I just wrote a lengthy  post on the Aperture forum about my recent tribulations with Aperture. I thought I’d post it here. I also suggest you read the original thread if you’re interested.

I couldn’t help but smile a little when I read your post. Great coverage btw.

I smiled because I’ve just spent the past two weeks playing with the LR3 demo and going pretty much through the exact same odyssey – as well as coming to the same conclusions. In fact, your post was like a transcript of my own deep personal thoughts ;-)

I decided to thoroughly test LR3 *because* of Aperture. I needed to export a client’s session and Aperture refused to do it. Period. Kernel panics (!!!), hangs you name it: my edits were essentially trapped within the app with no way of getting them out. Since I didn’t have time to jerk around I downloaded LR3 and redid the entire session’s picks. Pretty good way to learn how to use an application fast. To my surprise, it worked. It worked well.

After the ordeal I managed to get Aperture running normally again (won’t go into details, you probably know the rebuild/preferences drill) but was now confronted with serious doubts about my choice of workflow. For the first time ever I contemplated a move to LR3.

Like you, I hate the UI. I hate the modules. I find the DAM and its entire display and philosophy ridiculous or confusing at best. But yes, the new Details brick is amazing. The Camera Calibration presets are a godsend – not a dealbreaker mind you, but seriously efficient. And the biggest advantage is still – to my surprise – speed. You get used real fast to being able to zoom into an image to check focus, NR or sharpening without having to wait 20 seconds or more. No matter how much processing you do to a photograph, zooming in and out is done in a blink. This was quite destabilizing coming from Aperture’s glacial image rendering.

So I sat down and began a series of tests. I edited all sorts of picks from my Aperture library to see where I could get with LR3 and compare. I imported the results back in AP3 to do side-by-side comparisons. Some of the results had me considering a workflow using both apps, with Aperture as the DAM and LR3 as a possible editor (sorry DLS!). I had opened Pandora’s Box.

I figured if I was going to change, might as well try what else was out there. So I downloaded Capture One. Then I downloaded CS5 (still using CS3). Capture One’s rendering was ok but didn’t do anything to sway me. CS5 was CS5 – bloated and messy. Played around with the new Context Aware Fill and realized it was nothing but a very bad Clone Tool (talk about hype). I went back to LR3 and did more testing.

With the +shiny new toy syndrome+ out of the way I began to notice kinks in LR3′s armour. It had a serious tendency to crash blacks into a weird posterized mess. My initial sense of getting better rendering was shaken by the fact that LR3 seemed inconsistent, with much depending on the type of image. I also realized how much I was missing the ability to add adjustment bricks beyond what was available in the built-in brushes.  To make a (too) long story short: I felt constrained.

Now, after over two weeks of going back and forth I’ve decided to stick with Aperture. It’s become obvious to me that LR is meant to be used along with Photoshop for anything beyond basic photo treatments. This makes perfect sense from Adobe’s business standpoint. I have nothing against Photoshop and use it all the time, but I like being able to stay within my main app.

Does LR3 sometimes do a better job? Yes. Same goes for Aperture. Does LR3′s built-in NR/sharpen and Lens Correction trump Aperture? Hell yes and I wish Apple would take notice. I’m using DFine, Sharpener Pro and PTLEns but would very much welcome not having to render TIFFs for those functions, to say nothing of the ability to go back and tweak.

But for my use Aperture is a better tool. And the good thing about all this is that in trying to replicate certain LR3 functions, I’ve found new ways of working with AP3 and have also revisited areas of my workflow.

The big caveat is still there though: Aperture 3 *needs to work*. Yesterday, after several days without any problems Aperture started crashing when applying a brushed curve to a certain picture. Just like that out of the blue. I had to repair the database – again. I lost time – again. It’s like this application has psychotic episodes. It’s just not acceptable. I send so many crash reports it’s not even funny. It’s also completely random which is even more infuriating.

So I’m like you. I’m back but with the knowledge that LR3 CAN work if Aperture fails on me. It’s not elegant, it’s cumbersome but it works.

Apple, you need to make Aperture 3 work. Every day.

For the past year – and more so these past months – the debate has been raging around Aperture and Lightroom, mainly from AP2 users who feel abandoned by Apple. The silence surrounding a new version of the application has been deafening, forcing a lot of users into the arms of Adobe for many reasons that have been discussed to death at this point. If you read this blog you know I’ll be sticking it out unless physically booted out of the Aperture camp.

There are a lot of technical reasons for my decision. I’ve mentioned them in other posts. But one thing that never seems to enter the debate is something less tangible: the fact that software can be an instrument in its own right.

flugelhorn?

I’m not talking about software as a tool mind you, but as an instrument. Like a violin, a piano or a… flugelhorn?
You see, through all my experimentation with various incarnations of Lightroom one thing has always been quite clear: I get very different results than I do with Aperture. Some of it has to do with my varying comfort level between the two apps. And some of it is purely technical, differences between RAW converters and such. But I’ve also come to believe that software – creative software – has a footprint and flow that affect the output. Software has tone.
I’m a musician. My guitar is a Fender Stratocaster. Everything about this instrument impacts what I do with it: the neck, the spacing betweens frets, how the body feels in my hands. All these design choices mould the way I use the guitar. In fact, over the years they’ve moulded the way I play guitar. I’m now convinced Aperture shapes my photography in pretty much the same way.
In the great debate between Lightroom and Aperture we seem to forget that they each have a very specific signature. The philosophical differences in design, the choice of available effects and the way they’re applied all contribute to shaping pictures in a very distinct way. In my mind they’re not instantly interchangeable, as many seem to imply. This, I think, is why I’m having such a hard time contemplating a switch. I’m not so sure I want to change oils for water-colour, Strat for SG.

the homogenous pool

Why do we feel this need for one app to rule them all? If everyone uses a brush, isn’t there a case to be made for using a palette knife? Ok, it’s not as clear cut as that. These applications can obviously be twisted and turned in ways that can make them much closer to each other in the end. Plugins are certainly an equalizer. Same goes for round-tripping to external editors.

But right now I can’t help looking at my choice of Aperture as a plus, something that puts me in a particular mindset that’s philosophically different from a Lightroom user. I see my photography in another context, I use other tools that work in other ways, I interface with my work through another window. Interface as zeitgeist so to speak. I’m not trying to delude myself into being some sort of rebel soldier either – I’m simply contemplating my choice beyond keywords, metadata and organization.

full of what?

I know, maybe I’m full of it. Just rationalizing my decision to stick with Aperture. But perhaps I’m on to something. Perhaps software design has become a much more intricate part of our creative process than we give it credit for. Perhaps it impacts our vision and field of view as well.

And perhaps I can wait a little longer.

What I DO like is the fact that they’re being totally open about the process, allowing photographers to use the new tools and decide what works for them. This makes making business decisions a lot easier than the limbo Apple currently forces us to live in.

Things I really like:

• The noise reduction and basic RAW rendering looks a lot better – way better than Aperture 2, which is a big deal.
• Local edit tools seem more fluid – and the fact that they exist at all shames Aperture 2.
• History, history, history.

Not to beat a dead horse but I still don’t see myself switching to this app unless Apple drops the ball on AP3 or leaves us in the dark for another six months. Or three.

Oh! just give us something already will you?

Some of the highlights of the new version according to Adobe Labs:

• Brand new performance architecture, building for the future of growing image libraries
• State-of-the-art noise reduction to help you perfect your high ISO shots
• Watermarking tool that helps you customize and protect your images with ease
• Portable sharable slideshows with audio—designed to give you more flexibility and impact on how you choose to share your images, you can now save and export your slideshows as videos and include audio
• Flexible customizable print package creation so your print package layouts are all your own
• Film grain simulation tool for enhancing your images to look as gritty as you want
• New import handling designed to make importing streamlined and easy
• More flexible online publishing options so you can post your images online to certain online photo sharing sites directly from inside Lightroom 3 beta (may require third-party plug-ins)*

Nothing earth-shattering but bread and butter features obviously geared to working photographers. I’ve downloaded the beta and will report back when I get a chance.

Btw, Adobe is again allowing this beta to be downloaded freely by anyone and it doesn’t expire until April 2010. I’m guessing this strategy is paying off big time.

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:

1. Non-destructive localized editing: I’ve invested a lot in Aperture. I use several plug-in packages (Nik and OnOne suites) that I believe add a lot to its basic possibilities. I have no problem relying on third-parties for these types of features any more than I have a problem using them in Photoshop – I don’t expect Aperture to give me every feature under the sun. But there is clearly a need for non-destructive localized editing. Please. I don’t want to create a TIFF file everytime I need to dodge and burn. This is basic, essential stuff.
2. RAW presets: Adobe has presets that closely emulate in-camera settings. This is essential. There’s nothing I hate more than seeing my photo thumbnails go from a great looking starting point to a ho-hum version as soon as I switch the Preview button off. Of course this will vary depending on the camera you use, but Nikon decoding is pretty off the mark, especially with blues. I know these settings are proprietary but if Adobe can get that close, Apple should get much closer as well.
3. Squash the bugs: There are a lot of annoying bugs throughout Aperture. If for instance I add pictures to an album with a custom sort, Aperture sometimes displays multiple duplicates of certain pics. The only remedy is to then sort the album by date – thereby losing the original sort order. It’s not a huge deal but before I found the solution I spent a pretty uncomfortable selection session with a client, trying to pretend nothing was wrong while pictures were multiplying before our eyes – not fun. This is one of many – failed exports, crashing and weird book creation tools are other great time wasters…
4. Speeeeed: This is obvious and yes, depends on the hardware in use. But the fact is Aperture gets slower as its database grows bigger. It’s much better in V2 but it’s still a problem. I have a library of a few gigabytes dedicated to a single client that launches in seconds and where anything I do just flies. Not so with my main library. Switching to referenced files helps (with a fast FW800 hard drive) but there’s clearly optimizing possible. I’m hoping SL helps in this regard.
5. Keyword hierarchies: I do stock photography and while the main agency I work with now does the keywording for me, I would still love being able to add multiple related keywords in one fell swoop. Anyone shooting stock needs this. Anyone looking for a quicker way to organize pictures needs this as well.
6. Sharpening on export: I get to sharpen in the print dialog, taking into account the size of the final print (as it should be). Why the hell can’t I get the same thing in the export dialog? Web exports need sharpening in relation to file size.
7. Consistent print dialog: Why does book printing use a different print dialog? The book tool is quirky but pretty useful for times when you need to do basic layouts, add text etc… But try to print and you get yet ANOTHER print dialog: no sharpening and no colorsync management – which means bad color. Huh?
8. Image presets: I use all the workarounds with Lift and Stamp but I’d really like to be able to save an entire adjustments setup – with custom preset categories if possible.

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?