 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / September 2006Apple Aperture
A while ago I began testing adobe lighthouse and I was impressed. Then I came to realize that it was soo slow that Picasa was a thousand times better, even without all the RAW development features (I use photoshop for that). I was looking at the apple aperture website, and I liked it. What do you think of it? How fast to browse pictures compared to lighthouse and picasa? And the ultimate question... do you know if they plan to release a windows version? Cheers Padu > A while ago I began testing adobe lighthouse and I was impressed. Then I > came to realize that it was soo slow that Picasa was a thousand times [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > And the ultimate question... do you know if they plan to release a windows > version? I'd put the chances of Apple releasing Aperture on Windows extremely low. It won't happen. The software is great, and I might even like it a bit more than Lightroom, but its RAW output isn't (in my experience) as clean as Lightroom, so I use Lightroom. On my machine (a two-year old dual processor G5, 2GB of RAM) it is rather speedy, but then again so is Lightroom, so I don't know if that tells you anything new. Will > > A while ago I began testing adobe lighthouse and I was impressed. Then I > > came to realize that it was soo slow that Picasa was a thousand times [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > RAM) it is rather speedy, but then again so is Lightroom, so I don't know > if that tells you anything new. Aperture is out of the running for me because it requires you to organize your image files in a certain way. It 'imports' them into its own file structure, much like iPhoto. > Aperture is out of the running for me because it requires you to > organize your image files in a certain way. It 'imports' them into its > own file structure, much like iPhoto. Yes and no. It does import them into its own file structure, but it is not at all like iPhoto, which actually uses a normal folder structure and which creates duplicate files for every edit. Aperture maintains only one master file, unless it is exported to an external editor, and then it creates only one copy and keeps track of all the edits in a separate file. You can organize your photos within Aperture any way you like. That said, Aperture insists that all photos be kept in a single library on a single disk; no spreading photos around on different disks. You can create additional Aperture libraries, but you have to change the library location in Preferences and restart Aperture. This is the single biggest issue I have with Aperture, but I have lots of lesser ones as well... > > Aperture is out of the running for me because it requires you to > > organize your image files in a certain way. It 'imports' them into its [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > and which creates duplicate files for every edit. Aperture maintains > only one master file, No, it maintains a master *package,* which is actually a directory that looks like a file in the Finder. It's an important distinction. If you right-click on the Aperture 'document' and select 'Show Package Contents,' you'll be able to browse the package's subdirectories. > unless it is exported to an external editor, and then it creates only one > copy and keeps track of all the edits in a separate file. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > location in Preferences and restart Aperture. This is the single biggest > issue I have with Aperture, but I have lots of lesser ones as well... This is exactly the problem I have with it. It's supposed to be for professionals, but then dictates that all your images be in a certain place on a single mounted volume. Dealbreaker for me. > > > Aperture is out of the running for me because it requires you to > > > organize your image files in a certain way. It 'imports' them into its [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > right-click on the Aperture 'document' and select 'Show Package > Contents,' you'll be able to browse the package's subdirectories. That is true, and some other photo organizers will even read it. Extensis seems to be able to, for example. But iPhoto, at least, kept its files in ordinary, readily accessible folders. No doubt Apple did it this way to make it easier to maintain change information and organize stacks. Monkeying around too much with the library would no doubt screw up its database. > A while ago I began testing adobe lighthouse and I was impressed. Then I > came to realize that it was soo slow that Picasa was a thousand times [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > And the ultimate question... do you know if they plan to release a windows > version? Apple is unlikely to release a Windows version. On the other hand, you can get a Mac that runs Windows, if you want. Aperture is not faster than Lightroom. It is faster than iView. Nevertheless, I use iView because it is a lot more flexible and allows me to store files on external drives. This is important to me, because I use a G4 PowerBook which has only a 100Gb hard drive. I could easily fill all the available space on this drive in a very short time. There is a Windows version of iView. You might give it a try. Maybe it runs faster in Windows. Lightroom still appears to have many features that have not been implemented yet. This program might be more interesting when it is released. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.