- topics
- diode | studio
- laroquephoto
- music
- stock archive
- search
-
Quick Recap
When Apple unveiled Aperture in 2005, the photography landscape was in dire need of consolidation: the digital workflow was a hodge podge of various solutions combining RAW converters, editing software and asset management applications. Working with RAW files was unwieldy, involving conversions and file multiplication if you needed different versions of the same picture. In a word, it was a mess. So it’s no surprise Aperture was greeted with a pretty high degree of excitement from the community. Unfortunately, version 1.0 suffered from several architectural problems which, combined with performance issues, marred an otherwise brilliant idea. As is often the case, execution proved difficult.
But Apple listened and quickly updated the app with several free updates that not only squashed bugs, but also added major features – a sign that they were serious about the photography market. In less than a year Aperture went from 1.0 to the greatly enhanced 1.5, a version that felt more like a new version than a point upgrade. They also lowered the price and offered a rebate to early adopters.
Soon after the 1.5 release, Adobe offered a mac-only free beta of Lightroom seen by many as a reaction to Aperture. Clearly, the race was on.
The free beta release by Adobe was an odd move that showed a certain nervousness on their part. In fact, the free beta felt more like an alpha when first released. But Adobe’s public offering and transparency throughout the process paid off: it kept their competitor to Aperture in the public eye, staving off the perception that they were losing their crown to Apple. It also allowed them to gain a pool of users willing to wait out the beta period in exchange for free software. With beta 3 they added support for Windows, something Apple was obviously not interested in matching. And while LR lacked the spit and polish of Aperture, it clearly had the upper hand in performance and system requirements. When Lightroom 1.0 was finally released – at the same price point as Aperture – their application was already in the hands of many Adobe faithful as well as PC users who were ready for the only equivalent solution available on their platform.
Today both Aperture and Lightroom sit at version 2. And while the relative merits of both applications can spark endless debates, LR has clearly emerged as the juggernaut in terms of adoption. Adobe has introduced features like camera presets and non-destructive localized editing that trounce Aperture’s offering. The ball is now in Apple’s camp.
A Love Affair
I have a love affair with Aperture. In fact I consider it to be a deciding factor in my decision to become a full-time photographer. I remember sitting at my computer with the Aperture demo, my pictures spread out across both screens and realizing: man, that’s all I want to be doing. So it comes as no surprise that I’m routing for Aperture to not only survive but thrive, evolve and prosper. I’ve tried LR2. It has amazing features. But I can’t stand it. And it’s not because of some deep-routed fear of change or some sort of apprehension when faced with new software – I’ve been using Photoshop for like fifteen years and have no problem whatsoever with learning applications. It just feels cramped. As if my photos are stuck in a box. Aperture makes my work look like a gallery display and for all the superficiality of that argument, it matters to me in the end. It affects both the way I perceive what I do and the enjoyment I get out of doing the work. I’m also much more at ease with its free mode workflow that allows me to jump in and out of different tasks within the same environment.
But Aperture 3 has to seriously rock.
What now?
I’ve stated many times how I believe Aperture 3 will be dependent on Snow Leopard’s radical new technologies. While many only see the upcoming OS as a mere refinement to Leopard, I see it as a sea change and a foundation for the next jump ahead in OS X software. I think Aperture 3 should be a flagship application. No, scrap that: I think it NEEDS to be a flagship application. I’m also pretty sure Apple knows this. They read the same data we do. They know how much LR is getting entrenched.
So what do I want in AP3? Here goes:
Those are my basic wishes. Nothing earth shattering or even remotely original but getting these would make my work so much easier. Now of course there’s the dream wish: non-destructivre workflow and versioning when using plug-ins, the nirvana and holy grail of wishes…
Which features on that list am I expecting? 1 and 2. In fact, in spite of my undying love for this app I don’t think Aperture could survive another cycle without some implementation of those two features. And no, Faces wouldn’t make up for it.
What do you think?
Hi Patrick. Good synopsis. I agree that Aperture was a game changing program. I’ve pre-ordered Snow Leopard…hopefully we’ll be pleasantly surprised with Aperture 3 around the corner. My main concern is whether Apple is interested in investing in Aperture now that Adobe has taken the strong lead with Lightroom
I use it from a librarians point of view so I really like the metadata options, but would like more complex ways to do boolean searches. I know there is an add-on for this, but be nice if it were built in, getting on to add-ons Aperture needs to be more open for developers there a lot that it can’t do like to export different formats at once to displaying an add-on as an icon in the menu bar at the top, a lot of restrictions.
Vaults needs to be replaced with TimeMachine compatibility and Spotlight integration would be nice, speed increases and bug squashes too. I also hate importing PDFs, so filters need to be present for that.
I’d also like to work on the same image from two computers.
Steve:
It’s not in Apple’s nature to retreat in the face of steep competition (Avid anyone?) so I’m not really affraid of them abandoning Aperture, given how natural this market should be to them. The simmering Adobe rivalry should help too…
I’m also waiting for my pre-ordered copy of SL. Curious to see if it changes anything with AP – especially with the new 2.1.4 update that just came out and weighs in at over 200mb (essentially the whole application). I don’t think any major benefits will appear until Aperture 3 though.
Samuel:
Aperture actually seems pretty open given that there are plugin APIs for pretty much everything (export, edit, etc). And the advantage of Vaults over TM is that you can have more than one backup, on more than one drive. I do agree that TM support should follow in iPhoto’s footsteps for those who prefer that method.
That said, I gave LR2 another whirl this week and almost ended up recusing myself. Almost. I even started thinking about a way to use both applications. But I took a deep breath, went back to Aperture with the same picture and decided to wait and see what AP3 will bring. Things I absolutely love about LR that gave me pause:
- Painting with exposure, brightness etc: I’ve said it before but after exploring this a bit more I really don’t see how Apple will get away with a new version that doesn’t implement this in some way. Non-destructive local editing of a RAW file is beyond needed. There’s a very real difference between editing exposure on a RAW file and a TIFF file. The TIFF file has lost data upon creation. You can’t get highlights back from a TIFF file, Same goes for shadows. And everything else.
- Printing: it’s a little clunky, but LR’s print module is way more versatile and includes a lot of features geared towards pro photographers. Not Vincent Laforet level pros. Just normal working pros that need print packages and other everyday options.
- History: This is awesome. On top of the non-destructive local editing you get a full persistent history for each of your pictures. It’s a massive advantage over Aperture.
But: I still hate the interface. I hate the modules. I hate the import process and the library. I’m not thrilled about it’s raw decoding. Bottom line, I don’t want to have to switch!
Excellent article. It’s a bit depressing how little talk there is about Aperture on the internet; besides your article, there doesn’t seem much smart, well-written commentary on the future of Aperture. It’s one thing to be criticized, something much worse to be forgotten.
Having moved myself from Aperture to Lightroom, I can say Aperture 3 is really going to have to be something special to draw users back. Of the 8 items you’ve posted, and lets add history as #9, Aperture needs 7 of those just to get to feature parity with Lightroom (which has its own speed and bug problems — hello memory leak!). And let’s not forget that Aperture will never integrate as well with Photoshop as Lightroom does. So yes, If they want to really play in this market, they’ll need non-destructive local edits. Some form of presets and history too, but I think they’ll have a different take on it than Adobe, and probably a good chunk of the other features you and other users have clamoured for: curves, better vignetting controls, chromatic aberration tools, and keyword hierarchies.
But they’ll also need a headline new feature, something to point to as demonstrably superior to Lightroom. My guess is that’ll be your #4: speed. The timeline’s right, Aperture 2 was released in early 2008, a few months before Snow Leopard was announced. Like you point out, Aperture’s a natural fit for the market Apple serves. It’s also a perfect marquee product to showcase what their OS and its underlying technologies can do. So I’ll bet Aperture 3 has been re-written to be and take advantage of 3 of Snow Leopard’s headline features: 64 bit, Grand Central Dispatch (parallel computing) and Open CL (GPU acceleration). It’s a pretty good sales pitch if Aperture can adjust images in a fraction of the time of Lightroom, or perform imports, exports, preview generation, etc., all while remaining perfectly responsive. Both programs have struggled with sluggishness; fully taking advantage of Snow Leopard’s technologies would be a major step up.
Apple also needs something to counter Lightroom’s entrenched market share. With the size of people’s library and the work that’s gone into keywording and adjustment, it’s no mean feat to switch. So if they’re feeling truly ambitious, I think they’ll need some automated way of pulling / converting the Lightroom library — keywords, metadata and adjustments — into Aperture. Still, that might not be technically or legally feasible.
Cheers
Whitney:
Your assessment is very much in line with my own. The difference being that I haven’t jumped the fence yet, very much due to the very fact that you described with regards to investment in keywording and adjustments (along with the other points I mentioned). You’re absolutely right: Aperture 3 needs to go beyond LR with a killer feature, not just achieve parity. There’s been hints here and there from people privy to Apple’s plans (Derrick Story among others) that Aperture is alive and well. Let’s hope it’s not just alive but seriously kicking…
I was quite happy to find out that this blog was the number one hit when searching for Aperture 3 on Google. But to be honest, in the grand scheme of things it’s also a little depressing for the app itself. I’m almost looking forward to be bumped off my position ;-)
I think it’s crazy that Apple still insist on being so tightlipped as to upcoming releases. It’s understandable that new features need to be kept under wraps from the competition but for all we know Aperture 3 may never materialize. Maybe they’re done with pro photographers. Unlikely of course but for everyday in the dark Adobe gets another customer. I’ve used Aperture from the first day of release and The same goes for Aperture 2 but there are bugs galore and they need fixing! Apple, just give us a clue, please.
Aquanautilus:
You know, I’ve never had much of a problem with Apple’sculture of secrecy and thought people were a bit too quick at declaring the death of Aperture just before version 2 appeared. But I now have to agree with you that, given the current circumstances and LR’s momentum, it’s simply a bad strategy. As many have said, an application geared towards professionnals demands a different approach than something like iMovie. Our livelyhood depends on this piece of software and while I don’t need an ongoing blog describing every detail of a future version, It would be nice to at least know that certain important features are on the agenda. Otherwise the feeling of backing the wrong horse increases as the months go by.
A few weeks before AP2 was released Apple had the common sense to let Joe Shorr come on the boards and reassure the community. It was highly out of character for them to do so but I believe it helped a lot. It showed Apple valued the photographer community. It also gave Aperture a human face. Right now, a lot of us are feeling abandoned and growing more impatient with every new Lightroom forum, dedicated website or tutorial.
I know Aperture 3 is coming. But the question of “when” is becoming crucial. When a guy like me starts taking increasing glances at LR – let’s just say it’s getting passed bedtime.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by DonRabideau and Alari Kannus, Paul Inskip. Paul Inskip said: RT @DonRabideau: interesting article regarding the possibilities of aperture 3 http://diode.tv/blog/ http://bit.ly/3uAB47 #apple #aperture3 [...]
[...] manner. Does this allow for real-world performance boosts? Probably depends on the application. Aperture 3 could use that quite well dontcha think? C’mon Apple, might as well take all my [...]
I’m a pro-am kind of photographer guy, and I had a similar reaction to using Aperture. It just *feels* better. I have friends using LR2 that love it and there are a number of features that make it attractive, but somehow I can’t bring myself to do it. I think Apple is walking a fine line – I wouldn’t want to annoy Adobe if I were them! – but I am confident they can do it. Feature parity in terms of editing? I don’t think they can do that. Speed, ease of use in terms of importing, tagging, managing my libraries/files. Presets are a must, the one thing I didn’t see here is an easy backup strategy. I’d like to see a one touch archive function that will send projects to an offline library on DVD or external drive, and clean up my drive. Aperture is an amazing product, I still can’t bring myself to go back to LR, and with the plugins I’ve invested in I am sticking it out for Aperture 3, come on Apple make it happen!
Chris:
Totally forgot about backup even though it’s been annoying me for a long time. I’ve never understood how convoluted backing up to optical media is in Aperture when iPhoto nails it so perfectly. We all know optical isn’t a final solution but it seems to me it should at least be offered.
I’m with you regarding plugin investment – although most allow for Lightroom use as well (shiver).
Now that we have the killer machine, can we please get the software to go with it?
LR3 is out!
Ok, now it’s just sad. Just went through the release notes and I’m off to download the beta…
Now funny thing.
We all can have our own tastes.
But EXACTLY what drives most people here to Aperture, drives me exactly to Lightroom.
When its said that files look “cramped” in a box in Aperture, when things look primitive / limited – that’s exactly how I feel about Aperture.
I tried : I did.
In Aperture 1.0 was the speed that was killing me. LR was a breeze compared to AP 1.0 and honestly, I had a decent Mac but Aperture was just damn slow.
Then in Aperture 2.0 I bough a couple of books, read lots of tutorials but everything feels alien and not well thought – Lightroom is so clean and easy to follow through – ok ok, I might be biased and been using LR after LR.
But still Aperture seems to have control over my pictures where in LR I have it – fast, easy, simple.
In the end, LR3 is out but I cant feel that I want to try a new Aperture : LR3 offers very little improvements over LR2, at least I can see.
Big showcase is the FLiCKR and such export plugin.
Wow.
Yawn….
What I love about Lightroom is that I can tweak the image much more creatively and no matter how hard I try, in Aperture is much more cynical, much more “realistic”.
I can create ( and did, well , at least I think I did ) a look of my own – which is easy to archive in LR. Couldn’t ever do it in Aperture.
I understand that working pro’s like Aperture more for this reason only.
Well me ? Amateur, so I try to look at my photos a bit more creatively.
But give me that in Aperture ( oh and by the way a decent raw engine that doesnt turn my Leica M8 files into moire soup ) and I’ll promiss to give Aperture a good try.
In Aperture 3 :)
Proença:
This just shows how subjective our affinities to a certain app or workflow can be. When you say “Aperture seems to have control over my pictures” I scratch my head: I feel exactly the same way about LR!
So in the end it comes down to what works for you.
Let me just say though that I can’t really agree with your statement that Aperture doesn’t allow for creative images and is more geared towards “realistic”. I think it’s just a question of knowing how to use the tools. Discounting for a moment plugins and external editors (which I don’t because they’re part of my Aperture ecosystem), it’s quite possible to create pretty intense post-production looks with the built-in bricks.
Photographer Mark Newton described Aperture as central command, allowing him to manage his images in one location, under one interface while interacting with Photoshop or various plugin suites (he uses Nik as well). That’s how I see it too, which is why I’m not asking for it to do everything under the sun. Yes it means added costs but this is my job – par for the course.
I agree with you about presets though. It’s not a make or break feature for me but it would indeed be nice. I’m guessing it’ll be part of V3.
Why does no one mention better noise reduction? What AP calls noise reduction is NOT noise reduction; it’s a blurring tool.
I’m working on my patience skills waiting for v3.
You all said it best saying that lightroom feels like being stuck in a box. In AP, I rate/reject images and then edit solely on full screen mode. This can’t be beat.
Ryan:
I didn’t mention NR because I use Dfine. But you’re right, AP’s noise reduction is seriously lacking. What’s even more lacking in my mind is the NR that’s part of the RAW decoding, at least on my D300. High ISO images decoded in Aperture are much more noisy in my experience than with other apps, including LR. Especially in the reds.
I still can’t believe LR3 doesn’t include some sort of UI overhaul. If anything it’s actually worse than before.
I also agree that Patrick is pretty much on the money with his wish list. Local non-destructive dodge and burn and overall application speed are important to me. Also, RAW rendering needs improvement. I would characterize RAW rendering from my Nikon D90 as variable. Sometimes it’s fair and sometimes horrible, but never excellent.
One feature not discussed is integration with Mobile Me web services. The service offers the great advantage of automatic web updates when images are modified in Aperture. Unfortunately, Mobile Me currently has a number of problems including loss of image sharpness during upload and slow upload speeds.
One last feature that really needs work is Keyword management. I find application of keywords to images fast and efficient, but keyword removal seems clumsy and counter intuitive, especially from a group of images.
Still nothing?! C’mon Apple throw us a bone. I wish I could qualify exactly why I like Aperture better – LR certainly has some attractive features, but there is just something about how my pics look in aperture I dig better.