# Aperture



## SoyMac

Hi Friends
Having thrown my lot in with Aperture (as opposed to LightRoom), I have experienced much which makes me think I've chosen the wrong horse.

(Thankfully, there's an _Aperture Feedback_ window in the Aperture application, which has allowed me to rant several times at some, poor, undeserving Apple employee, instead of tossing my computer across the room.  )

I know that there is no such thing as perfect software, and I have never used LightRoom, so I can't compare these two programs.

I'm starting this thread to hopefully begin a discussion of the merits, and problems, and comparisons of Apple's Aperture and Adobe's LightRoom.

I will post my experiences and frustrations with Aperture, and maybe Aperture and LightRoom users will chime in here with their experiences for comparison.

Maybe this thread will help someone who is choosing between Aperture and LightRoom.

Here's what I've reported to Apple recently, about my experience with Aperture;

1. Although I have selected several photos in the browser, when I click the rotate button, only one photo rotates. I must rotate each photo individually, although multiple photos are clearly selected. 
Even iPhoto can do this simple function all at once, with as many photos selected as I like. 
When many photos were shot in portrait mode, this is a very time-consuming inconvenience in Aperture.

2. I have completed editing a photo. I press the arrow key to move my selection to the next photo. Nothing happens. I check and see that there are many more photos to the left and right of my choice in the photo browser, and I repeatedly and firmly press the arrow key. But Aperture seems to have chosen to ignore my attempts to move to the next photo.

3. I am cropping a photo. I select "Do Not Constrain" in the crop control box. Each time I go back to try a different crop of the same photo in the same session, instead of the control box remembering my chosen preference, I must go back into the control box and reselect "Do Not Constrain".


Each of these issues on their own might seem small, if somewhat surprising, but added together, and with seemingly a new Aperture flaw discovered every time I use it, I find Aperture's little bugs to be significant time-wasters. 

To me, these bugs also point to a lack of attention to basics on the part of the software's designers.

*Performance:
*I have read LightRoom users comment on how fast LightRoom is.

Aperture is definitely _not_ fast.

I run Aperture 3 on my 15" MBP 2.5, with 4 gigs of RAM, and an external FW drive holding my Aperture Library.
Aperture chugs along fairly slowly. There's a lot of waiting for the program to catch up to my selections and edits.

I feel that Aperture needs a code-slimming re-write, the same way Leopard was trimmed down into Snow Leopard.

I am seriously wondering whether I'm throwing good money after bad, by continuing to purchase Aperture upgrades.

A friend who runs LightRoom on his older MBP will be visiting later this Summer.
I look forward to a comparison then.


In the meantime, do you have any comments or observations?


----------



## kps

I absolutely love my current version of Lightroom (2.7). I tried the Aperture Demo when it was first released as well as the LR Demo and chose Lightroom. I'd suggest trying the current LR Demo before you give up on Aperture just to be sure it's a fit for you.

LR2 is very fast on my old G5 2.0GHz tower, but it just screams on my new i7 MBP. 

There's a program out there called Photo Mechanic that some pros use to speed things up even further when importing large numbers of images for culling, rotating, etc. Then they import only the keepers into LR or Aperture. They say the imports with PhotoMechanic are instantaneous and when you're dealing with thousands of images from a wedding, saving those minutes adds up over a year. For most of us, however, LR and even Aperture may suffice.

For me Lightroom is all I need for most image processing from import to final output. Photoshop enters the workflow only for serious image retouching, filter effects and when layers or text are needed. When you send from LR to PS, there are several options including for your photoshop image to be added to LR.

Lightroom 'Presets' are another feature I find extremely useful along with camera calibration and the Graduated Filter which allows multiple LR adjustments to be applied as a customizable gradient over the image.

There's also a larger LR community than Aperture community and consequently there are tonnes of resources and free goodies to be had.

I guess my only beef with LR would be that it needs to re-launch itself when opening another catalog. Other than that, it's a great full featured image importer, cataloger, editor and batch processor.


----------



## squaresnappr

SoyMac said:


> Hi Friends
> Having thrown my lot in with Aperture (as opposed to LightRoom), I have experienced much which makes me think I've chosen the wrong horse.
> 
> (Thankfully, there's an _Aperture Feedback_ window in the Aperture application, which has allowed me to rant several times at some, poor, undeserving Apple employee, instead of tossing my computer across the room.  )
> 
> I know that there is no such thing as perfect software, and I have never used LightRoom, so I can't compare these two programs.
> 
> I'm starting this thread to hopefully begin a discussion of the merits, and problems, and comparisons of Apple's Aperture and Adobe's LightRoom.
> 
> I will post my experiences and frustrations with Aperture, and maybe Aperture and LightRoom users will chime in here with their experiences for comparison.
> 
> Maybe this thread will help someone who is choosing between Aperture and LightRoom.
> 
> Here's what I've reported to Apple recently, about my experience with Aperture;
> 
> 1. Although I have selected several photos in the browser, when I click the rotate button, only one photo rotates. I must rotate each photo individually, although multiple photos are clearly selected.
> Even iPhoto can do this simple function all at once, with as many photos selected as I like.
> When many photos were shot in portrait mode, this is a very time-consuming inconvenience in Aperture.
> 
> 2. I have completed editing a photo. I press the arrow key to move my selection to the next photo. Nothing happens. I check and see that there are many more photos to the left and right of my choice in the photo browser, and I repeatedly and firmly press the arrow key. But Aperture seems to have chosen to ignore my attempts to move to the next photo.
> 
> 3. I am cropping a photo. I select "Do Not Constrain" in the crop control box. Each time I go back to try a different crop of the same photo in the same session, instead of the control box remembering my chosen preference, I must go back into the control box and reselect "Do Not Constrain".
> 
> 
> Each of these issues on their own might seem small, if somewhat surprising, but added together, and with seemingly a new Aperture flaw discovered every time I use it, I find Aperture's little bugs to be significant time-wasters.
> 
> To me, these bugs also point to a lack of attention to basics on the part of the software's designers.
> 
> *Performance:
> *I have read LightRoom users comment on how fast LightRoom is.
> 
> Aperture is definitely _not_ fast.
> 
> I run Aperture 3 on my 15" MBP 2.5, with 4 gigs of RAM, and an external FW drive holding my Aperture Library.
> Aperture chugs along fairly slowly. There's a lot of waiting for the program to catch up to my selections and edits.
> 
> I feel that Aperture needs a code-slimming re-write, the same way Leopard was trimmed down into Snow Leopard.
> 
> I am seriously wondering whether I'm throwing good money after bad, by continuing to purchase Aperture upgrades.
> 
> A friend who runs LightRoom on his older MBP will be visiting later this Summer.
> I look forward to a comparison then.
> 
> 
> In the meantime, do you have any comments or observations?


Number 1 and 2 in your list of complaints actually work fine for me, I use Aperture 3 and all photos rotate for me, and also the arrow keys definitely work for me as well. So you definitely have issues with your Aperture.

I will agree Aperture is not as snappy with Aperture 3 but I have so much invested with it and am so comfortable with it. I have my Wacom Intuos 4 all set up with it as well that I have gotten used to. All the hot keys and my workflow would all have to be re taught. I was considering Lightroom but I don't want to relearn everything.


----------



## SoyMac

Yeesh. 

Today, I started processing a bunch of shots from last night.
I find Aperture's Vignette tool to be less than useful, so I found a guide online explaining how to make my own vignette using the Burn tool in Aperture.
I don't think I should have to re-purpose one Aperture tool to do the job of another, but, oh well, here goes ...

Aperture's Burn tool has sensitivity and softness settings, but even with these tweaked, I was unhappy with the results I was getting - either too much or not enough, I couldn't get it to give me a pleasing compromise for a natural-looking gradient. 

And then I moved to Burning another part of the photo, and the Burn tool wouldn't work at all - No matter that I set the effect at full, and clicked it over and over - no effect on some parts of the photo!

Seriously, when I find something in Aperture that I'm really pleased with, I'll report it here. But so far ...

Anyway, if you're thinking of taking the Aperture route for processing your photos, I strongly advise you to try the demo first.


----------



## SoyMac

Okay, one sort-of-positive;

I've noticed lately that when cropping a photo, "Do Not Constrain" remains selected in the crop control box, so I don't have to go back and re-select that every time I try a new crop.

Maybe this was fixed with an Aperture 3 update that I downloaded this week.

I'm calling it a "sort-of-positive", because although it seems now to be working properly, I think it's a bug that should not have been there in the first place.

But, at least it's better than _not_ being fixed.


----------



## SoyMac

I have a RAW image open that I'm trying to edit.

I select the Quick Brushes drop-down. All the selections there are greyed out and cannot be selected.

There is no error message telling me why these selections are greyed out, or how to make Quick Brushes useable again. 

Another waste of my time in Aperture.

This is supposed to be a Professional application? 

(I'll be closely following the LightRoom thread ...)


----------



## SoyMac

I figured out the problem with Quick Brushes;

After fiddling around, restarting Aperture, re-booting the computer, looking around, (more wasted, valuable time  ) I find a note that said "This image was processed with a previous version of Aperture. Would you like to reprocess?"

When I clicked "reprocess", the image would now accept Quick Brushes (no longer greyed out).

Explanation;
I bought Aperture as a bundle with Nik Effects software.
When I want to apply Nik Effects now, Aperture must restart in 32 bit mode. 
It appears that Quick Brushes doesn't work in 32 bit mode.

That's acceptable. Apple can't keep up with third-party plug-in requirements.

What's not acceptable, is having a feature not work, and no message telling the user _why_.
A simple note in the greyed out drop-down, telling _why_ Quick Brushes wasn't available, and that rebooting Aperture in 64 bit mode was necessary, would have saved me much time and aggravation.


----------



## KC4

Thanks Soymac...
Your pain is our gain if we ever run into these same issues.


----------



## SoyMac

KC4 said:


> Thanks Soymac...
> Your pain is our gain if we ever run into these same issues.


Yeah, I'm posting in this thread with Four intentions;

1. To help anyone who might run into these problems while running Aperture themselves.

2. To help anyone who might be trying to decide between Aperture and LightRoom. Because I've never tried LightRoom, I'm not pushing LightRoom over Aperture. But I certainly want to show anyone who's interested, what I've experienced with Aperture. I hope other Aperture users, and also LightRoom users, will post here when they feel they can comment. Maybe LightRoom is worse - I don't know.

3. I have a fantasy that Apple actually reads these threads and learns from our posts.

4. Selfish: Sometimes I just need to rant to relieve my frustration.


----------



## Chealion

Not much help, I've just never been able to wrap my mind around how Aperture works. Lightroom has worked amazingly well for me and now with version 3 the new improvements to noise reduction and the default processing of the RAW file have me impressed. I have found Lightroom 3 to be more slow than Lightroom 2 whose only limitation was how fast the hard drive could give it the file.

Lightroom's approach is very much broken down into different sections/modules. You have your Library module for organization but you switch to your Develop module (d key) to actually do your edits on a photo. There are other modules for more advanced exports and printing (Slideshow, Print, Web) but I know for myself I only ever use Library and Develop.



> 3. I have a fantasy that Apple actually reads these threads and learns from our posts.


Sadly they don't. But they do read the feedback submitted and definitely read bugs reported at http://bugreport.apple.com


----------



## SoyMac

*Some Good*

A couple of things about Aperture that I really like:

The *import* process is very nice and convenient. 
When I plug the card reader into my computer, of course Aperture opens, because I've set that to happen.
But I also like that Aperture automatically prepares a _new_ album for the import, and all I have to do, if I so desire, is type a name for the album.

Or, if I leave the new album field blank, the new imports go directly into the new album, but called "untitled album".

I can also select a pre-existing album to import to instead.


I also like the new feature included in Aperture 3, under Quick Brushes, called "Skin Smoothing".
As mentioned earlier in this thread, I'm shooting portraits right now.
I adjust the parameters in "Skin Smoothing", choose, "Apply to entire Photo", and I'm very happy with the results. 
If I don't like it, I can choose "Clear from Entire Photo", and I start again.


----------



## SoyMac

*More Good*

I'm now processing a bunch of photos of a young model with excellent structure, but fairly significant acne.

As mentioned, I already like the effect I get with "Skin Smoothing", but when I use "Skin Smoothing" after I first go over the portrait with the "Repair" tool, the results are absolutely spectacular.

If I can figure out a way to post examples while maintaining the model's anonymity, I shall do that.

(But please don't hold your breathe  )


----------



## SoyMac

I wish I had more positives to report, but, well ...

Today, I'm doing some basic adjustments to a bunch of photos (one at a time) in Aperture 3. 

Repeatedly today, while simply cropping photos, Aperture has frozen.

I've had to restart it many times (I've lost count). It seems like Aperture freezes every 5 to 10 photos when I'm applying cropping.

I've also rebooted the computer, to try to clear out some cobwebs, but that didn't help. 

And Aperture just froze again, but this time while applying the tilt (level) adjustment.

I've shut off the Faces and the Places features.

Another thing; there may be a way to copy separate adjustments, and paste them from one photo to another, or to a group of photos, but I can't figure it out. And it should be so easy - just provide tick-boxes for each adjustment desired to be copied or pasted. I mean, come on!
So I'm forced to manually adjust each and every photo, even if I want to apply the same adjustment to a group of photos.

From what I can see, Apple really needs to get this application re-written, to slim it down and make it run leaner, if Apple wants to be in the favour of professional photographers.

Inability to rotate more than one photo at a time, arrow button (next photo/previous photo) working irregularly, regular freezing, issues with pasting adjustments - I can't imagine a professional tolerating this program for long.


----------



## SoyMac

*Bad and Then Good.*

I am trying to edit a movie in Aperture.
According to Apple's instructional videos, this looks really easy, and like a well designed feature. 
It's the feature that convinced me to upgrade, and kept me in the Aperture camp, and if it works like it looks, I can overlook Aperture's other faults for now.

But when I tried to edit the audio the way the instructions say, the controls would not show up.


I flapped around clicking all kinds of things in Aperture, trying to find the missing step that would make the controls appear the same as the Help guide said.
But nothing was working.

This didn't make any sense. Why would Apple produce a beautiful video about controls that don't exist?

So I went on the Apple website and looked under _Contact_, and called their 800 number.
After a hefty Hold, I got live help that looked at the problem for me, saw the issue wasn't my imagination, and made an appointment to phone me back in 10 minutes.
10 minutes later, Buddy called back, walked me through the issue, and we had a solution!

He asked for some number off the Aperture package (not the serial number), and when I made a frustrated sound (who wants to go digging for their software packages and papers?), Buddy said, "Don't worry about it."

I guess this post could go under an _Apple Support_ thread, but, here it is.

In short, I was very impressed by Apple's handling of my call, and my ability to simply pick up the phone and have a solution from Apple within minutes. :clap:


----------



## keebler27

SoyMac said:


> *Bad and Then Good.*
> 
> I am trying to edit a movie in Aperture.
> According to Apple's instructional videos, this looks really easy, and like a well designed feature.
> It's the feature that convinced me to upgrade, and kept me in the Aperture camp, and if it works like it looks, I can overlook Aperture's other faults for now.
> 
> But when I tried to edit the audio the way the instructions say, the controls would not show up.
> 
> 
> I flapped around clicking all kinds of things in Aperture, trying to find the missing step that would make the controls appear the same as the Help guide said.
> But nothing was working.
> 
> This didn't make any sense. Why would Apple produce a beautiful video about controls that don't exist?
> 
> So I went on the Apple website and looked under _Contact_, and called their 800 number.
> After a hefty Hold, I got live help that looked at the problem for me, saw the issue wasn't my imagination, and made an appointment to phone me back in 10 minutes.
> 10 minutes later, Buddy called back, walked me through the issue, and we had a solution!
> 
> He asked for some number off the Aperture package (not the serial number), and when I made a frustrated sound (who wants to go digging for their software packages and papers?), Buddy said, "Don't worry about it."
> 
> I guess this post could go under an _Apple Support_ thread, but, here it is.
> 
> In short, I was very impressed by Apple's handling of my call, and my ability to simply pick up the phone and have a solution from Apple within minutes. :clap:


good stuff. frustrating, but at least they were able to help.

i just installed AP 3 so to be clear, was it an option left unchecked that hid the controls or what brought you the ability to see them?

Cheers,
Keebler


----------



## SoyMac

keebler27 said:


> ... was it an option left unchecked that hid the controls or what brought you the ability to see them?
> 
> Cheers,
> Keebler


Audio can be added to the slideshow (movie) in 2 ways. 
One way, the easy way, is to drag it from iTunes. 
But if you do that, you cannot edit the music, so no controls were appearing.

The second way to add music/audio, is to import it into Aperture.
These imported files can then be edited with the controls that are shown in the instructions. These controls are really easy and intuitive (and I hope they make their way in to iMovie, which I find absolutely unusable).

Okay, that was solved.

My problem _now_ is getting the imported audio file added to the slideshow (movie).
I cannot figure out how to get the file there. 
When I follow the directions to get the audio file, the slideshow window disappears, so there is no place to put the audio file.

I can access the audio file, or I can access the slideshow. But I cannot access both, to add the audio file to the slideshow.

Aperture gets more frustrating for me by the second.


----------



## SoyMac

*Great!*

Yes, I'm mainly complaining here about Aperture. 
But today, I found that the video feature in Aperture 3 is truly awesome!

After my pleasant chat with Apple support, and some fiddling around on my own, I finally figured out how to get the video part going, and it is, and will be, great!

Two things I love:
1. It's so easy to edit music/audio clips that lie under the stills/video. _This_ is the way iMovie 9 should have been designed. 

2. The edit-to-beat process is even better than in iMovie 9 (where it's pretty good).
In Aperture, you can have all your photos lying in a row on the timeline, for whatever duration each. As you listen to the music, you tap the Enter key to the beat, and live, each successive photo jumps to the spot on the timeline where you tapped the Enter key.

It's a more immediate, and intuitive way to edit-to-the-beat.

I predict these processes will be part of the next iteration of iMovie.

What this can mean for pros and amateurs alike:
Imagine that you've just finished a shoot for a client (or friends).

You can now import your images into Aperture, immediately lay them out in a timeline, and save them as a movie for the web, or iPhone, or iPod, MobileMe, etc..

You could send this movie to your client in an email, or send them a link to the movie online, for a better size and resolution version.

So your client gets home or back to the office, and checks her email. She receives a link to see the shoot. 
And when she watches it, it has titles and a groovy techno beat, and all the shots fly by while she taps her toes. 

I shot 500 images of my friend one evening this week.
With the unprocessed shots in the video ("Slideshow") timeline, I lay a techno track under the images, tapped the Enter key to the beat, and then sent him the whole shoot, which he watched play by for 3.5 minutes. 
Each shot was up for just under half a second.

It was a fun way to review the shoot, before the processing work starts.

Have I raved about this feature enough?!
I love it and it's well worth sticking with Aperture for, for now.


----------



## keebler27

SoyMac said:


> Yes, I'm mainly complaining here about Aperture.
> But today, I found that the video feature in Aperture 3 is truly awesome!
> 
> After my pleasant chat with Apple support, and some fiddling around on my own, I finally figured out how to get the video part going, and it is, and will be, great!
> 
> Two things I love:
> 1. It's so easy to edit music/audio clips that lie under the stills/video. _This_ is the way iMovie 9 should have been designed.
> 
> 2. The edit-to-beat process is even better than in iMovie 9 (where it's pretty good).
> In Aperture, you can have all your photos lying in a row on the timeline, for whatever duration each. As you listen to the music, you tap the Enter key to the beat, and live, each successive photo jumps to the spot on the timeline where you tapped the Enter key.
> 
> It's a more immediate, and intuitive way to edit-to-the-beat.
> 
> I predict these processes will be part of the next iteration of iMovie.
> 
> What this can mean for pros and amateurs alike:
> Imagine that you've just finished a shoot for a client (or friends).
> 
> You can now import your images into Aperture, immediately lay them out in a timeline, and save them as a movie for the web, or iPhone, or iPod, MobileMe, etc..
> 
> You could send this movie to your client in an email, or send them a link to the movie online, for a better size and resolution version.
> 
> So your client gets home or back to the office, and checks her email. She receives a link to see the shoot.
> And when she watches it, it has titles and a groovy techno beat, and all the shots fly by while she taps her toes.
> 
> I shot 500 images of my friend one evening this week.
> With the unprocessed shots in the video ("Slideshow") timeline, I lay a techno track under the images, tapped the Enter key to the beat, and then sent him the whole shoot, which he watched play by for 3.5 minutes.
> Each shot was up for just under half a second.
> 
> It was a fun way to review the shoot, before the processing work starts.
> 
> Have I raved about this feature enough?!
> I love it and it's well worth sticking with Aperture for, for now.


awesome! I'll be working on a slideshow next week so will keep this thread handy


----------



## keebler27

Hi Soymac,

Did you export out of AP 3 for use in DVDStudio Pro or compressor?

I can't see an uncompressed export option. Disappointing if that's the case.

I tried importing a AppleTV .m4v into SPro, but it said it was incompatible.


----------



## SoyMac

keebler27 said:


> Hi Soymac,
> 
> Did you export out of AP 3 for use in DVDStudio Pro or compressor?
> 
> I can't see an uncompressed export option. Disappointing if that's the case.
> 
> I tried importing a AppleTV .m4v into SPro, but it said it was incompatible.


I did not export to DVDStudio Pro or Compressor.

I did export at 1080p, which has a size of 1728 X 1080, in H.264 as I'm sure you already know.

I dragged the movie and a folder of stills on to a printable DVD and burned and printed it for the model.

There is also the "custom" export setting, which you've also no doubt explored, but the 2 codec choices are H.264, or MPEG-4, so I guess there is no choice for a completely uncompressed file export.

To tell the truth, I never thought of burning a movie DVD for sticking in the TV DVD player.

Hmmm. 
Could the least compressed movie export go through FCP or FCE to DVDStudio Pro?

But that would still be a bit of compression, right?


----------



## SoyMac

More bad and good:

I'm really enjoying the slideshow/movie feature in Aperture 3 (that's good), but there are some issues;

I was tapping out a movie of stills to music, and at the 2 and a half minute mark, the editing just stopped, like the video card or sound card or a combo of the two wouldn't work (together) any more. Even after posting to the Aperture Discussion forums on Apple's site, I could not resolve that issue.
A poster suggested my hardware was not advanced enough, but according to Apple's own system requirements, I not only have hardware that beats Aperture 3's minimum requirements, I have hardware better than Apple's _recommended_ requirements. 
= Buggy. 

As I've mentioned before, I can produce a program freeze just by doing something as simple as cropping a photo. 
I can force quit and restart Aperture, and continue editing, but the ease with which I can sometimes freeze Aperture seems, well, ridiculous.
I've even taken to routinely stopping editing, quitting Aperture to get the images processed before the program quits, and restarting, to ensure a smoother editing process. 
This reminds me of the magical incantations and good-luck-charm processes I would resort to in my Windows days.

I have to say that as powerful and fun as Aperture can be, this program also feels a bit fragile to me.

A good Aperture thing;
I had a model over last night, to see his portfolio, and I played the slideshow with an Aperture preset called "Watercolour Panels".
This theme blew away the model and his girlfriend!

But you have to take the crunchy with the smooth;
When I try to play the slideshow in full-screen preview mode, the playback is sometimes _very_ stuttered and unpleasant, like the graphics card can't keep up.
But as a noted previously, the hardware specs on this machine are higher than Apple's recommended specs, so ... tptptptp

I'm using Aperture, with work-arounds, restarts, and some disappointment, but I'm hoping the next version will have cleaner code, and no bugs.
But that's the way this software should have been released in the first place.

I will mention again, I have not used Adobe's LightRoom, and I don't know if it has issues that match, exceed, or are fewer than Aperture's.
I can only report on my experience with Aperture.


----------



## keebler27

SoyMac said:


> I did not export to DVDStudio Pro or Compressor.
> 
> I did export at 1080p, which has a size of 1728 X 1080, in H.264 as I'm sure you already know.
> 
> I dragged the movie and a folder of stills on to a printable DVD and burned and printed it for the model.
> 
> There is also the "custom" export setting, which you've also no doubt explored, but the 2 codec choices are H.264, or MPEG-4, so I guess there is no choice for a completely uncompressed file export.
> 
> To tell the truth, I never thought of burning a movie DVD for sticking in the TV DVD player.
> 
> Hmmm.
> Could the least compressed movie export go through FCP or FCE to DVDStudio Pro?
> 
> But that would still be a bit of compression, right?


Hi SoyMac,

Thanks for the response. Yup...it's screwed - doesn't have, imho, proper export options.
For many of my clients, they prefer DVD at this point in time.

BUT, I did find that Fotomagico (upgraded to Pro 3) now has a plug in for final cut which makes it very, very sweet b/c I can now prep the slideshow arrangement and doublecheck any issues before outputting. 

I'm enjoying this process b/c FCP is obviously more powerful multi track wise so it's easier for me to edit in music and/or videos. I have dual screens so I edit the slideshow on 1, edit the combined tracks on the other screen and hop back and forth as needed.

This plug in alone was the worth the cost of the upgrade and for me, rendered AP useless for slideshow creation.

However, in your case, it sounds like the presets work amazingly well for reviewing clients' shoots.

In the meantime, I hate to say it b/c you've spent the money and worked hard in AP thus far, but I would really look at Fotomagico (boinx.com). It has some quirks, but I find the workflow with their latest version time saving.

They have some great samples from other photographers.

I did send feedback to Apple indicating they need to add more export options.

Cheers,
Keebler


----------



## SoyMac

keebler27 said:


> ... I would really look at Fotomagico (boinx.com). It has some quirks, but I find the workflow with their latest version time saving...


Thanks, keebler!
Interesting, though, because I had downloaded a trial of Fotomagico a while ago, tested it out, and found it didn't suit my style at all.
(different strokes ...)

But I can totally see how a simplifying plug-in plus Final Cut, would be the solution for making professional slideshows on DVD for clients.

I'm only shooting models for favours and free food, and free portfolios, right now. 

When I'm delivering DVDs to paying clients, I'll keep your Final Cut method in mind.
Well, hopefully by then, Apple will have a decent slideshow DVD export feature built in to Aperture (without further bloating the code  )


----------



## keebler27

SoyMac said:


> Thanks, keebler!
> Interesting, though, because I had downloaded a trial of Fotomagico a while ago, tested it out, and found it didn't suit my style at all.
> (different strokes ...)
> 
> But I can totally see how a simplifying plug-in plus Final Cut, would be the solution for making professional slideshows on DVD for clients.
> 
> I'm only shooting models for favours and free food, and free portfolios, right now.
> 
> When I'm delivering DVDs to paying clients, I'll keep your Final Cut method in mind.
> Well, hopefully by then, Apple will have a decent slideshow DVD export feature built in to Aperture (without further bloating the code  )


right on - make sure you send the feedback in about needing that export. Not just for me - I think alot of folks could use it 

and, not that i'm a programmer, but i have to believe that if folks have the FCP suite installed, there must be some way to share the export features.

When you do need it for paying clients, do check out the new FM b/c it saved me a bunch of time (that is, if AP doesn't have the export by then


----------



## SoyMac

*Aperture Compared to LightRoom*

So, friend came to visit and I finally got a chance to see Aperture run side-by-side with LightRoom, and I can give you a bit of a rating of each and compare how they do against each other;

*Specs*: LightRoom 2 (not 3), running on a 2007 15" MacBook Pro. 
Aperture 3 running on a 2008 15" MacBook Pro, with biggest graphics card I could get.

*Performance*:
Friend said he had never frozen or crashed LR2, even though he was running it on an older MBP. He said he was quite surprised to hear that I could freeze Aperture.

I can regularly freeze Aperture 3, just by cropping a photo, or using the level tool, even though I'm using a newer MBP, with a better graphics card.

Both LR2 and A3 have a nice slideshow/video feature. But A3's edit-to-beat feature is more advanced than LR2.

The Vignette tool in LR2 is excellent.
The Vignette tool in A3 is crap.
LR2 easily wins in the Vignette department.

*Features*:
In the slideshow feature, LR2 has a very nice watermark, or stamp feature, called "Identity Plate". This allows one to easily create an attractive and personalised tag that sits on each still in the slideshow. I was envious as I can't do that in A3.

LR2 has a tool called "Clarity", with a slider control. I don't know the science behind it, but it helps for creating some very cool photos.
A3 has no such tool.

In the "Colours" adjustments, LR2 has 3 adjustments, while A3 has a fourth, called, "Range". This allows for more finely controlled colour adjustments. Advantage, A3.

I really like the look of the LR2 layout, very pleasing to my eye.
However, when I went to do the same task in LR2 and A3, A3 has a simpler interface to do the same tasks.
It seemed to be easier and more direct, (fewer steps) to do the same things in A3 than LR2.

*Conclusion*:
Performance - LR2 wins easily over A3. I know this is not a fair comparison, as I've heard that LR3 is heavier and slower than LR2, but it's the only version of LightRoom that I had to compare to Aperture 3, plus, LR2 was running on an older, under-spec'd MBP, so I figured that evened things out a bit.


Slideshow/Video: Tie - A3 has a great edit-to-beat feature, and LR2 has the cool and easy "Identity Tag" tool.

Vignette Tool: LR2 wins because A3 is not even near the start line.

Clarity Tool: LR2 has it. A3 does not.

Colour Adjustments: A3 has the better layout and 4 adjustments instead of 3 (Aperture 3 goes to eleven!). Winner - Aperture 3.

Overall ease of use: Definitely advantage Aperture 3. 
As noted, the layout in Aperture 3 was simpler than in LightRoom 2, and the same adjustments could be made using fewer steps with Aperture 3.

*Overall*:
I was quite surprised. 
I thought LightRoom was going to blow away Aperture 3, but I found that the two programs are different but pretty much equal, all things considered.

For the moment, I'd have to give LightRoom a slight advantage over Aperture. The performance issues with Aperture, and a couple of small but useful features in LightRoom that Aperture doesn't have, pushed LightRoom ahead by a nose.

However, LightRoom does not have enough of an advantage to make me consider switching.

Certainly the big sticking issue with Aperture, is performance. The bugginess cannot be discounted.

*Notes*:
Obviously this is a subjective comparison, and there is nothing remotely scientific about comparing a previous version of one program, with a newer version of a different program, on two different levels of machines.
Plus, I'm not a pro photographer and don't use these programs the way a professional would.

I will assume that the magic leprechauns that work in the labs that are located up in hollow trees in Cupertino, are toiling right now to make Aperture slimmer and faster and bug-free for the next version.
... At least that's what I'm hoping.


----------



## SoyMac

keebler27 said:


> ... I did find that Fotomagico (upgraded to Pro 3) now has a plug in for final cut which makes it very, very sweet b/c I can now prep the slideshow arrangement and doublecheck any issues before outputting.
> 
> I'm enjoying this process b/c FCP is obviously more powerful multi track wise so it's easier for me to edit in music and/or videos. I have dual screens so I edit the slideshow on 1, edit the combined tracks on the other screen and hop back and forth as needed.
> 
> This plug in alone was the worth the cost of the upgrade and for me, rendered AP useless for slideshow creation.
> ...


Here is Steve Douglas' review and overview of FotoMagico, on Ken Stone's website:
Boinx FotoMagico

This is a detailed, well-illustrated, and pretty much instructional article. Well worth the look if someone is curious about FotoMagico.


----------



## ScanMan

#2 with a bullet.

About the Snow Leopard Graphics Update


----------



## SoyMac

*Aperture viewer crappy?*

Hi Friends
I am looking at a bunch of portraits just imported into Aperture 3.2.2.

The photos look really compressed, like the worst, lowest res. photo files I've ever seen.

I checked to make sure these were RAW files and not some file format that was the most compressed they could get (because that's what they look like).

I then looked at older files in older projects, and all photos have this really compressed, crappy look to them.

Anyone else having this issue with Aperture 3.2.2, or know how to get the crisp images back?

Another interesting hint; I accidentally clicked the email button, and the photo from Aperture that came up in the email looked really good, they way it should look in Aperture, so I'm pretty sure it's a view issue in Aperture.


----------



## kps

Sounds like something corrupted your preview/thumbnail preferences. That's where I'd look first. Not being an Aperture user I can't assist further.


----------



## SoyMac

kps said:


> Sounds like something corrupted your preview/thumbnail preferences. That's where I'd look first. Not being an Aperture user I can't assist further.


Thanks, kps. 
I deleted the original import, and imported them again, with same results. 
I made sure the import settings weren't for something ridiculous, and the settings _are_ for RAW import. 

Another thing, these are the first photos I've imported since switching to Nikon from Canon. Could there be some issue I'm missing there? 

The file names are TEF_... .
Is that right?

Should I delete the Aperture plist thing?

Thanks!


----------



## keebler27

SoyMac said:


> Thanks, kps.
> I deleted the original import, and imported them again, with same results.
> I made sure the import settings weren't for something ridiculous, and the settings _are_ for RAW import.
> 
> Another thing, these are the first photos I've imported since switching to Nikon from Canon. Could there be some issue I'm missing there?
> 
> The file names are TEF_... .
> Is that right?
> 
> Should I delete the Aperture plist thing?
> 
> Thanks!


I would try that SM. Delete that Plist (save it to your desktop just in case you need to put it back).

Then relaunch the app.

I usually reboot, but I doubt it's necessary.


----------



## kps

Nikon raw format is NEF, not heard of TEF. Check to make sure your version of Aperture supports your new camera.


----------



## SoyMac

*Solution!*

Thanks, kps and keebler27!

I figured out the issue(s), and it's sort of unrelated to what I'd been pursuing, but your tips helped me to find the answer - thank you!

But first;
I checked the camera, and the file name (TEF) is subjective and there's an option to name the file whatever one likes, with the in-camera naming tool. I've changed it to _my_ name because I'm so impressed by having this ability.
"Hey! look at me! I'm a camera photo file!"

On the camera, the file capture setting is at RAW - which as you noted, kps is called NEF on the Nikon.

The answer:
Since I switched from Canon because of constant image softness issues, I've been hyper-critical when looking at my images, and especially now that I've shot some with my new Nikon.
I have the loupe magnification set at 200 instead of my usual 100, and I never used the sharpening tool, whereas my friend with whom I compare image quality always applies sharpening.
At 200 magnification making my images look soft, and comparing them to her online, non-magnified, sharpened images, my new images look TERRIBLE!

When I just now adjusted for these differences, I found that the files in Aperture look normal.

Yay! All is well.

It was a roundabout solution, but thanks nonetheless for your help, kps and keebler27! :clap:


----------



## keebler27

SoyMac said:


> Thanks, kps and keebler27!
> 
> I figured out the issue(s), and it's sort of unrelated to what I'd been pursuing, but your tips helped me to find the answer - thank you!
> 
> But first;
> I checked the camera, and the file name (TEF) is subjective and there's an option to name the file whatever one likes, with the in-camera naming tool. I've changed it to _my_ name because I'm so impressed by having this ability.
> "Hey! look at me! I'm a camera photo file!"
> 
> On the camera, the file capture setting is at RAW - which as you noted, kps is called NEF on the Nikon.
> 
> The answer:
> Since I switched from Canon because of constant image softness issues, I've been hyper-critical when looking at my images, and especially now that I've shot some with my new Nikon.
> I have the loupe magnification set at 200 instead of my usual 100, and I never used the sharpening tool, whereas my friend with whom I compare image quality always applies sharpening.
> At 200 magnification making my images look soft, and comparing them to her online, non-magnified, sharpened images, my new images look TERRIBLE!
> 
> When I just now adjusted for these differences, I found that the files in Aperture look normal.
> 
> Yay! All is well.
> 
> It was a roundabout solution, but thanks nonetheless for your help, kps and keebler27! :clap:


glad to help.


----------



## kps

Glad you found your issue, Soy.


----------

