On 12/9/05 10:19 PM, in article
Xns972834733875ericvgillyahoocom@24.93.44.119, "Eric Gill"
<ericvgill@yahoo.com> wrote:

Eric:

RAW conversion is only one of its many problems.

It has a proprietary library format and you must import your RAW files into
Aperture's library. Major problem and most photographers don't like the idea
of committing their photos to this file system. Inside Aperture proprietary
library architecture each RAW image file is kept in its own folder with not
1 associated "sidecar" file but actually 4 sidecar files that contain
information associated to the image. However, these sidecar files are not
stored in a open file format standard such as .xmp which is the case with
Adobe Camera Raw but rather in a file format that is text based but doesn't
seem to conform to .xmp and to be something proprietary to Aperture.

Another major issue is that of performance. This is software created by the
same company that designs and manufactures the hardware it is meant to run
on. System specifications exclude everything but the latest and fastest
systems. For one the minimum system requirement calls for a G5 1.8 GHz
processor or faster. This excludes "all" Powerbooks. Since many
photographers working on the field use their notebooks to transfer and view
their photos until they get back to their offices and are able to work on
their desktops, Apple has made a lot of users very angry. Also those who
don't have the latest G5 along with a top notch graphics card can't use
Aperture. This also caused many users to feel left out and prevented from
using this application.

I have both a PowerMac G5 dual 2.0 GHz and a Powerbook G4 1.33 GHz. The
PowerBook is only a 1 1/2 old so I consider it to be new. The PowerMac G5 is
only 1 year old. Aperture runs so slowly on my Powerbook that it simply
isn't realistic to use it. It runs okay on my dual although it is no speed
champion. Interesting enough Photoshop CS2, Bridge and Camera Raw run plenty
fast enough on both my machines and perform very well even on the notebook.
How can this be ? How can software developed by a third party company run
better and faster than that developed by the same company that designed the
hardware it runs on ? Very bad !

I purchased Aperture because of its interface that was so appealing and some
very interesting design features. My intention was to use it as a
replacement for Camera Raw and Bridge as a data asset management tool. After
using it for transferring, selecting, renaming, sorting, processing,
assigning labels and keywords, and other tasks I would then transfer the
images to Photoshop for post processing. I was never fooled into believing
this would be a replacement for Photoshop which has been around for over a
decade and is now in its 10th version. The problem is that Aperture isn't
even good enough to replace Bridge and Camera Raw being used as a data asset
manager.

For now it is pretty much useless. The interface has been superbly designed
and it has some very innovative features any photographer would like to
have. But file management, raw conversion and performance will prevent it
from becoming wide spread. Apple has three choices: redesign and improve,
treat it as a version of iPhoto on steroids targeting the average consumer
or allow the software to die a slow death.

One thing is sure to emerge from this. Adobe is definitely going to feel the
pressure and the competition from this software with really innovative and
quite creative functions and tools. The interface is really brilliant. If
Adobe is in tune with consumers and what they want it will incorporate many
of the brilliant design and interface features of Aperture into Bridge and
develop a killer application for version CS3.

Forget Aperture for now.

Best regards,

Joseph

---

Dr. Joseph Chamberlain
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

The RAW conversion is pretty darned bad, and the app has other problems as
well.  It's a juiced-up iPhoto; it is not by any stretch of the imagination
a "professional" application, nor is it suitable in its current state for
serious amateur photographers.

I'm *really* glad I found myself a "demo" version to try out.  It's not
worth paying for.  It might be worth paying for if it were $50.  And even
then it should probably be a public beta in its current state.

As well as Nikon Capture 4.4
                 
                                         Scott Peterson

--
To succeed with the opposite sex,
tell her you are impotent;
she can't wait to disprove it.
        --Cary Grant

(554/689)