Aperture 3 from Apple - Released

[DiploStrat]

Aperture uses what is described as a "wide color space." Some rumor it to be ProPhoto. In any case, it is wide enough as to make the issue irrelevant.

Obviously, you can export in any color space you want. Similarly, because of on screen profiling, you can work in any color space, or paper/printer space you want.

I export all of my JPEGS for the web in sRGB, for all of the usual reasons. I shoot RAW in the camera, so it doesn't matter. I scan my slides to the Apple Color Space, although aRGB is close.

As noted, with Aperture 3 you can use any profile or preset you want. (Aperture 2 did not have global preset.) And, as noted before, make your own; you want your Nikon to shoot Canon magenta? Just push the slider. This is not a big issue. And you can change your mind any time.

The real annoyance with AP3 is that there are still some speed/stability/printing bugs out there. None are show stoppers, but all are annoying. And all will eventually disappear. But Apple did not do a great job of QC on this product and especially underestimated the difficulties people would have updating big libraries.

 

[Lost Canadian]

So there's nothing like this for the profiles? I would have to attempt to make my own?

Edit: Note that Lightroom has two panels. I only see the one on Aperture.

 

[DiploStrat]

Tis late, but quickly:

-- From Apple, no. From Rob Boyer, others, and yourself, tons. They are called presets, not profiles, but they work the same way. Apple has a few that are not camera specific. (But Enhanced is very close to Nikon Vivid.) They can also be applied automagically during the import process. You can also change the RAW developer settings and you should be able to make your own camera default, but I hear reports that it does not save and actually become the default. I have never bothered with the RAW developer portion, seeing no real changes.

-- There are many similar hue/color/luminance/sepia, etc. bricks hidden under the "Adjustments" dropdown. You can turn them on and off at well and made the appear automatically or not, as you prefer.

Play around or watch the tutorials - Aperture 3 pretty much closed the tools gap and many would say opened a lead. As you have noted, there are still some rough edges.

Bottom line - pick whichever offers you the best workflow/ease of use - the controls and image quality are much the same.

Enjoy!

 

[Root Moose]

I installed the demo of Aperture 3 and was pretty disappointed with it. It was just as slow as iPhoto. My setup uses networked (GBe) home directory, ~25,000 photos.

I just did the update above...

it took all day practically to rebuild library but now...

MUCH BETTER!

Aperture works great now in terms of speed when navigating photos.

 

[Lost Canadian]

Ah, sorry I misunderstood. I the thought "presets" were just adjustment overlays, kinda like those special "look" presets. So, got any leads on more presets?

 

[Scott Brady]

I just started using it today. So far, so good.

 

[DiploStrat]

"Two Mints in One!"

The best source I know is Rob Boyer, whose website is crashing under the load of interest. If you look on DPReview, there is someone who is offering presets and if you look on Nikonians, there is someone selling them.

Not that hard - get your self a color card and go shoot some pictures. I haven't bothered to do this myself, but remember that all of the color sliders in AP can be set to any exact color from an image using the eyedropper. You can then expand or contract the range and then go nuts.

Shoot some RAW=JPEG pairs. Open them up side by side and then adjust the RAW until it matches the colors. At this point you are only worrying about color.

For the rest of the Nikon look, try this:

-- Brightness: I nornally leave alone, but some Portrait settings boose slightly to reduce shadows and smooth skin.
-- Contrast: One click
-- Saturation: One click (Two for prosumer or third party lenses.)
-- Definition: I ramp this up to 25, about 1/4.
-- Sharpen to taste. Watch the eyes in portraits and ramp up in landscapes to capture details of rocks, etc.

Find something you like? Save it. Not hard.

 

[DiploStrat]

I installed the demo of Aperture 3 and was pretty disappointed with it. It was just as slow as iPhoto. My setup uses networked (GBe) home directory, ~25,000 photos.

I just did the update above...

it took all day practically to rebuild library but now...

MUCH BETTER!

Aperture works great now in terms of speed when navigating photos.

I believe that 99% of the angst about moving to AP3 concerns the new database structure needed for Faces, Places, and hopefully, Time Window integration. Probably only takes 2-5 seconds to update each image, but that is a long time if you have 10+k images. Longer if you elect to reprocess all of your masters. Not an issue if you simply start with AP3 or if you create a new AP3 library and import all of your AP2 projects one at a time. The final issue is that conversion of an AP2 library is a bear if you don't have lots of free disk space. Quite by accident, I did this right as I copied my 150 GB AP2 library to a 1 TB disk, converted it to AP3, and then copied it back. Took forever to do all of this copying, but I had no crashes.

If you are comfortable using multiple drives and managing a lot (well over 10k) of images, then consider this:

-- The Aperture Library is a data base. It contains several different items, all of which are processed differently.

-- Master image files are static. They are written to disk and there after never written again; they are read only.

-- Then there are the "Versions." They are read every time look at an image to adjust it and written every time you actually move a slider. Then there are those pesky thumbnails and previews (which are always reprocessing) which are what you see when you browse the Library. (And possibly what you actually see when you edit at less than full res.)

-- Finally, there are all of the indices of the library structure (folders, albums, projects) that hold the whole mess together.

It follows then that master image files can be written out to a large, slow disk (even USB will work) as they are read only rarely and never rewritten. The rest of the Library, on the other hand, needs to be on a fast drive. And, in extreme cases, this drive may need to be defragmented regularly. (The "Rebuild" function may do this; I don't know.)

This argues for the following structure for max speed:

-- Aperture application: On the fastest reading drive you can find. Consider one of the new SSD. (Writes are slow, but you never write to the Aperture Application except when you do a software update.) But remember, after the initial opening of the application, you don't read the disk all that much - the whole application is only about 700 MB and most Macs are running at least 2 GB of RAM (laptop), 4 GB for iMacs, and MacPros should have 8 GB. So while I have read a few peans to the idea of using a SSD as your boot disk, I'm not sure it is really worth it.

-- Aperture Library: On your fastest drive. Ideally connected via eSATA or at least Firewire 800. You may want to limit what else is on this drive so that you can copy it out, reformat, and copy all of the data back every quarter or month. This is the surest, safest and best way to defragment the drive. While all of your editing may be done in RAM, this disk IS being written all of the time.

-- Aperture Images: Set up as "Referenced" Image on the previously mentioned slower drive. No reason not to use a fast drive, but you really won't see any difference as you are only writing to this disk the first time you dump the images to disk, and only reading when you edit at full resolution, print, or when you export.

Obviously, if you use this set up you must remember that Vaults will NOT back up your actual image files so you must use Time Machine and/or SuperDuper! or similar to assure that the images are backed up.

This kind of structure is easy to set up inside a MacPro but can be done with any Mac by using external drives. There might be some advantage to using a RAID for the Library, but I doubt that it is worth the effort/cost.

So you might end up with:

-- Drive 1: High speed drive. OS, Apperture application. (Might be the one that came with your Mac.)

-- Drive 2: Killer high speed/high tech drive. High RPM, big buffer, "enterprise" grade, etc., etc. Speed is more important than size. This is where you put the Aperture Library.

-- Drive 3: Nice dumb, reliable drive. Image files in a simple Images/Year/Month/Day folder structure. (Might be a place to reuse your factory drive, especially if it is older and slower and you want an excuse to buy that hot new drive for your boot disk.) Alternatively, you could use that HUGE USB 2.0 pig that your PC owning friend is dumping as it is to slow to play Quake.

With a MacPro, this could all be done internally.

Offered with no guarantees, but based on a few years experience with ADP, Macs, and a careful read of some of the better posts on the Internet. (Those of you who grew up with Mainframes and Minis will find some of this familiar. )

A N D , A S A L W A Y S : Have a serious backup strategy and use it. With Time Machine, at least, you have no excuse!

 

[Lost Canadian]

Things I like, things I don't like.

The good:
1) Best D.A.M program I've found, without question. Much better than Lightroom in this respect. So good in fact that despite the programs flaws (see below) I'm still considering it for purchase.
2) Brushes, getting close to Niksoftware's control point technology, and much better in many respects than Lightroom's brushes.
3) A proper full curves adjustment panel. Global and channel adjustments, as it should be. Lightroom you listening?
4) It does video. I haven't tried it but this is another dance Lightroom can't do.
5) Adds GPS data to iPhone shots. In my best Paris Hilton voice, that's hot!
6) Full screen editing. This could be a big thing for some. If working on a notebook, or on a one monitor setup where real estate is a premium, having the whole screen dedicated to the photo is golden.

The not so good:
1) Brushes, for as good as they are, only being able to lay down one adjustment per stroke is weak. Nik's control points, and Lightroom's brushes both allow for multiple adjustments with a single stroke. This is simply a time saver issue.
2) Resource hog. A computer running 8 gigs of RAM shouldn't choke on detailed brush strokes. This speaks volumes to the programs underlying architecture, and it's unstable nature. Not good if you're a professional. It's crashed on me once already and corrupted a number of files like so.

3) No camera profiles, err "presets." Sorry this is a major oversight in my opinion. Colour management has become such a huge part of the game that leaving out something as key as this is big in my mind. This is the first RAW converter I've tried in the last few years that didn't include profiles. Lightroom has them, Capture One has them, Bibble has them, even NX2 has them. For anyone doing critical colour work, product advertisers and fine art photographers immediately come to mind, this is a big oversight. We buy our camera's in hopes that they get colour right, for Apple to throw that out the window and ask the user to try and construct or find profiles/presets themselves is silly.
4) Monochrome conversions. Where the heck is the split toning?

So yeah, right now I have a love hate thing going on with this program. As a D.A.M program it's unbeatable at this point in time, as a RAW converter it still comes up short for me when you compare it to the big boy competitors, namely Capture One and Lightroom. With respect to Lightroom, it's simply a matter of having to complete multiple steps in order to do the same one click/slide/brush stroke/gradiant adjustments that are available in Lightroom.

 

[DiploStrat]

Things I like, things I don't like.

The good:

...

6) Full screen editing. This could be a big thing for some. If working on a notebook, or on a one monitor setup where real estate is a premium, having the whole screen dedicated to the photo is golden.

Agree strongly on this. I started on a laptop and even today do all of my editing in full screen with the HUD, even on a 23" monitor. Similarly, I can't believe that LR doesn't do soft proof.

The not so good:
1) Brushes, for as good as they are, only being able to lay down one adjustment per stroke is weak. Nik's control points, and Lightroom's brushes both allow for multiple adjustments with a single stroke. This is simply a time saver issue.

Don't understand what you mean by "only one adjustment" per stroke.

2) Resource hog. A computer running 8 gigs of RAM shouldn't choke on detailed brush strokes. This speaks volumes to the programs underlying architecture, and it's unstable nature. Not good if you're a professional. It's crashed on me once already and corrupted a number of files like so.

While this is Apple; it should just work, try the steps outlined above, or at least leave you Mac on overnight. I suspect you have disk fragmentation and or other issues. AP3, including brushes flies on my 4 GB Mac Mini.

3) No camera profiles, err "presets." Sorry this is a major oversight in my opinion. Colour management has become such a huge part of the game that leaving out something as key as this is big in my mind. This is the first RAW converter I've tried in the last few years that didn't include profiles. Lightroom has them, Capture One has them, Bibble has them, even NX2 has them. For anyone doing critical colour work, product advertisers and fine art photographers immediately come to mind, this is a big oversight. We buy our camera's in hopes that they get colour right, for Apple to throw that out the window and ask the user to try and construct or find profiles/presets themselves is silly.

Presets are new to Adobe, only showing up in Lightroom fairly recently. I take your point, but presets or profiles have NOTHING to do with color management. The entire Mac OS is color managed. Profiles have everything to do with YOUR vision of the colors you like; that's why there are so many. But now that AP3 offers global presets, I am playing with them. They are more elegant than copy and paste.

4) Monochrome conversions. Where the heck is the split toning?

WHAT the heck is split toning? (As you can see, I don't do B&W.)

On RAW developer quality, it is interesting that there is great angst among some Lightroom users about the shadow noise in ACR - noise that does not exist in AP. I consider this to be far more important than colors which I can easily change.

I spent an hour brushing in blur on a 100+MB TIFF at lunch. This is an old scanned slide of the mosque at Agadez and that cloudless sky showed every crack in the old emulsion. This meant brushing blur on and off as I worked my way around the timbers, etc. After an hour of work (which probably fragmented memory terribly) I got the odd weird screen flash (like your images above), but everything still worked in real time, with no appreciable lags. I was impressed; my little Mini just chugged right along. (And this is an easier alternative to playing with layers in Photoshop Elements.)

Your MacPro should be flying. Again, you shouldn't have to do all of these Windoze like steps, but try what I posted above. I have never had Aperture 3 crash.

All the best!

 

[nwoods]

Trevor, sounds like a trip to the Genius Bar might be a good idea. Bring the CPU.

 

[Lost Canadian]

I can't believe that LR doesn't do soft proof.

Totally agree!

Don't understand what you mean by "only one adjustment" per stroke.

I can adjust colour saturation, clarity values, contrast, sharpness, exposure, brightness etc. with a single brush stroke instead of having to open several brush strokes like you need to do in Aperture. With one stroke of a brush I can adjust all of the following aspects of that brush.

While this is Apple; it should just work, try the steps outlined above, or at least leave you Mac on overnight. I suspect you have disk fragmentation and or other issues. AP3, including brushes flies on my 4 GB Mac Mini

I shouldn't need to run anything overnight should I, because with respects to importing that was done days ago, and as I mentioned I've only imported a small number of photos so that I can test the waters. The original files work fine in Capture NX2 and Lightroom. I have had about 5 files that were brought into Aperture though that resulted in corruption.

Presets are new to Adobe, only showing up in Lightroom fairly recently. I take your point, but presets or profiles have NOTHING to do with color management.

Sure it does. Colour management starts with the camera. That's why there is such a premium on cameras that are colour accurate. If Apple ignores the camera then you might as well throw the whole thing out the window.

The entire Mac OS is color managed. Profiles have everything to do with YOUR vision of the colors you like; that's why there are so many.

I agree if you're looking to play, but I don't think someone like Tide or Coke or or or would be all that happy if they saw their classically known red or orange replaced with something different. Profiles have been common place for the last two years, that's an eternity in technological terms. Not to mention guys like Joseph Holmes have made a career out making colour right. Some hack like me does not hold a sliver of the knowledge needed to do things right when compared to certifiable colour technician.

But now that AP3 offers global presets, I am playing with them. They are more elegant than copy and paste.

Presets that have been tested by who? Me or you, who probably lack the proper equipment, tools, and environments to graph accurate working profiles. There's only so much we can do with a macbeth card. Not to mention the whole notion that we will have to dig in and get dirty in an attempt to try and get accurate colour defeats the purpose of a simple all in one. It's backwards thinking not to include profiles when it's such a simple thing to include. I doubt many people want to go back to spending their day setting up test charts and such in order to do something that has now become a standard click or two away.

WHAT the heck is split toning? (As you can see, I don't do B&W.)

Adding colour to either highlights or shadows or a combination of both. Could be red highlights with blue shadows or any combo your mind can dream up.

On RAW developer quality, it is interesting that there is great angst among some Lightroom users about the shadow noise in ACR - noise that does not exist in AP. I consider this to be far more important than colors which I can easily change.

That I totally concede without question but I believe this is remedied in LR3. The beta version actually handles Nikon's files better than Capture NX2, and their new noise engine looks really promising. Looks like Adobe finally figured out Nikon's secret sauce.

I spent an hour brushing in blur on a 100+MB TIFF at lunch. This is an old scanned slide of the mosque at Agadez and that cloudless sky showed every crack in the old emulsion. This meant brushing blur on and off as I worked my way around the timbers, etc. After an hour of work (which probably fragmented memory terribly) I got the odd weird screen flash (like your images above), but everything still worked in real time, with no appreciable lags. I was impressed; my little Mini just chugged right along. (And this is an easier alternative to playing with layers in Photoshop Elements.)

I really wish I had such luck. I love Apple and there products, I'm typing this on my new Mac now and my iPhone is sitting in the Bose dock playing sweet sweet music to me, so in all fairness I really want to like this program but my initial impression has been a less than desirable experience to say the least. I acknowledge that it has a lot of strengths, area's Lightroom and others can't touch yet, but I also feel it has some glaring weaknesses. Obviously these types of things are entirely personal, just like camera choice is. There's no one better or worse at this point in time, just different.

 

[Lost Canadian]

Trevor, sounds like a trip to the Genius Bar might be a good idea. Bring the CPU.

Having searched the net, I take comfort in knowing that I'm not alone in my plight with this program. Not to mention a 3 hour drive to the nearest Apple store simply isn't going to happen. Honestly, if a program fails to work as it should I will simply move to what does for me, it's really as simple as that. I guess that's why they call them trials. If I were having issues with other programs than I might be concerned, but I'm not. Capture NX2 runs smooth, Lightroom 2.6 runs smooth, the beta 3 runs smooth, yes a beta!! The problem seems to rest solely on the shoulders of Aperture. I'm not a tinkerer, I believe that if you pay good money for something it should work as advertised, that's why I bought a Mac. Thankfully I have not forked out anything as of yet for this program, but if I had I'd be rather upset.

 

[DiploStrat]

RAW, Profiles, etc.

My point is that Nikon does not do neutral, "correct" colors out of the box any more than Canon does; they each do their own interpretation. And that is why they have so many internal styles or modes or settings.

Adobe Camera RAW and the Apple's RAW engine read the RAW file and produce a neutral image - it is just that that "neutral" will not look the same as one from CaptureNX or anyone else. Take your Nikon and shoot a scene, take a Canon and shoot the same scene. Colors look the same? Not a chance. I think we would agree that if you are not going to dupe the internal settings of each different camera, then your base setting should be pretty hue neutral and correct. Scholars differ on how well Nikon, Canon, Apple, Adobe, and the rest of them do this. But most of the time when someone tells you that CaptureNX or Canon's DPP produces much "better" results than Adobe Camera RAW or something else, they are being impressed by the enhanced saturation/contrast/noise reduction of that software. To me, the real test of a RAW developer ought to be noise, stairstepping, and other nasties; the other issues are easily fixed down the line. At this point, Apple's RAW developer is considered by many to be one of the cleanest.

Adobe got the jump on Apple somewhere with LR2 when they introduced profiles. If you see Rob Boyer's last post on his website, you can probably figure out how they did it and, by extension how you can do it should you happen to have a copy of CaptureNX.

Apple has always been slow in adding RAW settings for newer and a wider range of cameras, although they do a good job of covering most of the "pro" models. They have not, to date, attempted to replicate each individual camera's different styles or modes. As I tend not to use them, this is less of an issue for me.

Color Managed has nothing to do with how well a camera or software develops a RAW image but everything with keeping the colors that you see; right or wrong, the same across your monitor, your printer, etc.

Bottom line, I don't have stock in Apple, but if you are running Aperture 3 as opposed to 3.0.1, and you have not installed the ProKit update, you have not seen what the program can do.

And yes, there are still a lot of bugs!

All the best!

 

[Lost Canadian]