# Aperture vs. iPhoto



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Thoughts? Experiences?


----------



## keebler27 (Jan 5, 2007)

mrjimmy said:


> Thoughts? Experiences?


if you're a professional photographer, then aperture is the better solution.

iphoto is great for the home user, but the organizational aspects of aperture are stronger for pros.

new version is rumoured within a month or so.


----------



## live4ever (Jun 23, 2003)

I think a good question is if you shoot RAW exclusively.


----------



## DavidH (Jan 4, 2009)

*Learning Aperture*

Aperture is a great program for Pros, but not for the casual user. I found that it is not as intuitative as iPhoto, so if you are not using it frequently you will be constantly trying to remember (or looking up) how to do something.

I am in the process of moving back to iPhoto from Aperture as I was not using it often enough to feel comfortable.

Before making this decision, I did some reflection, and decided that I wanted to shoot more pictures, oftener and have fun doing it, instead of worrying about making perfect corrections.

iPhoto makes "playing" with your photos fun again.
Remember, iPhoto is a pretty powerful program that will also handle RAW files.

Remember to enjoy.

DavidH


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

I'm not a professional photographer, but I frequently use my own photos in my professional work (if that makes any sense).

Like DavidH, I too went back to iPhoto from Aperture. I only use Photoshop to make image adjustments, so all I need is a decent catalogue of my images. I like the way iPhoto organizes and previews images more than any other solution I've seen.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Thanks for the opinions so far. My biggest complaint with iPhoto is that you can't keep your image files separate from it. I like to keep all my originals as originals. Is there a work around with iPhoto (besides having two copies of everything).

Thanks


----------



## DavidH (Jan 4, 2009)

*iPhoto Importing as Reference*



mrjimmy said:


> Thanks for the opinions so far. My biggest complaint with iPhoto is that you can't keep your image files separate from it. I like to keep all my originals as originals. Is there a work around with iPhoto (besides having two copies of everything).
> 
> Thanks


Mr. Jimmy
If you wish to manage and maintain your photos in a "file system", you can import your photos as a "reference only". This avoids having two copies. Below is a page from the iPhoto help.

I hope this information helps with your decision


IMPORTING

About importing photos to the iPhoto library
Before viewing and working with photos in iPhoto, you must transfer the photos into your photo library. This process is called “importing.”
You can import photos from a digital camera if both your computer and your camera have built-in Universal Serial Bus (USB) ports and your camera is compatible with iPhoto.
You can also import photos from other media, such as a flash drive or a CD, or from other locations on your computer’s hard disk. Another way to transfer photos is to scan printed photos, save the scans on your hard disk, and then import them into iPhoto.
When you import photos from your hard disk, you can choose to have iPhoto make copies of your originals for use in iPhoto or just point to the original files. When you import photos from other sources, iPhoto makes a copy for use in iPhoto.
WARNING:Always use the iPhoto application to import photos into your photo library. Do not drag photos directly into the iPhoto Library folder on your computer’s hard disk. This can result in lost or damaged photos.
If your camera uses 35 mm film, have your pictures developed by a company that offers digital imaging services. When you have your film digitally processed, you can often choose whether you want your photos stored on a floppy disk or CD, or posted on the web.
Related Topics
Importing photos from a digital camera
Connecting a digital camera to your computer
About the number of photos your library can support
Importing photos from sources other than a digital camera


----------



## Kirtland (Aug 18, 2002)

live4ever said:


> I think a good question is if you shoot RAW exclusively.


Good question. I used to use iPhoto until I discovered the versatility of shooting RAW. I have since abandoned iPhoto and use Aperture exclusively and love it. Apertures' upgrades makes for more significant improvements than iPhoto's upgrades.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

RAW isn't the only reason to consider Aperture. If you are at all into making books, the templates in Aperture are at least an order of magnitude more flexible than those in iPhoto. You can add and reshape picture placement pretty much at will which you cannot do in iPhoto.


----------



## Trevor W (Apr 6, 2009)

Aperture is primarily a raw processor and workflow for professionals and advanced enthusiasts. It's claim to fame was non-destructive post processing of images allowing for several variations or versions of the image. Whereas iPhoto was created to be an easy way for the average person to organize and perform basic post processing that usually alters the file itself. In actuality I would imagine that they could be used in similar ways for the the average individual. 

I personally like Lightroom, and am dabbling with Aperture. Unfortunately I have a Nikon D700 and Aperture is unable to perform direct import of the D700 NEF files which adds an additional step to the process


----------



## Kirtland (Aug 18, 2002)

Trevor W said:


> I personally like Lightroom, and am dabbling with Aperture. Unfortunately I have a Nikon D700 and Aperture is unable to perform direct import of the D700 NEF files which adds an additional step to the process


I too have a Nikon D700 and am able to directly import the NEF files into Aperture. Are you using the most current version of Aperture/OS 10.5? I see on their web site that D700 compatibility requires Aperture 2.


----------



## Trevor W (Apr 6, 2009)

I am using the current version of Aperture 2, fully up-to-date UMBP, and the newest firmware on my D700.

When attempting to import NEF directly from the D700 I do not see thumbnails, rather I see dashed outlines of the thumbnails. I then do not have the ability to import the images.


----------



## a7mc (Dec 30, 2002)

mrjimmy said:


> Thanks for the opinions so far. My biggest complaint with iPhoto is that you can't keep your image files separate from it. I like to keep all my originals as originals. Is there a work around with iPhoto (besides having two copies of everything).
> 
> Thanks


It doesn't look like anyone mentioned this yet, but you do know that iPhoto edits photos non-destructively right? *Your original file always remains intact.* If you right click a photo in iPhoto you can "show original" or "revert to original" at any time.

A7


----------



## Kirtland (Aug 18, 2002)

Trevor W said:


> I am using the current version of Aperture 2, fully up-to-date UMBP, and the newest firmware on my D700.
> 
> When attempting to import NEF directly from the D700 I do not see thumbnails, rather I see dashed outlines of the thumbnails. I then do not have the ability to import the images.


I import using a card reader rather than directly from the camera, not sure if that makes a difference or not.


----------



## Trevor W (Apr 6, 2009)

I've heard that works, I have yet to try it. I believe the current issue I am having is due to an incompatibility between the D700's PTP implementation and Aperture.


----------



## Kirtland (Aug 18, 2002)

Trevor W said:


> I've heard that works, I have yet to try it. I believe the current issue I am having is due to an incompatibility between the D700's PTP implementation and Aperture.


Aperture 2.1.3 just released with this as one of the improvements:
"Nikon images imported directly from a camera now display thumbnails correctly in the Import window."
This may correct your issue.


----------



## polywog (Aug 9, 2007)

a7mc said:


> It doesn't look like anyone mentioned this yet, but you do know that iPhoto edits photos non-destructively right? *Your original file always remains intact.* If you right click a photo in iPhoto you can "show original" or "revert to original" at any time.
> 
> A7


No quite non-destructively.

My understanding is that it makes destructive changes to a copy of the file, leaving the original intact. The most obvious implication being there are now two copies of the file, eating up storage. But also that further edits are done to the copy - which leads to re-compressing the copied image each time.

Similarly, RAW files are saved as JPEG after the first edit, subsequent edits are done to that file.


----------

