[Macworld]

Post your comments for PMA notes: Whither Aperture? here

[Graeme_Smith]

I agree, Aperture is good but definitely not a holy graila?| Bit disappointing that version 2 isn't ready yet. It sure is taking them a long - hopefully that points to lots of new features!

[snapjack2]

I wonder how many people have on the Aperture team? 1 maybe 2? It's not like they don't have the money to continue developing Aperture. I can only hope that the length of the development cycle will bring about a great product. If it comes out and is just a cursory update then we will know that the end is near.

[linkerjpatrick]

Take this for what it's worth. I'm a photographer and I've been both Aperture and Lightroom in action. I have downloaded the trial version. Between the two the Lightroom application has a workflow has a flow that fits in more with my work.
That being said I have been able to get by with Adobe Bridge for things like image comparisons and other multi file operations.
If someone gave me a copy of either application I would love it but I can't really justify the price for the work I do. As far as file viewing Leopard with it's quick look feature is making the option of considering Aperture even less compelling.
since I am doing work that Aperture is designed for I'd love to try it again but I can't test it anymore since I went past the period some time ago.

[leary]

The problem is even more palpable in the Aperture forums. So much so, that Apple's Joe Shorr posted a reply yesterday (gasp!!) reassuring everyone that they were taking the app seriously and a new version would be out soon with very exciting features - as well as support for Nikon's D300 and D3 which is still not available months after shipping.
A lot of uproar these days with many photographers being forced to jump ship just to use their new equipment (Adobe has been supporting these same models for awhile apparently).
I think the upgrade wasn't supposed to take this long: the Aperture library's built-in smart folders stop at 2007!
Hopefully the new version will blow us away. Here's hoping.

[leicaman]

The Adobe D3 and D300 updates just arrived recently. So it's not like Aperture is far behind - yet. Adobe sometimes takes their sweet time supporting new cameras as well.

Be that as it may, I mostly use Lightroom, but only for some things. I still do heavy-lifting in terms of color correction and tonal balance in Bridge. It's simply faster at doing large numbers of photos fast. (Using Bruce Fraser's techniques.)

Aperture needs to address several points. One is curves. They need curves. A fancy levels ignores the reality of how us professional photographers have been working in Photoshop for years. Photoshop CS3 has new curves that are even better, putting Aperture even farther behind. (Not to mention the new items clarity an vibrance that Lightroom and Photoshop/Bridge share).

The other thing Aperture needs to address, and is the main reason I stopped using it at work and going with Lightroom, is metadata handling and portability. I need to be able to write the metadata in Aperture and see it in Bridge, Photoshop and Extensis Portfolio. Apple needs to make movement of metadata amongst applications transparent or they will fail. Period. End of story. An editorial photographer's lifeblood is metadata. And if it's a pain, because you have to add it multiple times, or go through major contortions to make it move from one application to the other, then it's end of story for the new kid.

I love the way you can compare and edit photos in Aperture. Far better than in Lightroom which is far better than Bridge. But that's secondary to the actual work that needs to be done. Apple needs to listen to its users if they want this application to succeed. They will not repeat the success of FinalCut Pro taking over an industry if they don't listen to that industry's practitioners.

[dreyfus]

"However, in talking with photographers who've used it, they say it's not a great product, and that's what they need."

Since Aperture was released we have processed over 850,000 images through it and it has proven to be best available solution for handling large volume shooting, beating everything else by quite some margin. The RAW conversion quality for most camera models is great, there seem to be some problems with the Canon 1D MkIII though.

Of course an update bringing at least better noise reduction, a bit more speed and maybe a plug-in architecture for external filters (PS compatible if somehow possible) would be welcome - if this takes another few months or not, is not really critical.

What is critical is 1) the stupid decision to tie in a pro software tool's foundation (RAW support) with OS updates, making support for new cameras far too slow; and 2) Apple's total lack of communication with the users - it is one thing to be secretive about the next iPod or shiny mirror iMac, these are toys and no living depends on them, professional software is vital for the users and while I dislike Adobe a lot (CS3 rock-solid? You must be kidding - they have still not solved all printing bugs.) - communication is something Apple could learn from them.
Message was edited by: dreyfus / typos

[garyi]

I own Aperture and use it all the time. I am not a professional in any sense of the word.
The main issue I have is speed. I have given up trying to add data to search on, its just pointless. Simply clicking a smart search is like running through treacle.

[jabbo]

Aperture has the potential to be the Holy Grail for pro photographers. I think Apple has laid the foundation for the most useful app for anyone who's business is photography and has not already invested heavily into a different workflow. However, it is not looking looking so well in light of the fact Apple hasn't made much needed improvements and has not done a good job of communicating with its user base.
I use it heavily and am well aware of the shortcomings and have been able to overlook most of them since it is just a version 1.5 app. But it has been a long time since an upgrade and some of my consulting clients are beginning to balk at continued use of it and many are wondering why I recommended it over Lightroom. I really don't want to go back to using three different applications and I would like to avoid recommending Lightroom. Come on Apple help us here.

[rnb2]

I'm not a pro, but Aperture is, by far, best suited to how I work. To say that I despise working on photos in Photoshop/Bridge would be an understatement, and Lightroom is too modal for my liking. The features that really put Aperture over the top for me, though, are its integration into the Mac OS, and multiple monitor support - without the latter, Lightroom is a complete non-starter for me, regardless of anything else they throw in.
All that said, an upgrade is clearly overdue. I live with the speed issues on a 17" Core Duo iMac, and it's worth it for the benefits Aperture gives, but anything that could give it a boost would be welcome. Also, as others have mentioned, better noise reduction would be welcome, but the real killer feature would be an implementation of U Point technology for local corrections. Photoshop is going to get it through a $250 Nik plugin - it would be great to see such a system integrated into Aperture, since it fits so well with the way Aperture already works.

[Peter Cohen]

For me, Aperture as a retouching and editing tool is almost secondary. It's all about the metadata. :)

[cbh]

One of the things that has kept me from using Aperture more is it's ludicrously sluglike behaviour on my G5 2.5 dual processor machine (3 gigs memory) when adjusting images, particularly when you compare it to Photoshop CS3. That, and Apple's leisurely approach to updates for newer cameras have left Aperture sitting, dusty, on my virtual shelf.

[John Carr]

Aperture's release was more typical of a MSFT product: They got something out the door before Adobe, but it wasn't ready for prime time. Bad press nearly killed it. It seems to never have quite recovered. Since Aperture was developed completely in-house, unlike FCP, it reflects - suffers from - Apple's corporate oddities: Occasionally Apple will solicit feedback, but their usual procedure is to tell you what you want rather than ask. The obsessive secrecy does not work well with business clients. Apple's lack of commitment to photography is shown by its software's hoarding of metadata, and lack of support for new RAW formats after more than two months. Whether they can overcome corporate culture and make this a viable product remains to be seen.

[muchomac]

I tried Aperture once but at this point won't be converting due to the Microsoft Vista like performance. I understand the workflow is different vs Lightroom but I expected similar performance. Why is this app so slow compared to Lightroom - I'm running a new iMac 4GB RAM and MBP, surely, it shouldnt require a MacPro to run well? Lightroom is much faster given the same hardware platform but both are too 1.0 to give pro photographers an efficient platform. Look at all the Adobe Lightroom forums and the only people championing Lightroom are the Adobe friends (beta testers) - every time a pro photographer gives a critical review of Lightroom they get jumped on by all the Adobe fanboys and friends of Adboe. You'd think they criticizing Apple! I'm not surprised that pro photogs at PMA are turning their back on Lightroom and Aperture and sticking with tried and true PS3.