who every single face is for well in excess of 2000 images now and its still utterly thick.

All in all I could have gone through my projects command clicked al group of photos with the same face and tagged them myself much quicker than 'utterly thick faces feature'

[SamGumgee]

Apple Aperture Team, please include Apple QTVR as a supported format just as iPhoto does!

[igamogam]

I must admit I have almost given up on Faces already. It's not very user friendly and pretty slow. Compared to the face recognition tools in Picasa, Faces is a dog, not very clever and it creeps along plus you have no idea how many more faces you have to look at before you've finished.

By comparison Picasa was much faster and it gave you a overview of all the faces that had to be reviewed so you could quickly scan through them and reject faces you are not interested in up front.

I have a 37,000 image library, OK nearly half of them don't have people in them, but all the same it's going to take me a while to finish this.

I like Aperture (Adobe LightRoom is just too restrictive in it's mandatory workflow and module hopping for my tastes) and I will continue to use it especially with the new adjustment tools but I seriously doubt if Faces will ever be of much use to me.

[LowededWookie]

Lentako, on 04 March 2010 - 06:09 AM, said:

I agree and disagree.

Absolutely download the free demos and try them out before you buy.

However, Aperture is not an alternative to Photoshop IMO. Photoshop is an extremely high powered (and very expensive) image editing program. It is also something that you will have to invest some serious time into to learn how to use.

I think you may have slightly missed the context of the question. The user was wanting to know if it was a better alternative to Photoshop for the basic requirements they need to touch up photos. Photoshop is really too complex for amateur's needs and the expense is too much for the requirements.

Yes Aperture 3 is well worth it. I have it and it's completely replaced iPhoto for me. I'm not even going to look into LightRoom because Aperture does all I need for a better price as well. $631.55(NZ) for LightRoom or $349(NZ) for Aperture 3. Essentially half the cost for more or less the same tools. Which makes more sense for amateurs? ;-)

[LowededWookie]

Urkel, on 04 March 2010 - 07:00 AM, said:

Im really liking Aperture, but this isn't software that should be recommended to notebook users. All the praise comes from Mac Pro professionals, but most notebook users suffer through a lot of processing waits and lag.

I have a 2009 Macbook Pro and it runs okay but is definitely a power/memory hog so when A3 is running the entire system slows down.

2008 MacBook Pro (pre-unibody) with 3GB RAM. Works like a charm for me.