# Aperture 3



## sizzlingbadger (Feb 9, 2010)

Aperture 3 has been released   now do I dare try it out :'( I was a big fan in the past but it got left behind when LR2 was released.
http://www.apple.com/aperture/


----------



## Denis Pagé (Feb 9, 2010)

I am impressed by the new features...


----------



## sizzlingbadger (Feb 9, 2010)

I have always preferred the interface over LR and the new features look like a step in the right direction. I know Faces may not be useful for everyone but it does have a place even in a Pro App IMHO ( you don't have to use a feature if you don't like/need it). I really miss the integration of Aperture with my other apps also. I will be giving it a try over the next few days.

I have invested a lot of time in LR and love the results I'm getting though. With LR3 around the corner I will have to wait for that before making any decisions.

I'm watching the Aperture Videos today as I'm off sick with a bad stomach.

The Presets in Aperture can be applied additively or as replacement - nice touch !


----------



## sizzlingbadger (Feb 9, 2010)

Just installed Aperture 3 to start playing. First impressions are good. The RAW conversion has been modified also and it's very accurate colour-wise. I can also get the in-camera focus point information as an overlay which is one of the nice things I miss from Capture NX. Looks like Apple have been talking with Nikon or reversed engineered the RAW metadata.


----------



## Denis Pagé (Feb 9, 2010)

Nice touch!

By the way, time to profile your monitor again as you did it 2 months, 11 days, 5 hours, 49 minutes, 3 seconds ago (before that screen capture)...


----------



## johnbeardy (Feb 9, 2010)

My guess is they're using Nikon's SDK. They are reading the focus points, as you say, and also writing metadata directly into the files (so much for never touching your raw files). Over the years a few programs have used Nikon's SDK and, thanks to bugs and omissions in it, succeeded in corrupting NEF files, so I'd steer clear of that feature.


----------



## Denis Pagé (Feb 9, 2010)

If reading/displaying the focus points imply writing to the NEF, then I agree with you John!


----------



## johnbeardy (Feb 9, 2010)

No, that's not what I meant. Reading the focus points and writing metadata back to the NEF are separate but both indicate that they're using the SDK. Writing to the NEF is what I would avoid. I'm not sure how they can square it with leaving your raw files untouched - but what's a complete U turn between friends?


----------



## sizzlingbadger (Feb 9, 2010)

I haven't seen any evidence that they write back to the NEF (except the date/time like LR) yet...


----------



## sizzlingbadger (Feb 9, 2010)

[quote author=Denis Pagé link=topic=9149.msg61631#msg61631 date=1265752691]
Nice touch!

By the way, time to profile your monitor again as you did it 2 months, 11 days, 5 hours, 49 minutes, 3 seconds ago (before that screen capture)...  
[/quote]

I do mine every 3 months, it doesn't seem to drift much...


----------



## sizzlingbadger (Feb 9, 2010)

The one thing I really missed in Aperture after trying LR was the CA correction (my 18-2'' is poor at wide angles) but they have added that now. All the adjustments can be brushed in/out even CA, Noise reduction etc.... I have to say that so far I'm very impressed.

The 'Auto' correction features aren't quite so good, they can go little too far but I was never a big user of them anyway.

The crop tool is a sight to behold after the LR abomination but then that has always been the way so nothing really new there, just a reminder for me


----------



## johnbeardy (Feb 9, 2010)

[quote author=sizzlingbadger link=topic=9149.msg61637#msg61637 date=126575689']
I haven't seen any evidence that they write back to the NEF (except the date/time like LR) yet...
[/quote]
It's called "Write IPTC metadata to master"


----------



## sizzlingbadger (Feb 9, 2010)

John is correct, I have tested it and it does add IPTC data to the NEF but this is no different than LR storing IPTC / Adjustments in a DNG. It looks like only IPTC data is written to the master not the adjustments (as you would expect). The import features an auto backup destination like LR so this doesn't worry me too much.

This also works for images I have converted to DNG including focus point overlay etc.


----------



## sizzlingbadger (Feb 9, 2010)

Applying selective sharpening in full screen mode.... this is really nice !


----------



## sizzlingbadger (Feb 10, 2010)

By the way.....  I'm not trying to 'diss' LR or convert everyone here with this post, I'm just updating you with stuff I have found to be pretty exciting in the new release - just so we are all clear :icon_lol: 

If your not interested in Aperture feel free to ignore this thread, I'd hate to see it become a LR v Aperture or even worse Apple v Adobe bashing ground. I like both these products, they both have strengths and weaknesses. The reason I do it here and not in an Apple forum is because I value the opinions of people here far more.

I have already found a few bugs but I guess that is to be expected with .' release.


----------



## Mark-B (Feb 13, 2010)

[quote author=sizzlingbadger link=topic=9149.msg6164'#msg6164' date=1265757923]
The crop tool is a sight to behold after the LR abomination but then that has always been the way so nothing really new there, just a reminder for me 
[/quote]

You prefer the crop tool in Aperture? The ability to crop & rotate at the same time and to do it away from the center of the image is probably the one thing I like most in Lightroom over Aperture.


----------



## sizzlingbadger (Feb 13, 2010)

The ability to use a crop tool without a mind of it's own is a wonderful way to work also. BTW.. you can keep the crop open while you adjust the tilt in Aperture but a lot of people don't realize this.


----------



## stasber (Feb 13, 2010)

In LR you can crop & rotate at the same time but once you rotate & crop 'in', you can't do the same 'back out' unless it's continuous and you don't release the mouse, which I find a bit of a nuisance. Once the angle is set, i.e. bound by the pic's borders and you'e confirmed it by releasing the mouse button, adjusting the angle back the way you came leaves the crop in place. Often I have to start again.


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Feb 13, 2010)

Say that again Stas? I'm not quite following.


----------



## sizzlingbadger (Feb 13, 2010)

I know what you mean stasber, it's hard to describe. The crop tool is a bit odd in LR sometimes. I find that often I'll try to straighten an image after cropping and LR will reset the crop or it will just disappear completely or go to some indeterminate size crop that I never chose. I also struggle to get it change the aspect ratio to a portrait crop on a landscape image sometimes it just keeps flicking back to landscape.


----------



## stasber (Feb 13, 2010)

Hi Victoria, go to the Crop tool and rotate your image 45 degrees anti-clockwise. The crop masks the image to it's borders as it rotates - sensibly so. Commit the rotation by letting of the mouse button.

Now rotate your image back to ' clockwise. The crop mask remains in it's current state and doesn't fill back out to the image's borders as you rotate it back.

This seems to be consistent actually, regardless of whichever way you choose to work with the Crop tool.

It's a real world issue for those who won't always get the angle perfect first time, e.g. with tricky verticals/angles etc.

Quite possible that I've missed a trick somewhere all this time.


----------



## johnbeardy (Feb 14, 2010)

A question - can anyone find an Aperture 3 equivalent to AutoSync? I thought the feature "Batch Apply Adjustments*" did it, but it seems not - it's also very, very slow.

John

*"Apply any available adjustments to any selected photos using the new Add Adjustment submenu in the Photos menu. Selecting the submenu opens the inspector (if closed) and displays the Adjustments pane."


----------



## stasber (Feb 14, 2010)

I can't find an Auto Sync equivalent either John; the nearest thing being the Lift & Stamp tool on the left of the tool strip. It's quick & you can choose what to lift & stamp, but it's by no means a one click real time solution like Auto Sync.


----------



## johnbeardy (Feb 14, 2010)

Thanks for checking, but lift and stamp is no better than Lightroom's Sync and copy and paste adjustments. When I read about the batch feature, I thought they must have copied Auto Sync and find it hard to understand why they didn't - it's a real difference in productivity between the two programs.


----------



## sizzlingbadger (Feb 14, 2010)

There is no Auto Sync in Aperture as far as I can recall and I can't see it in A3 either. I haven't used it in LR as most of my photos require different develop settings. I tend to use the select and sync method to do multiple changes such as WB and then go back through to do my other adjustments. Its also one of those hidden features so I tend to forget about it. I see in the Beta they have put a small switch next to the sync button which is a good idea.


----------



## MarkNicholas (Feb 15, 2010)

[quote author=stasber link=topic=9149.msg61789#msg61789 date=12661'3428]
Hi Victoria, go to the Crop tool and rotate your image 45 degrees anti-clockwise. The crop masks the image to it's borders as it rotates - sensibly so. Commit the rotation by letting of the mouse button.

Now rotate your image back to ' clockwise. The crop mask remains in it's current state and doesn't fill back out to the image's borders as you rotate it back.

This seems to be consistent actually, regardless of whichever way you choose to work with the Crop tool.

It's a real world issue for those who won't always get the angle perfect first time, e.g. with tricky verticals/angles etc.

Quite possible that I've missed a trick somewhere all this time.
[/quote]

This has never been an issue for me you can simply drag left, right, top, bottom to "fill out again" at the chosen crop angle.


----------



## stasber (Feb 15, 2010)

[quote author=MarkNicholas link=topic=9149.msg61855#msg61855 date=12662'2576]
This has never been an issue for me you can simply drag left, right, top, bottom to "fill out again" at the chosen crop angle.
[/quote]True, bit of a pita though, easier for me to (have to) reset & start again.


----------



## pknoot (Feb 17, 2010)

I've tried A3 for one day so far and have been quite impressed with the Import setting flexibility; I think Adobe could pick up on some of those and incorporate them in LR3.x. The speed of import was also quite high. I really enjoy the ability to work full screen with the tool pallets floating - a lot like Photoshop.


----------



## Halfje-Bruin (Feb 17, 2010)

What I do miss in Aperture3 is the ability to import a complete image tree where all images are referenced at their current location. The "Import Folders as Projects" doesn't really recurse into sub-folders like the name suggests.

Using drag-n-drop will do the trick but this will copy all images to the Aperture library and I don't want that as it restricts access to the images from other applications. Unless you do "Show Package content" etc.


----------



## Brad Snyder (Feb 17, 2010)

Can anyone with a long enough memory compare/contrast A3's Project import vs. the Shoot based orientation of the early Lr betas? I ask, because that shoot feature was almost universally reviled amongst Lr early users, and quickly was revamped/discarded. Again, the primary issue, IIRC, was the mystery/disconnect between catalogged files and their actual disk location. 

Does the A3 'project' feature improve on this somehow?  

I'd try it myself, but it doesn't seem to want to run on Vista.


----------



## johnbeardy (Feb 17, 2010)

It is similar in some ways, Brad, but was always worse and hasn't changed in Ap3.

The early shoots concept was like this. You had part of the folder systems - eg your d drive - which was defined as for shoots, and LR could also catalogue images stored elsewhere. However, only in the shoots area could you move images between folders. Outside the shoots folders, you had no control over physical locations. But by LR1, you could do this in any folders catalogued by LR. And we have virtual folders - collections.

Aperture's projects concept is essentially that allocating to a virtual folder (project=collection) is compulsory, and you have no direct control over physical folders. So every image must be imported and assigned to a project. A weddings project for example may include images which are "managed" or physically within the hellish vault (a zip file) which was all that Ap1.' offered, and referenced (stored WTF you want).

Does that clarify things?

John


----------



## Brad Snyder (Feb 18, 2010)

Thanks, John, that was the impression I was getting from the feedback I've been reading. Some of my earliest Lr public beta posts lobbied against the shoots / folders disconnect. IIRC Picasa up to about 2.5 worked that way as well. Paige's theories of folderless management aside, I just can't build any trust in a system that 'manages' my stuff out of view. (Although, I know that there's essentially multiple layers of that indirection going on in my computer's disk operating subsystems, I have a deep rooted psychological need to nail down at least a rudimentary folder hierarchy. Decades of ingrained habit, I suppose.)


----------



## sizzlingbadger (Feb 18, 2010)

[quote author=Brad Snyder link=topic=9149.msg61987#msg61987 date=1266469373]
Thanks, John, that was the impression I was getting from the feedback I've been reading. Some of my earliest Lr public beta posts lobbied against the shoots / folders disconnect. IIRC Picasa up to about 2.5 worked that way as well. Paige's theories of folderless management aside, I just can't build any trust in a system that 'manages' my stuff out of view. (Although, I know that there's essentially multiple layers of that indirection going on in my computer's disk operating subsystems, I have a deep rooted psychological need to nail down at least a rudimentary folder hierarchy. Decades of ingrained habit, I suppose.)
[/quote]

Maybe there is some confusion here... it is perfectly possible to have your own folder hierarchy in Aperture.


----------



## Brad Snyder (Feb 18, 2010)

I was just wondering why people were complaining about 'projects' and 'vaults'. Doesn't really matter, because a Mac's not in my near-term plans.


----------



## johnbeardy (Feb 18, 2010)

[quote author=sizzlingbadger link=topic=9149.msg62''3#msg62''3 date=126652938']
Maybe there is some confusion here... it is perfectly possible to have your own folder hierarchy in Aperture.
[/quote]
Only virtual folders - not true file system folders. Lightroom has virtual as well as physical folders.

Brad, part of the complaint was that people didn't understand that a vault was a kind of zip file and thought their pictures were being completely hidden from Finder (the lousy Mac version of Explorer). Even if they did know how to see inside a vault, how would you feel about Lightroom storing files in a zip file? The other aspect is as I said above, you only have projects and don't see the physical location of files. If everything goes right, and you do what they expect you to do, then the more you believe in Apple the happier you will be. If you approach it from a DAM perspective, you assume things will go wrong or you'll need to change DAM programs at some point, then Aperture's abstract approach puts a big barrier between you and using basic file system procedures to sort things out. In the end, most people are better off not giving up control of their file locations.

John


----------



## sizzlingbadger (Feb 19, 2010)

The vault is for backups nothing to do with folders you work from. Imagine having a check box in the LR backup utility that said 'include master images and zip up the output' that's all the vault is, and it's actually pretty useful. In fact it is almost identical to the export catalog and include master images we have in LR.

There is a disconnect between projects and folders but that in itself is not really a problem, it's just a different approach. Some would argue that it is more managed and actually a better approach. How many times on this forum do we say to beginners "don't manage your folders outside of Lightroom" and how many have moved files and then get into a mess. For many people a totally 'managed' system would be simpler and safer.

Having said all that none of us use Aperture so it really doesn't matter much


----------



## johnbeardy (Feb 19, 2010)

I was a bit loose with my terms there! Brad asked "I was just wondering why people were complaining about 'projects' and 'vaults' " and I rather went with his use of words by referring to vaults. The complaints were about how early Aperture only had projects and a managed library, a type of vault/zipped folder. 8 months after the initial release, and after 8 months of their believers saying managed-only was a great idea, Apple removed that limitation and allowed import by reference. 

"Some would argue that it is more managed and actually a better approach. " As I answered before, that's because they aren't thinking too clearly. Sure, people don't always understand catalogues (the same advice was given for iView newbies too) but that doesn't mean it's a good thing to surrender and simply rely on the app look after your pictures, as if it will never ever go wrong or as if you won't want to do something they never envisaged. Having virtual-only folders and removing a DAM program's direct control is a bit like saying some people can't handle alcohol, so we won't allow anyone the choice. Lightroom does it much better.

John


----------



## stasber (Feb 19, 2010)

DAM in this respect is better than Aperture in my opinion, though I don't really have a problem with Projects in Aperture, other than my having to manually create the folder structure in the Aperture Library, of where my referenced pics are.

LR is transparent in this way, a sort of WYSIWYG - your folder structure in LR mirrors the physical location of your referenced pics. You can also physically move the folders about within LR and pics between folders, and the physical location is updated at the same time. This is simple to understand and makes it clearly transparent. However, moving a folder on the physical drive would require finding the missing folder in LR, and/or synchronizing the parent folder(s). The missing folder is flagged as well as each image in it.

A3 will track any changes you make in the physical locations, which means you can move your folders and pics anywhere you like, to better organize them, or to have a right mess on your hard drive, and/but your A3 library stays organised the same way you left it. Projects where all images are offline or can't be found, don't flag; only individual pics within Projects will flag once you open up the project, which means that at a glance you won't always know the status of your library unless you go hunting (and there's no r/click or key command for this - has to be done from the File menu).
Unlike LR, you can't verify (synchronize) your top level folders and all folders [Projects] inside/below in situ; you need to first select all images to be verified, whether from the top level folder (i.e. all Projects within) or into each Project individually before being able to verify their locations. Having said that, verifying/reconnecting seems to be a quicker & sleeker operation compared to LR's in my opinion.


----------



## Brad Snyder (Feb 19, 2010)

Thanks for all the detailed info, folks. At the beginning of my question, I was curious as to why Aperture seemed to have adopted a paradigm that Lr abandoned in Ver '.x due to overwhelming user feedback. But I guess there's some apples to oranges comparisons being made (not that kind of Apple). As you were, carry on. Thanks.


----------



## johnbeardy (Feb 19, 2010)

It is a fair comparison, Brad. The surprise is more why Aperture has only back-flipped by 5'% rather than going the whole way - after all, the program that once made a big play of never touching your raw files now writes IPTC metadata directly back to them.

John


----------



## sizzlingbadger (Feb 19, 2010)

[quote author=stasber link=topic=9149.msg62'23#msg62'23 date=12665821'1]
LR is transparent in this way, a sort of WYSIWYG - your folder structure in LR mirrors the physical location of your referenced pics.
[/quote]

This is certainly a plus in my book also. I just think there are a lot of people who would rather the app did it all for them. To be fair LR can work in that manner too as you can set the folder for your imports and just put everything into it without any structure and then forget about it.

As for writing IPTC back to the original, I'm not sure whether that is an issue or not. LR does the same with the date & time if you want. There is possibility of corruption (as there is with dng which saves adjustments too) but a good backup strategy should cover this. The problem is the sort of people that don't want to deal with folders rarely have a good backup strategy either LOL !


----------



## areohbee (Apr 11, 2010)

Sometimes its not how many good things are in a piece of software, but whether there are any deal-breakers or not, that determines a decision, for me.

I just remembered the single biggest reason I chose Lightroom over Aperture - its unacceptable to not allow me to keep my photos in the physical folder structure that I choose. I've been doing it for years and I have other software I use that depends on it. I could go on, but I won't.

The other main reason I chose Lightroom is the SDK. Anybody know how the Aperture plugin API compares to Lightrooms?


----------



## johnbeardy (Apr 11, 2010)

About 6-8 months after Aperture 1 was released with that vault-only structure, they did a U turn (sorry, I meant "listened to customers") and allowed you to import your files "by reference" or in their existing folder structure. But you don't normally see that folder structure in the application - in LR terms it's as if you are forced to import to collections and you have no folder panel. That's still a big problem, though the more you believe in Apple and just close your eyes.... 

I suspect you'll find Aperture has marginally the better API. It was available earlier, and I think there's Applescript too. But if you think Adobe could be more communicative when you feel you need something, Apple will be fun indeed....

John


----------



## areohbee (Apr 11, 2010)

Thanks John - I'm totally committed to Lightroom at this point, but I _do_ wonder what its like on the other side of the fence.


----------

