Apple bets on Mac-only photo land grab with Aperture 3 Apple launched Aperture 3 via its online store yesterday, following a brief self-imposed hiatus from the interwebs that led many to speculate that the Jobsian outfit might be announcing UK prices for the iPad. Sadly, for some at least, that didn’t come to pass. Nor did the company announce any fancy new Mac kit. Instead, …
"Oh, and it’s only compatible with Intel-based Mac computers, which is probably pitching the product about right. After all, professional photographers wouldn’t be seen dead with a Windows-based machine, right?"
Err no, plenty of pro photographers are happy to use Windows based copies of Photoshop.
But to be Mac only and fully 64-bit software running under Snow Leopard, you need an Intel processor.
So if you're a Mac Pro user still using a Power PC G5, sorry, time to add some more to Mr Jobs pension fund.
This post has been deleted by its author
Man, talk about taking their press release and copying it!? I'll give you some pointers to amend the article. Ok 1. as Mo says in her comment strictly speaking Apple's Aperture competes with Adobe's Lightroom as opposed to Photoshop as it's more of an image management application than advanced editing suite.
2. You fail to mention the fact that Lightroom has seen much more frequent development and upgrades than Aperture. This is the first major update to Aperture in two years. As a result I wouldn't be too surprised if Apple has lost some of their customer base as a result.
3. A big change is the fact that Aperture is 64 bit which will no doubt made a significant difference to it's performance.
4. Another noteworthy addition to Aperture is its support for video manipulation without the need to launch iMovie or similar. This is something that Adobe hasn't added to Lightroom and neither do I think it likely they will do.
Rant over.
> Oh, and it’s only compatible with Intel-based Mac computers, which
> is probably pitching the product about right. After all, professional
> photographers wouldn’t be seen dead with a Windows-based machine, right?
I expect it'd be more accurate to believe that pro photographers wouldn't be seen dead with a PPC Mac. Or at least that's what Apple wants.
I'm not sure I get all the references to this software being "Mac only". Is this some kind of in-joke that I'm missing? As far as I'm aware, Apple have never sold software for Windows, Linux or indeed any operating system other than their own (leaving to one side, of course, the god-awful Windows versions of free software like Quicktime, iTunes and Safari).
Apple has sold a Windows version of QuickTime Pro (that's the bit where you can convert just about any media format into any other, with minimal damage, including making movies out of stills with a total of three clicks, plus some _really_ nifty stuff including its own scripting language enabling 3D movie production...) since at least version 4; I make it around 1999. Works fine under wine on Linux, BSD, whatever, too.
Damn your life must suck. I mean, what are your alternatives - WindowsMediaSlayer or WinAMP?
AMP is great if your collection is only a handful of albums, otherwise it takes DAYS [sarcastic exaggeration] to load a library, and the organisation is a mess. MediaSlayer is about as useful as a bicycle to a fish!
The thing you need to consider is that Apple have somehow managed to incorporate a genuine automated file management system in the back-end of iTunes on TOP of Windows. Microsoft, to date, haven't managed to make a file management systems half as elegant or useful INSIDE their own limping OS. Because of the limitations of the OS it runs on, iTunes suffers lag on the Windows side which you don't see in the Mac version simply because it's having to bludgeon the OS into doing things it should do OUT OF THE BOX!!!
Nonono, iTunes sucks because it sucks, not because it's running on windows or there is something better out there. iTunes sucks because installing it on a computer means finding a handful of unannounced "helper" apps running - in every log-on session on the machine, including those people who do not want iTunes, never use it and think, from watching the kid try and use it, the thing pretty much sucks b*lls. You'd think that Apple designers never considered that more than one person would be using a computer. Nah, that can't be true, can it? Not *Apple* designers, who never get it wrong.
The real suckiness of iTunes isn't really discovered when it is working as planned (revelation: That's true for just about everything, kiddies). It's when the thing gets broken due to outside events (such as a hard-drive failure) that the suckiness is thrown into harsh relief. It's when the kid asks "What about all the tunes I bought from the iTunes store? I have them on my iPod. Won't they just go back on the computer if we click something?"
Never is the fannish slavery to Apple more prevalent than with iTunes. Norton IS does the services-swamp thing and everyone wails about the end of the world, but Apple gets a free pass? WTF?
I've got it running on a Circa November 2009 MBP 15" Core2 2.53 with 4GB, with a Windows VM running at the same time in parallels, and it's FAST. Does your mac have a dedicated GPU, or just the 9400 (or older)? If the app is "bloated" and slow, perhaps it;s also something to do what what else is running on your mac.
Also, consider this is for PROFESSIONALS, and 4Gb of ram? That's not professional grade... and neither is running from a 5400RPM drive or running on one of the more budget conscious GPUs. If you think Aperture is bloated, Photoshop must suck for you...
This isn't iPhoto, it should run slower, it should feel more bloated, it;s a HELL of a lot more app.
That was a long time ago in a galaxy far away.... But they still sell FileMaker Pro for Windows and Mac and it is a fantastic database program.
But pointing out that Aperture is not for Windows is just silly. None of Apple's pro level software has been available for Windows for years.
I'll tell you what, we met about 3 dozen photographers at a convention before our wedding, and interviewed about 10 of them. One thing was simple a fact a that time, when we asked one about their equipment (cameras and computers alike), if they used a PC, whether or not they had Photoshop on it, they were immediately crossed off our list. It wasn't that cut and dry, it wasn't like the fact they didn't have a Mac got them disqualified, no. When we discovered they had a PC, we asked how they managed and edited their photos, what kind of cameras they were using, and how they integrated photos and videos into their work if they were also a videographer. Every single one that had a PC was far less professional, they pretty much just "took and cropped photos" instead of "managing and editing" photos. They also tended to have inferior equipment, only one or 2 cameras, some were even using PnS cameras as their "backup" cameras...
I've head several friends get married in the lest 5 years, and been to a lot of family weddings as well. ONE had a non-Mac owning photographer. Apple may only have 9% of the market, but they have about 75% of the photographers, and for good reason. Lightroom is a nice app, but it's just not as good at project management as Aperture. It may do a bit aperture doesn't, but any real photographer is going to use Photoshop or Gimp for more than simple cropping, editing, and basic effects. That's not Aperture's role.
Adding the ability to make projects portable, and sync them back to a larger collection later is impressive. This really should have been highlighted in the article. That's a tool real pros can really use...
If you're a pro photographer, and you try out a Mac for 90 days, you will not go back to PCs for your professional work. The same applies to videographers in most cases. Some of the best wedding videos I've seen were done on a Mac with iMovie alone by people in the wedding party, vs. professional guys who charged thousands for professional videographer services, and handed over inferior quality garbage that took days to produce on a Windows box running a multi-thousand dollar video suite. We've done whole wedding videos, taking film from as many as 6 cameras, in a matter of hours that look better.
"Lightroom is a nice app, but it's just not as good at project management as Aperture. It may do a bit aperture doesn't, but any real photographer is going to use Photoshop or Gimp for more than simple cropping, editing, and basic effects. That's not Aperture's role."
Is that so? WE've had professional family portraits donw and they came out fantastic. The photographers did use macs but used lightroom + photoshop + some sales based view/note/select type software I can't remember the name of.
Fact is I couldn't give 2 shits about what they used as I prefer to see samples of their work and so should anyone looking for a wedding photographer (they did this also). It's not the camera that makes the photo it's the person operating it. I've got a great SLR and lenses, backup SLR too, tick the boxes on the software but you wouldn't want me photographing your wedding as it's not my forte.
... Any pro photographer who uses Windows over Mac is in fact not professional, because he 'takes and crops' photos instead of 'managing and editing'. What a bunch of hooey. Listen to yourself... Jeez.
Just because not everyone pays for Lightroom (which is a nice amount of money, in fairness), and instead uses something like Photo Mechanic (which, by the way, is a pretty powerful package) and then either Adobe Bridge or Photoshop (or *gasp* *shock* *horror* Photoshop Elements) instead of Mac software, does not make them non-professional.
It's their attitudes towards photography, the photo management and editing (if they need to), that distinguishes the pros from the amateurs. And surprisingly, I've seen some work from amateurs who use your dreaded Windows over a Mac, that blows the work of some so-called professionals (with Mac, the three Canon 1Ds MkIII's, all the gubbins of the business) away. Why? Because they don't get hung up on the equipment, but rather get what photography is about - CAPTURING THE MOMENT.
"Every single one that had a PC was far less professional, they pretty much just "took and cropped photos" instead of "managing and editing" photos."
If I were hiring a photographer, I'd judge them on what the final photos were like rather than their workflow. Maybe those that "took and cropped" got it right in camera rather than spent hours trying to rescue each image in software later
That would explain why my Nikon digital SLR came with a trial version of Nikon's own editing software that ran...on Windows.
Did it occur to you that maybe your statistically insignificant sample (though having gone through the process myself I readily admit that selecting a wedding photographer is exhausting enough that ten is about the limit one could stand before calling off the ceremony) merely selected the photographers with a more pretentious approach to selling themselves?
Myself, I wouldn't sweat the hardware, I'd judge by results. That means looking at the photographs themselves - the print versions, since that's what you'll be sending to Grandma who can't work out how to use a digital frame. The trick of being a good photographer is all in what happens before the shutter is released. Everything after is just paperwork and, if you're really unlucky, salvage.
As for your video example, if you have the luxury of six cameras of course you're going to get better results than the bloke with one or two (the more usual count at the weddings I've attended over the years). The editing of such movies by professionals is typically done on turnkey, purpose-built editing machinery which may be Mac-based, may be Wintel throughout and in one case I know of is (still) Amiga-based. You can make crap movies on a Mac in exactly the same way you make them on Wintel machines - by not knowing how to compose and shoot.
But it's a free world, and if the Mac bit is important to you, go with it.
I now have to go and compose and proof-read an enterprise document, then distribute it selectively amongst the upper-mid echelons of the workforce concerning storage usage patterns with special emphasis on making best use of our multiply redundant arrays of high-speed rotational random access data storage devices. (For the windows guys: Write a memo to management about disk over-usage on the SAN).
The article is about software for the Mac that is infinitely superior to anything Nikon would give away free.
Macs can read the camera without additional software/drivers - that is why Nikon do not supply Mac-specific software.
Windows users generally would not be able to do anything with the photos with a basic Windows setup, at least on Macs it automatically imports them into iPhoto when you connect the camera.
I've had a mac. I've tried what the Cupertino fruit company funnily enough calls a support system. I'm now back on a proper computer (Thinkpad W500), running Lightroom 2, DxO Optics 6 and the Creative suite. On 64bit. With 8Gb ram and 7200rpm disk. I take somewhere around 10K photos a year (after sorting).
I suggest the MacinTrolls use some sunlight before writing any more of their mac superiority drivel.
Anon, because you know how rabid the iFanbois become.
That's probably because a) art colleges/universities tend to shove Macs into their labs because that's how it's always been done, and because they've never used anything else,
b) because they actually went to art colleges/universities who taught them the basics right,
c) everyone slavishly follows the trend of 'must have the latest, greatest, and God forbid we're seen with something that is not hip and cool'.
Art/Design/Photography courses tend to be run with the magazine industry in mind, which, as you as an art director should know, spawned the whole cottage industry of DTP = Mac. Just because 90% of you can't cope with Windows because you never learned to, does not mean the 10% who are on Windows are less capable.
Eye, post-production, in-camera (i.e. straight from the camera) stuff tends to be... well... the domain of true professionals, and I know plenty of them who would give you a run for YOUR money and YOUR talent. On WINDOWS.
:-)
"So if you're a Mac Pro user still using a Power PC G5, sorry, time to add some more to Mr Jobs pension fund."
If you are still using a G5 at this point, you are probably on the dole and not contributing to anyone's pension fund. Anyone whose time is worth money got a new machine LONG ago.
“After all, professional photographers wouldn’t be seen dead with a Windows-based machine, right?”
Well, the obvious point, supported by your readers' comments above, is that a total of about three Windows-using photographers might actually try then buy Aperture. Whereas on the Mac platform, Aperture competes pretty head-on against Lightroom and gets a share of sales.
I am a pro photographer (among other things). I use Aperture. And Photoshop. And The GIMP. Aperture, for me, personally, is better at managing projects than anything else I have tried so far. It collaborates splendidly with any pixelbender I assign. It also runs slowly on my 4-year-old iMac. It runs fine on my 2-year-old MacBook Pro. It's not designed to run on an outdated or low-to-medium spec machine; the programmers had something like a MacPro in mind when they made it.
I am also using non-Mac systems on a daily basis; the biggest oomph in my office comes from a machine running Linux. Or Windows, when I feel masochistic. I still like the way Aperture works across multiple screens a lot better than anything else, and that "anything else" includes Lightroom. Both are good at what they do; the differences are in the details, really, and if LR works for you, use it. I hate it when people deride things just because of personal preferences and ignore that others just possibly might like something else.
I prefer Aperture. So if you prefer Lightroom, good for you; stay with it.
But as a professional photographer, you could sell your work to a magazine like National Geographic (say) without a computer at all, couldn't you? After all, they want the RAW copy anyway, not the one you've tweaked and twanged, and they're going to crop-sorry-manage the end result to suit their article and the space they have available, aren't they?
I sort of thought that when it comes to photography, you either have the spark or you don't (I speak as the ultimate sparkless photographer here: the only way to get decent images from my shots is to photograph someone burning them). No amount of digital clever in the post-production is going to make or break someone with what it takes to be a professional, is it?
...the project management features. National Geographic does not, on the whole, buy a lot of pictures from me. I am a low-life; I mostly do product, event and sports photography. And almost all of my customers want their pix ready-for-print or ready-for-web. My customer list includes a nice assortment of magazines, btw, and they usually want the pix the morning after, meaning email or FTP. At 80 MB per shot, guess what? They don't bother with RAW.
Even if they wanted the full RAW data, I would still need an app to sort through which shots I am willing to let the customer see or not, and Aperture does an amazingly good job of that (so does KPhoto, btw., but that does not have the other features that make Aperture my one-stop solution for most things I can make money on. And if the customer wants RAW, the customer will get RAW. After I have sorted through the shots. Via snail mail. On a DVD.
Mine's the one with the A900 bending the coathanger.
I feel the reason you will find Apple users are better at their stuff than the equivalent PC user is the lack of apps; less faffing around with umpteen different video editors, photo manipulators and RAW file processors Plus the lack of games and that sort of distraction must improve your concentration on the task at hand.
I have seen these sort of apps (lightroom apature) run on a Mac Mini attached to huge monitors, cost is not a barrier here its a mindset
...editing photo's on the inferior TFTs apple puts in their portables. The horrible 15 bit displays that they insist on putting in to their top of the line laptops the last years can't make up for efficient software. If I have to take the stuff home to edit it on my Mac there, I'll never be able to do any pro work in the field with Apples kit, so I'm taking my chances running windows.
This post has been deleted by its author
I'm sure if you look at the numbers then, yes, relatively more professional photographers will be using Macs and more accountants using Windows. That's not to say people using Macs are inherently "better" in any way, that you can't use a Mac and still take crap photos, or that you can't use Windows and produce outstanding results. Nor does it mean you can't use a Mac to do accounts come to that. There's so much convergence between the platforms that you can do anything with any modern computer. Which you choose is just a matter of personal preference, just as which make of car you drive is. The whole debate is just a wee bit boring.
What did all these professional photographers who have to use macs before they are regarded as 'professional' do before home computers were commonplace? Did professional photography only start with the PC revolution?
Or, it it possible that even with a film SLR you can still take a good picture?
Read the comment, is the best proof that Mac users are beyond any hope.
A true Pro has skills, he/she can catch the moment, took the photo right at the moment. He/she doesn't need to spend endless hours just to fix mistakes.
I've seen some photos from "Pro" who use very expensive machines, edited with expensive software, in the end still look like crap. (just on the top, use Mac)
I've also seen the work from Pro who only use one main camera, one backup (similar) camera, using nothing more but a non Mac laptop, who produces beautiful photos almost on the spot.
If you get the photo right, maybe "took & crop" is pretty much all you need.
Myself is one of those "average Jo" who can only use point & click camera. But put some effort into it, using only the very basic digital camera, I had a few truly top quality photos. One photo I took, blow everything I got from Pro studio which I paid big price for wedding.
It is the person, not the software.
In the same post, you've accuse all mac users of being beyond hope based on a comment... then decide to preach on how it's the person, not the software that makes a professional.
I use a macbook pro for work, I'm not a photographer, I'm a programmer - the tool fitted my needs, so I bought one... ironically the decision was only marred by the whole "will people instantly accuse me of being a fanboy", but not being one to give into peer pressure or worry about what others thought of me I bought it anyway.
Oddly, I didn't instantly drool at the corner of my mouth and start trying to lick my ear over and over while farting money towards Job's general direction - no, I just adjusted to a new OS and then got on with it.
So, back on subject... I will give Aperture a try, but I doubt I will pay for it, I just like to keep an open mind.
Well, I think you had a good point about it being the person, not the tool - but why bring in operating systems?
I know plenty of people who aspire to be screenwriters who have bought Final Draft with an idea that it's going to make them better writers with little to show for this faith. Although a fair few have bought it for the Mac, most people I know who fall into this category with FD are Windows users - does this mean Windows users are more stupid? No, it just proves that quite a few people out there think they can get good at something quickly and easily just by buying the right kit.
Of course, it's not just software - wonder why one sees so many expensive golf clubs for sale second-hand?
1) Colour managed workflows are possible under Windows and Linux, not just MacOS. I use the same colourimeter for all three.
2) Aperture is somewhere between Lightroom and Bibble in its capabilities- it has more editing than Lightroom (which is really a raw converter and kickass catalogue mangement app first, and an image tweaker second). It's actually really bloody good. So is Bibble Pro, Capture One and DxO Optics Pro- one of those runs only on Windows, one runs on Mac and Windows, one runs on Mac Windows and Linux... However, that really isn't the fuggin point, get over it, bellends. It's a tool to do a job, rather than a prop to your withered ego and apparently frail sense of identity. Doesn't matter.
3) Commentards are horribly predictable. It's not necessary to go off on a huge foaming almost Richard Littlejohn quaility tirade every time Macs are mentioned, just to prove how throbbingly heterosexual you are. Most folks could tell that from the way you dress.
4) Rampant platform advocacy is generally a sign that you haven't enough experience to have worked out that everything sucks, yet.
Damn, moderating these outbreaks of twatblanketry must get really tiring.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
