Macworld Forums: Aperture 3.3 embraces Retina display and iPhoto - Macworld Forums

Post your comments for Aperture 3.3 embraces Retina display and iPhoto here

When you make an edit in iPhoto, you end up with two saved versions of the photo in the iPhoto Library: the original, and the edited version. One of the benefits of using Aperture was that any changes/edits you did to a photo did not result in the program saving a second version of the photo, per se, but somehow embedding the changes in metadata or the original image file itself (unclear on the technical details here). Anyway, Aperture's method could result in a library that takes up less hard disk space.

Now that Aperture and iPhoto have a "unified" library. . . does this distinction between the two still exist? Does iPhoto still produce additional image versions when you do an edit, and Aperture does not?

Aperture 3 is is long in the tooth. Considering Apples non-existant upgrade policies my interest in Aperture has to wait until 4 which has been Real Soon Now the past year or so.

Mountain Lion is due this month. Perhaps Aperture 4 as well?

I like the new features, but on my 4 year old MacBookPro 4G RAM running Lion, Aperture is painfully slow. The new update seems slower than previous versions. Still spending too much time watching the spinning beach ball.

I would like to upgrade my hardware to a new iMac, but the current model is over 1 year old.

This is a very solid update to an excellent program. I use Aperture both professionally and for my personal photos. I had been reluctant to import my iPhoto library, but am now very pleased that I don't have to. The faster previewing of imported RAW images is also a welcome improvement. The program has obviously undergone a major rewrite, which is good news because it means that the Aperture team is still hard at work. Looking forward to version 4 when it is ready. In the meantime version 3.3 works great and seems to be getting better.

 davidagalvan, on 09 July 2012 - 05:46 AM, said:

I could be wrong, but I thought Aperture only did that for RAW adjustments. If you did a post-RAW adjustment, it may have to make a separate image file.

An easy way to find out is to make a library with one image in it. Then make a change, and open the library in the Finder and see for yourself.

I suspect the library format supports both, but iPhoto likely won't support the Aperture edits.

Aperture 3.3 has some serious bugs (still present in 3.3.1). I was right in the process of migrating from iPhoto after watching the (very excellent) Lynda.com video series, when Apple went from 3.2.4 to 3.3. I love the new iPhoto compatibility but the bugs in 3.3.1 have put my photo processing on hold until they get fixed.

Here are a couple of the serious bugs:

1) Syncing to iOS devices results in all Versions within a Stack being copied to the device instead of just the Pick. This is a huge problem because if you hand devices over to clients for review, they may see multiple copies of what appears to be duplicates. Additionally, this can consume storage up on your device as there could be multiple Versions for each image. This was never how it worked in any version prior to 3.3.

2) Previews don't properly recognize the resolution settings. It should work such that if the Preview resolution setting is equal to or greater than the original size, the original should be used as a Preview. However, unless the image has been edited, the Originals are being used as Previews, even if you try to Delete/Update/Generate Previews. This is a problem since Aperture is only supposed to Sync and share Previews.

If you combine these two bugs, it's a deal breaker for using Aperture and iOS devices. Not only will you get redundant duplicates because of the Stack Version bug, but because of the Preview bug, those redundant images could be enormously bigger in size. All of this affects browsing images, storage consumption, sync times, backup space and time, as well as slideshows (it's a problem having duplicate images as well as overkilling on resolution).

Additionally, there are bugs relating to syncing with Facebook and Flickr. In short, it doesn't seem reliable at all.

Still, I'm holding on, hoping that these bugs get fixed soon. If they do, I'll be a very happy camper as Aperture 3.3, without the bugs would be a pretty awesome app.

 hayesk, on 09 July 2012 - 11:13 AM, said:

The answer to this is somewhat complicated, and even more so due to bugs in Aperture 3.3.1.

Neither Aperture, nor iPhoto will make a Preview image, unless an edit has been done to an image. In Aperture, it stores what has been done to an image, the Master, and an edited Preview based on the resolution set in preferences (only if an edit has been made). iPhoto does the same, but the edited Preview will be the same resolution as the Master, and there's no interface to the changes made to an image, only the ability to "Revert to Original".

In other words, if you go from iPhoto to Aperture, you could save significant amounts of space by regenerating your previews to an appropriate size. And the other *big* advantage is that in Aperture, you can selectively undo or alter any of the edits you did to an image (in either Aperture or iPhoto). Going from Aperture to iPhoto would be like undoing edits is already in iPhoto, that is, you can only Revert to Original.

"A few terms have changed in Aperture to ensure continuity in this partnership: Masters are now called Originals; Metadata is now called Info; and Presets are now called Effects."

This should have been left alone or done the other way round. Congruency should have been ascribed in line with Aperture! This is a step backwards and not doing either camp (Aperture or iPhoto users) any favours. Technical terminology has its place in drilling down to the core meaning/functionality of a 'widget'/tool and may well be appreciated by an aspiring iPhoto user as well.

"...Generally, the moment photographers are most anxious to view their images is when they’re first importing them from the memory card to the computer. Apple rewrote the importing process in Aperture 3.3 to address this anxiety, and it’s especially impressive for Raw shooters...."

As a photographer I am eager to view, not anxious to view images. Of course there is anxiety wondering if they appear as desired. Still one is quite eager. If you are saying photographers are anxious about how the photos will appear my suggestion is to rewrite that first sentence. It is convoluted; we are eager to see the photos, yet have anxiety as to how they will appear.

 RicD, on 09 July 2012 - 06:11 PM, said:

I like the properly drawn distinction between "eager" and "anxious." The two words are not synonymous. Moreover, as Ric points out, "anxious" is often misused (as in this review) when "eager" would be correct.

 yeah, on 10 July 2012 - 12:25 AM, said:

I disagree on two counts:

"Anxious" and "eager" can be synonymous. See the Random House Dictionary usage note:
The earliest sense of anxious (in the 17th century) was “troubled” or “worried”: We are still anxious for the safety of our dear sons in battle. Its meaning “earnestly desirous, eager” arose in the mid-18th century: We are anxious to see our new grandson. Some insist that anxious must always convey a sense of distress or worry and object to its use in the sense of “eager,” but such use is fully standard.

While RicD may never have any troubles or worries about his photos, I think many other photographers do. As the article indicates, for me, the time that have the most anxiety is exactly at the moment of transferring them from my memory card.

 astyle, on 09 July 2012 - 06:46 AM, said:

1) Have you checked the Energy Saver System Preference to ensure you don't have switchable graphics that is set to "Better Battery Life" instead of "Higher Performance"?

2) Have you defragged your hard drive lately? I use and love iDefrag. Before I switched to referenced masters and moved my library file to an SSD drive, the difference between my unoptomized disk and and a defragged hard drive was night and day. Aperture is constantly writing to the databases that track thumbnails and edits, and if those database files fragment the performance really suffers. Especially since switching to an SSD I never see the spinning beach ball.

Instead of fretting over getting new machine, why not take a stab at upgrading your existing Mac? Try the OWC data doubler - chuck that optical drive and replace it with an SSD. Leave your masters on the hard drive, but get that library file on an SSD - I suspect the majority of your spinning beach balls will quickly disappear. In the meantime, get and use iDefrag. They have a trial so you have nothing to loose.

 SamGumgee, on 09 July 2012 - 01:38 PM, said:

I understand your perspective, and the reasoning behind it, but I think the revised names are still very intuitive.