[MW Forums]

Apple said that despite obvious comparisons, its new Aperture software wasn't created to compete with Adobe's Photoshop. more

[RudolphRed]

In my books this and future development is 100% in the Adobe niche.
Are we to see something in the Web arena next?

[JScott]

I see this competing more with Adobe Bridge more than Photoshop. If anything it competes more with Extensis Portfolio.

[moose_n_squirrel]

It's in the Adobe arena, but it's not really in Photoshop's. Looks like Aperture is all about RAW. Photoshop is not about RAW. Photoshop uses external apps to let you convert/organize RAW. (The RAW plug-in and Bridge). If you don't have a RAW camera, Aperture is 100% useless, while Photoshop is still 100% useful. Plus it's $500.

[scarbrd]

I see Aperture as more of a true digitial darkroom and Photoshop more of a creation tool. I do not see in Aperture the abilty to use layers, do gradiant fills, composite images, etc. I also did not see any text component of Aperture, although it may be there.
Photoshop will still be the tool of choice to start with a photograph and make it into something else. I will use Aperture for the metadata tools, workflow, and overall picture management; kind of like iPhoto Pro.
My 2 cents.

[Grapho]

Photoshop in it's current incarnation is completely integrated with the rest of the CS2 suite. It also has a deferent market. It may overlap a bit when it comes to photographers which Adobe has paid a bit more attention with this last version of Photoshop, but I don't see it competing head to head. Aperture is not about content creating at all. Yes it has a bit of overlap but not much at all. No CMYK support, no Index or Lab as for as I can tell, so Photoshop will still be king as the primary image editor in the market. I as a graphic designer have no interest in acquiring Aperture, it looks cool but I don't even own a camera that supports RAW. Yet I intend to keeping up with Photoshop for as long as it's the more viable solution in the market.

[jedi228]

I agree with you, this product is in the Adobe niche, but Aperture isn't a clone of Photoshop. Most professional users will use both Aperture and Photoshop, I doubt you'll find somebody who replaces Photoshop with Aperture; they serve different needs. I do wonder why Adobe didn't create this?

[RudolphRed]

In reply to:

---

I doubt you'll find somebody who replaces Photoshop with Aperture

---

[JScott]

Well, thats down the road so we'll have to wait and see. Who's to say someone else won't come out with a Photoshop competitor down the road.

[kwill]

With no knowledge of the application my first thought was that Apple made a dumbed down version of Photoshop (a'la Pages). After looking at the Web site I discovered Apple took the photo workflow to a new level with nondestructive image edging. I have Photoshop but can see the value of also having Aperture.

[cbh]

I agree about owning Photoshop and Aperture, but I'm really excited by this, particularly the workflow and potentially simplified printing implications for the type of work I'm doing with my D100. I wonder though, how likely I'll be to use it for film work - I also shoot panoramic and large format as well. Certainly from a workflow perspective, I'm also blown way away.

[Quoth_the_Raven]

If anybody can come up with a Photocrap killer, it's Apple. Mark my words, it may not look like it now, but Aperture will be that "killer". Go Apple, go!
Adobe Premiere, what's that?!

[NordicMan]

There need not be an alarum for Adobe. A lot of photographers use Photoshop, and still will. But this Aperture will be good for photographers and for their work flow. Those who want to use Photoshop still will, and Aperture will fit right in to the programme. I am happy to see Apple come out with this. Now if they could just get a photo iPod that makes for more swift and smooth storage of photos during shooting times. Something like having a card reader in it, for a swift transfer of files.

[booga]

A lot of people were comparing it to Google Picasa, although it seems to go way beyond Picasa.