[kwill]

Photoshop is cross-platform. With Aperture, Apple is taking the position, if you are a professional photographer you need a Mac. That's a big distinction between the two applications.

[tmedia1]

After looking at the product tour on Apple.com, it's obvious that this doesn't compete with Photoshop at all. It's really iPhoto on steroids. Which I think is a great idea and it looks like an outstanding piece of software, but the $499 price tag will seem high to the casual or hobby photographer, but to a pro, not so much. iPhoto actually does a lot of what Apeture does on a more basic level and iPhoto also works with RAW images.

[Grapho]

Their is more things that sets them apart. One can deal with CMYK, Lab, Index. It can handle task for Print and Web and did I mention it's also for photographers. Aperture is exclusively for photographers.

[TenoB]

In reply to:

---

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.

---

This is so wrong.
Aperture works with:
JPEG, TIFF, PICT, BMP, PNG, TGA, PSD

[mark_G4]

I don't think Apple wants to do anything to tick Adobe off. They need Adobe to be committed to the Mac. Apple made Aperture to fight Microsoft. Before Windows Vista comes out an matures they want got establish themselves with pros in every field. Aperture will help that if a pro photographer can't do his thing fast on a Mac.
There is no pro who will not have photoshop running right along side Aperture waiting for the double click (at least I assume you can do this like iPhoto, plus is say Aperture works with Photoshop) so they can do editing far beyond Apertures exposure adjustments.
If you listen to Apertures promotion the Core Imaging comes up lot and that is because that glorifies Tiger, jabbing MS all the way.

[hmurchison]

I'd have to say that while Aperture isn't a shot across Adobe's bow it certainly makes a statement. I believe that statement to be
"Adobe and all other...we are still Apple and we still know the graphics market inside and out"
Apple has just flexed their muscles with Aperture. If Adobe doesn't use Core Image then the natural desire for photographers will be to stay in Aperture as long as possible and complain to Adobe. I'm totally impressed with the application. I'll be sure to take advantage of the edu pricing whilst i'm still in school. Pro or not I love the way that thing manages images and once you have a camera that takes RAW files and a large 1 or 2GB flash memory card taking photos by the bushel will be a common occurence.
Just when I think Apple may not be the best software house on the planet they come out and surprise me. Image what would happen if they "really" went after some established markets. People better hope the Mac OS never fails and Apple becomes a software house.

[tabasco_hot]

I don't think Aperture is anything like Photoshop. And I don't think it's a shot across the bow of Adobe either. If Adobe wanted to make an application like this they could, and should have done it already. They didn't, and this is Apples domain. They have been doing this for some time now. If anything Apple just put another exclamation point on how well they know what the Professional wants, and proved they are committed to the serious professional. Creating unique, superior, and one of a kind Professional applications that not only compliment existing applications, but solidify that Apple is intent on being the one stop shop for professionals in a wide range of fields is their speciality.
Photoshop is used by about 99% of Photographers; yes. But, I use it and Painter as digital painting tools more than anything. Photoshops image manipulation tools are far different than what Apple is offering here, and if you are enhancing, and editing photos for glamor photography you would never be satisfied by Aperture alone.
As I see it Aperture is absolutely a must have for many professional photographers, but is not doing the same type of work as your existing applications by Adobe.
I'm totally floored by it, and can't wait. I'm not only buying a new PowerMac. I'm getting Aperture, and a new digital Camera to compliment it. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Quoth_the_Raven]

"I don't think Apple wants to do anything to tick Adobe off."
Adobe has been doing its share of ticking off Apple lately and, personally, I don't think Adobe is going to want to irritate a group of its best customers at this point.
We'll see if you're right once Aperture takes off and features are added that give photographers a better alternative to Photocrap.

[lolex]

"If anything Apple just put another exclamation point on how well they know what the Professional wants, and proved they are committed to the serious professional."
I totally agree. Comparing this app to Photoshop is just ridiculous, because PS serves as a primary tool of use for ANY graphics-enthusiast, while Aperture is made SPECIFICALLY for photographers. As you can learn from Apple's website, it's an application made with photographers in mind. Read it again: PHOTOGRAPHERS, not graphic designers, painters, retouchers etc. It makes a big difference. For example: if tou are an experienced pro photographer (especially the one making switch to digital), then you don't have to play with your pictures extensively. You just need to review them, crop (if needed) and make some small adjustments of exposure, colors and sharpness (if needed), maybe some micro-retouching. That's all. So Photoshop is the greatest app for creative users, the ones focused not only on the photographic process, but on the thing called "digital art". I know a lot of pro photographers, accustomed to traditional techniques and they are just frightened when they see Photoshop's interface for the first time; they just don't know what to do with their pictures, so impressive is the list of possible things you CAN do with your pictures. And Apple's Aperture is very different from that, as it serves as a true digital darkroom - with this app, you don't play with pictures, you just process them digitally. And this processing is faster and more straightforward than with Photoshop. You just have much less to learn. And that's why I, as a photographer, like it. I'm focused on what I can get from my camera, not on what a computer application has to offer. So I will use Aperture to digitally process my pictures and Photoshop to create digital works of art based on my pictures. Simple, isn't it?
Sorry for such a long post /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
lolex

[skbrn16]

Especially when one considers the system requirements this new program requires. Clearly it is aimed at the pro market, users with the latest machines, (close to) maxed out. Photoshop, on the other hand, works on Macs that are older than a few months.
Apature looks interesting, and I hope it does well for Apple, but it would be very premature to consider it a Photoshop killer.
S.K. Brown

[cmykev]

Definitely NOT a PhotoShop killer. It fills a very specific need among professional photographers. Mainly to improve workflow. PhotoShop, while it has the word "photo" right in it's name, can be something of a misnomer. The reach of PhotoShop, as a creative tool, goes so far beyond just photography, that it's strikes me as silly that someone would think it's only use would be for photographers. Of course there are tools for exposure, color, burning/dodging, you name it... but they all take a seat on par with the rest of PhotoShop's arsenal. With Aperture, these kinds of tools are front and center, because, that's all there is. And that's all there needs to be for what Aperture is trying to achieve. PhotoShop, on the other hand, is a mega-tool. It can be anything to everybody. I'm a graphic designer and it is indispensable. And I imagine, it will still be indispensable for photographers as well. Apple's positioning Aperture to fill a certain gap. Period. PhotoShop, is still the tool of choice for many creative professionals... and I think it will remain so for a very long time, and for very good reason.
And calling it PhotoCrap shows not only your immaturity, but your ignorance as well.

[djacopille]

It's surprising to me how few people, including supposed anaylists, seem to even be aware of Adobe Bridge - at least they don't mention it. Aperture looks, in effect, almost identical to Bridge and I had to watch all the videos on the Apple site before a started really seeing the unique features Aperture has to offer. Comparing it to Photoshop is rediculous - but since it targets Bridge directly I'm not so sure it's a shot across the bow.
Quite frankly I'm not sure this program is worth $500 if you already have Bridge - the Bridge works pretty good. Furthermore, Apple has a history of releasing software into established genres with a large dose of interface innovation but an inexplicable lack of attention to important but less sexy features that you need as a professional. As a professional photographer I tried to use iPhoto and it just didn't work for me. Keynote - I love this app but sometimes it drives me crazy that it can't do some things that I might consider basic PowerPoint.

[minderbinder]

"As a professional photographer I tried to use iPhoto"
Sounds like that was your first mistake.
I also don't recommend TextEdit for professional authors.

[EpaAmigo]

In reply to:

---

I also don't recommend TextEdit for professional authors.

---

No, no, use LaTeX instead. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif