FYI: Apple axes Aperture dev team

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by burnsdavidj, Apr 27, 2006.

  1. burnsdavidj

    burnsdavidj Guest

    Article link and commentary on Slashdot:

    Price drop from $499 to $299 (I'm assuming USD). There is some
    speculation on how bad the code is, although this is the first I've
    read of it.

    As a Wintel user, anyone want to share their experiences with Aperture?
    If the product is discontinued is it a great loss, or does is it not
    really necessary? I suspect you have all the bases covered between
    Photoshop and Breezebrowser...
    burnsdavidj, Apr 27, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. burnsdavidj

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    It's a worthless piece of garbage. With a nice GUI.
    Jeremy Nixon, Apr 27, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. burnsdavidj

    Randy Howard Guest

    (in article
    Lightroom is a very nice upgrade from Aperture, so no worries.
    Randy Howard, Apr 27, 2006
  4. burnsdavidj

    burnsdavidj Guest

    Don't hold back -- tell me how you really feell! LOL.

    Funny you mention the GUI...alot of users apparently were complaining
    that the Ap. gui goes out of its way to break the Mac gui in terms of
    customary function placement, layout etc.

    I gather the beta for Lightroom performs and functions better than
    Aperture 1.1, which is why i asked.
    burnsdavidj, Apr 27, 2006
  5. burnsdavidj

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    What I posted was actually the "cleaned up" version.
    Oh, it does. But the UI is really quite nice anyway. It has a few things
    in there that are great ideas no one else seems to have thought of for
    some reason. Like the zoom tool that goes from "fit to screen" to "100%"
    and then back with a single click, since that's what you want to do when
    zooming almost all the time anyway.
    Yes, Lightroom is kind of a "better Aperture". I haven't had much chance
    to really dig into Lightroom, though, since unfortunately it doesn't
    recognize adjustments made in Camera Raw, or vice-versa, despite using
    the Camera Raw code for conversion. I'd really prefer Lightroom if I
    could tell it "no, really, I don't want to do any adjustments or anything
    here, just let me use it for organization and such" and let me just use
    Camera Raw itself for all the adjustment work. The Lightroom UI for
    image adjustment leaves a lot to be desired compared with Camera Raw.

    But Aperture has the same problem, multiplied tenfold: it wants you to use
    it for raw conversion, at which it really sucks. The 1.1 update seems to
    be a bit better, though.

    I have a dream that my children will live in a world where photography
    software will work together with other photography software, rather than
    insisting on putting up a Chinese wall between itself and anything else
    you might care to use.
    Jeremy Nixon, Apr 27, 2006
  6. burnsdavidj

    RichA Guest

    Toooo baaaaaaad. Nice to see Apple shoot itself in the foot.
    RichA, Apr 27, 2006
  7. I've been using Ligthroom and like it but saw no advantage that
    Aperture had over PhotoShop CS2.

    "I have been a witness, and these pictures are
    my testimony. The events I have recorded should
    not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

    -James Nachtwey-
    John A. Stovall, Apr 28, 2006
  8. That's my initial impression, but as I use it a bit more, I am wondering
    if it won't be just fine for most of my work flow.

    Is the conversion different from ACR? (Aside from the interface) In
    other words, could one achieve the same results with adjustments if one
    had a good command of both interfaces?
    John McWilliams, Apr 28, 2006
  9. burnsdavidj

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    My understanding is that Lightroom uses Camera Raw for conversion (the code,
    not by using the actual plug-in), so the results should be the same and there
    should be no reason the settings won't translate back and forth as stored in
    the XMP data in the Camera Raw namespace. Indeed, Adobe has said that not
    recognizing the Camera Raw settings was a limitation of the initial beta and
    considered a bug, but then the second release still won't do it, so I really
    don't know what's going on.

    It looks like a nice program, but if it can't see the Camera Raw settings in
    my DNG files it's really of no use to me. And if Camera Raw can't see the
    conversion settings from Lightroom, it's also of no use, since my scripts
    to generate JPEGs and the like won't work with Lightroom conversions. Add
    to that the fact that I find the Lightroom conversion UI to be not so good
    (the controls are hard to work precisely, for example) and I just can't dig
    in and really use the thing, even as a beta-test.
    Jeremy Nixon, Apr 28, 2006
  10. burnsdavidj

    cjcampbell Guest

    I doubt it will be terribly missed, although I personally will continue
    to use it at least until I get home and can change to something else.

    The trouble with Aperture was it did not do any one thing better than
    any other program was able to do. Its real competition was not with
    Photoshop or other editors, but with other photo organization software,
    Bibble, and the like. And Aperture was no competition for any of those.

    On top of it, Aperture really was buggy, although most of those seem to
    be fixed now. It is still too slow and there is no good reason for it
    to be that slow.

    Apple still might not kill the program. They could do like Microsoft
    did with their lame spreadsheet program and simply give it a complet
    re-write, releasing it with a new name. Or maybe Aperture is yet
    another daring experiment that failed, like Microsoft's "Bob," IBM's
    OS/2, or Apple's own Newton.
    cjcampbell, Apr 28, 2006
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.