[Martian]

I am interested in opinions on Aperture vs. Elements for the next step or three beyond iPhotos limited editing abilities.
I want to do amateur photo editing for my own photos. I would like to enhance JPEGs and process the occasional RAW file...and maybe the occasional amateur/gag paste-this-head-on-that-body.
At this point, all I know is:
With Elements, I would need iPhoto to organize my library whereas Aperture can do this even better than iPhoto.
Elements probably wont be available in Universal by the time I get my Mac Pro.
Aperture costs 3-4 times as much as Elementsnot a problem if it better suites my needs.
CS2 would be overkill both in learning curve and price.

[schokid02]

Aperture also has incredibly high system requirements. Check out Apple's site for specifics, but I think you basically have to be running a G5 or Mac Pro.
From the sounds of things I would try Elements. Aperture is really geared to those people shooting a lot of RAW images and needing lots of editing capability with those. You should have gotten a RAW image processing program with your camera, so that would probably handle enough of the RAW stuff to get you to a jpg which you can edit in Elements.

[braindoc]

Aperture is not designed to do heavy editing or modifying. It is used for 2 main things, organize and prep for output. e.g. pro photographer goes on a shoot, upload several 100 RAW photos from the shoot, choose 10-15% of the photos, do minor retouching like red-eye, color balancing... then send it to a printer. He would also have an option to export the originals to photoshop as a .psd file, perform all the manipulations in Photoshop, bring them back into Aperture to prep for output comp for client.
For what you wrote, sounds like Elements or Photoshop is more of what you need/want. Aperture don't have all the manipulation tools like that of Photoshop or Elements. It's more apt to describe Aperture as a more robust big brother version of iPhoto. Lastly, all that said, if you are going to maintain/miminally adjust RAW images then you would need Aperture.

[Martian]

So Elements is actually a more powerful editor than Aperture? I had incorrectly guessed that since Aperture cost so much more and has such high system requirements, it must be a more powerful editor than Elements.
Hopefully we wont have to wait too too long for Intel native Elements. I for one will be looking for a Mac Pro as soon as we finish our house renovation (wifes masochistic idea to renovate the house while we are actually living in it).
Maybe the Mac Pro is so fast that Elements will blaze even in Rosetta.
Thanks to all for the replies.

[moose_n_squirrel]

Aperture is designed for volume processing efficiency, but it doesn't really have painting tools. If you need to touch up individual photos, Elements is a much better deal. If you just shot 536 images at a wedding or ad shoot, and you need to make overall adjustments and edit them down to the best 20 and make a presentation out of them by a deadline tomorrow, Elements will only get in your way and Aperture is a much better deal. That's why they aim it at pros.
Aperture is only for home users if your home has a lot of disposable income for the software and hardware or you shoot a LOT. For pros, Aperture price is less of an issue because it pays for itself in volume efficiency (or can be written off for taxes).

[Nobody]

As somone already pointed out, the two applications are designed to do different things. Elements is a simplified and therefore cheaper general consumer version of Photoshop, whereas the Aperture is designed for large database of photos for pros and wannabe pros (more so if they shoot in RAW format)... in essence the big brother of iPhoto.

Quote:

---

(wifes masochistic idea to renovate the house while we are actually living in it).

---

My condolences! /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif
If roof is also involved, remember to buy lots of tarp... you never know when the monsoon might hit.

[Philbert]

My .02 -
If I was stranded on a deserted island (which just so happened to have electricity and a Mac), and I could only have one app to edit images, Aperture or PSE, I'd choose Elements.
Aperture is limited to making global edits (an edit affects the entire image - spotting being the exception), whereas with Elements you can make localized edits. For instance, you couldn't "swap heads" with Aperture but you could with PSE. Photoshop (CS2 or Elements) is far more flexible. PSE will also include RAW processing capabilities which is quite powerful and efficient.
Aperture is more of a production tool than a true image editor.

[Martian]

Ah, now it is all clear (clear as anything can be in the drywall dust floating around). Aperture is for batch processingsomething I will never be doing.
For my first Elements head swap, I will put Bob Vila's head on my wife's body.

[Albertr]

I am just about in the same boat as you. This is how I handle it. I used Elements for a long time. Now Adobe has Lightroom in beta you can download. My main photo processing today is Lightroom. They add features upon features to it. Soon I will never go to Elements again. I also use only RAW format and Lightroom leaves the original pristine just like a film of old. From there you can export to any format your heart desire. In addition Lightroom is fast and doesn't require excessive computer requirements.
The only problem is that there is no manual until it goes out of Beta. Try it you may like it just like I do.

[braindoc]

Whaaat?? couldn't make out what you said through that ventilator mask. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Hmmm... LightRoom... looks interesting

[Martian]

I will have to try LightRoom. If I like it, it will give me incentive to try out RAW, and that will be nice when I need the extra dynamic range.
I havent needed a ventilator mask, but the dust did destroy my keyboard and probably made the hay fever worse.

[Philbert]

Definitely give Lightroom a try. It will be a major player in the RAW processor race when it's released. However, like Aperture, Lightroom is also limited to global edits. If you need to make changes to parts of an image, you still need Photoshop or PSE.
I keep harping on global vs selective editing because as a pro photographer from a traditional background (you know, that stuff called film), my old darkroom habits are hard to break. I still require the ability to selectively burn, dodge, change contrast, etc. That's not possible with global editors like Aperture and LR. Apple has publically stated that Aperture is NOT a competitor to Photoshop and that's the reason. (same goes for Lightroom)

Quote:

---

For my first Elements head swap, I will put Bob Vila's head on my wife's body.

---

Hope there's a doghouse included in those remodeling plans! /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[moose_n_squirrel]

Quote:

---

the ability to selectively burn, dodge, change contrast, etc. That's not possible with global editors like Aperture and LR. Apple has publically stated that Aperture is NOT a competitor to Photoshop and that's the reason. (same goes for Lightroom)

---

The Lightroom forums and podcasts indicate that they will add selective editing and they say that this doesn't require pixel editing (see Nikon Capture NX).

[Martian]

This thread has been genuinely illuminating for me. Thanks to all.

Quote:

---

Hope there's a doghouse included in those remodeling plans!

---

Doghouse not needed. When someone asks my wife, How do you stand him? she answers, Easy, he makes me laugh.