Well, been a photoshop user for quite a while now, and am perfectly pleased with the level of knowledge I have reached.

Recently i bumped into Extensis Portfolio, and have found it to be quite the interesting software to have (am still on the trial version, so it hasn't been a month of use so far)....

Keeping in mind, that i did not like lightroom, for its slow processing, as much as the feeling it gave me of being less that photoshop (regardless of whether it actually is or not).... I ventured into browsing Aperture and reading up on it again!

Now i will be using the trial version to check it out and see whether i personally like it or not, but in 30 days, i might not be able to figure everything out....

I am a mac devotee and simply adore all things mac.... however i always remain objective when spending money on software and hardware....

I would love it if anyone here who has tried, or still is using aperture, could share your opinions of the software!

As my try out advances i will post my own opinions and what i am encountering of problems or annoyances!

Thanks,
Marc

See, and I thought I was the only one who didn't like Lightroom.......

The 30 day trial version of Aperture came with the new laptop. I tried it, played around a bit, and came to the conclusion that anything I could do in Aperture, I could do in Photoshop (Wether or not that true, that's the conclusion I came to). In the end, I suppose I just didn't see enough value in Aperture to alter my workflow.

Aperture strikes me as being in the same vein as Elements: a tradeoff between price and functions.

- Joe U.

I looked at Aperture at a trade show, it outperformed Lightroom by a huge margin and was far smoother in action.

But nothing is as convincing as a rigged demo :)
Seems they were using the top of the line Macbook Pro and had only a few hundred photos.

I did like it though, and if Aperture was available for the PC I'd try it.

Well, my friend keeps insisting that i should be more lenient with lightroom (he loves it even though it is slow).....

And i have read about Aperture some reviews that said it was very good.... but so far, i haven't heard anyone say "Sure, i switched to Aperture from Photoshop and glad i did".... basically no one outside the Apple website....

Keep in mind though, that when Apple first released Aperture, I was not at all convinced... I loved the look of it (it's a mac look, so that's always good).. but the features i read about, were not as interesting to me. Maybe it was because i was doing the archiving manually until recently (due to a rather acceptable amount of shooting)...

I love the Loupe function, as well as the "asset management" that is integrated within the software. I would rather at the end, buy Aperture for both photo editing and management, than get Portfolio along with Photoshop (which I already have)....

Now of course, in no way do i intend to give up on Photoshop.... as a designer, I still have a lot of use for the irreplaceable software.... but in regards to my growing work in photography, I might as well invest in a software system dedicated to "pure" photography...(I am reminded of a topic Ronnocco started) where the post processing in both Photoshop and Aperture, for what i need is the same.... (as far as i am aware of until now)

Joe - Love the correlation you made with Elements... You also said that all you can do in Aperture you could in Photoshop, so there was no reason for you to change your workflow.... do you reckon that to be the most important reason? If so, that for me would be a point for Aperture (in photography.....which is what its for anyway)

Paul - Yeah, even on the website they specify that you need at least 1GB of RAM to be able to use it.... also keeping in mind processors and Video Cards, there are a lot of variables to take care of.... Personally i will be trying it on a G5 with 2GB RAM and 256 MB graphics card.... not top of the line, but rather average "Designer/Graphics" workstation.


So far, it seems we have a +1.5 in favor of Aperture... I'll give it a week before giving my first vote!

Marc

Joe - Love the correlation you made with Elements... You also said that all you can do in Aperture you could in Photoshop, so there was no reason for you to change your workflow.... do you reckon that to be the most important reason? If so, that for me would be a point for Aperture (in photography.....which is what its for anyway)

I hadn't really thought about it, but in all likelihood, yes. I've spent a decade or so learning Photoshop, fine-tuning my workflow, and automating it as much as is practical. Additionally, I have the full Creative Suite, and love the ease of moving files and images between applications. So unless an app is going to offer me something that I'm not already capable of getting, something important enough to consider going through a new learning curve and dealing with compatability issues, I tend to stick with what I know.

- Joe U.

Well, I know I should probably test it a bit longer before passing judgement, but here's a quick assesment for those stil interested:

With a reminder of Photoshop Elements, and being more "advanced" than Lightroom, Aperture indeed is a software that is worth considering for Photographers.

The switch is most definitely not worth it for someone who is not planning on upgrading their system. Basically, I don't see myself getting Aperture and going through the learning curve, on my own current system, which already has CS2 suite.

For the management issue, I find Portfolio to be one awesome amazing incredible software for those interested... although at $199, the demo has blown me away... And the perk here is that it does not stop at photography, but pretty much all creative assets...

That being said, I do see myself, when I get a new laptop (a year after the release of Leopard) actually using Aperture on that system.... For now, I am completely satisfied with all the things I can do with Photoshop and the management using Portfolio....

For the sake of fairness, for anyone still in the beginning stages of experimenting with Photoshop, if you're a mac user, get Aperture.... It will be worth it for you....

I wondered how you were getting along with this...........

I'm interested in why you would consider Aperture for your notebook. I got a new Powerbook about a month ago and CS2 Suite works well for me- although some of my projects go beyond photography into the artistic realm, so I find the expanded abilities of Photoshop and Illustrator rather neccessary.

Just curious as to your thoughts.

- Joe U.

Well actually its the cool "gadgety" features of Aperture that will make me consider.. Loupe for instance is so much more comfortable than zooming in and out!

Another reason for my "considering" it, is my weakness for all things Mac...

As you can see, these are not gonna be important enough reasons for me to make the switch on the new notebook. But its photographic focus willl be an advantage if I end up changing directions in work and going pro in photography.

And you're right about the exbanded abilities of Photoshop and Illustrator, which I too find necessary.

The key here is to remember that Aperture and Lightroom are what you need to compare, rather than getting Photoshop in there at all. Photoshop (and other larger scale editors like Nikon Capture NX, Paint Shop Pro, etc.) are designed from a different perspective. Aperture and Lightroom are image browsers/Digital Asset Management software rather than full scale image editing applications. Sure, each has a fairly extensive set of RAW conversion and image adjustment tools, but nothing quite like the full editors do.

I've been using Aperture since 1.1, extensively since 1.2, and when there's a large project that needs to be done, Aperture gets my vote. From my experience, it is more stable than Lightroom, and I've read enough horror stories about people having their lightroom library become corrupted to stay away after the beta ran out.

Aperture is heavily GPU dependent, as are a great many still image related apps and frameworks now coming into use, so I rarely recommend it unless you're running a machine with a discrete GPU- a Macbook Pro, iMac, or Mac Pro.

For very small assignments or projects I don't tend to use Aperture as growing the aperture library and rendering previews takes time, and it's too much of a hassle when I only have 50 or so images. When you have 5,600 RAW files, though, and only a few days to get through them all, Aperture is absolutely indispensable. there's just no way to get through them all that fast otherwise.

Harrison, having had such an extensive experience with Aperture a couple of questions if you would be so kind:

1- If I were to compare with Photoshop, does Aperture have the tools to do "photographic" image editing?

2- I do realize how heavily Aperture relies on the GPU, however, it does work faster than lightroom. The machine I was running it on is a G5 with 2.5 GB RAM dual processor. 128MB video card. Does it slow down the system enough, to be a problem... I worked on about 85 images, and the system held it's ground.... Average system... would it hold or not?

The reason I ask these questions again, is because my beloved sister got me Aperture as a gift today... no reason,... she wanted to indulge in some shopping... I never return gifts unless I have them... specially when they are software...

Thanks for the taking the time

1- Photoshop is a much more complete image editor, in that is has a greater array of tools- selection masks, layers, cloning, etc. For Raw conversion and image parameters, Aperture is great. It's designed for Raw file editing.

2- It all depends on the system. If you were running on a macbook or mac mini, I'd say it might be a problem depending on your camera and the number of images. The best way to do it is to get as much RAM as you can afford in the system if you can't do anything about VRAM.

Well one thing I did not actually consider with Aperture, up until yesterday was the management power.

I reviewed it today, and have been looking at all the things that would help me decide to open the box, or just actually return it for something else.

I must say, photographically speaking, Aperture is much stronger as an Asset management tool than Portfolio... I was actually mainly focused on the image editing, which we know are not as extensive... it being a software that requires a powerful machine, also does not really help...

However, it seems as though it has been built to feel as though you are doing the management with printouts instead of digital files... which is something that feels good.... Guess I'll leave the editing to the CS2 and the management to Aperture for now... Unless my editing for a particular project is minimal (a couple tweaks) then I might just as well do it all on Aperture... This would keep the laptop free of extra strain...

Harrison, thanks for taking the time and replying... it's been very helpful....

Comparing Photoshop to Aperture is a huge waste of time.

Aperture is a workflow tool. NOTHING on the market allows you to organize, edit, caption, process and in some way export an image as fast or as fluently as Aperture and Lightroom, though I think Aperture slightly edges out Lightroom in the workflow department.

Think of these programs as photo operating systems. You go into them, and you don't leave until you're done. I open up Aperture, edit 4500 weddings shots, email several of them, create a website and design a book without ONCE opening another application.

Since getting Aperture I open Photoshop to add borders to my images before uploading them here, and for the rare instance where I need to do some complex cloning. Everything else, literally EVERYTHING, is done in Aperture, and could be done in Lightroom.

Sebastian, you make a very interesting point here.

As i keep fiddling around in Aperture, i do realize its power as a workflow tool, specially in managing my photos.

What I have finally come to decide, is pretty much the following:

1- After a shoot (specially the specific ones as opposed to the random stroll and shoot) I will be working with Aperture. . for the works.

2- The shots that need cleaning and other unavailable tools in Aperture (or rather the tools that are best used in PS) I will take to PS.

3- the shots that I want to manipulate extensively... to PS

4- Having finished the lot
a- either export them for quick viewing on my laptop should I wanna share my folio (which i don't think i'll be doing)
b- Take them into Portfolio after having backed them up to an External HD for quick viewing of all I have.

So far this is very comfortable and appealing to me, and is working fine as I am taking everything back into Aperture now as well.

One thing to remember is that as a Dreamveaver user, it will take a lot of power and effort from Aperture to make me look into it as website design tool.

In the end, your points are very interesting, and I will definitely be keeping a note on the side, as my knowledge of Aperture expands....

Thanks,

Marcus,

For point #2: Aperture's cloning tool (they call it the spot tool) is considerably more powerful than PS's clone stamp, but it doesn't compare to the healing brush. Don't know what sort of cleaning you do, but if you keep your sensor reasonably clean you shouldn't really need to leave Aperture for that either.

Point #4: Aperture's slideshow and dual-monitor presentation features are pretty powerful, making me wonder if you're not duplicating steps by going to an external app again. As for backup, read about Vaults.

Aperture performance tip: Turn off automatic preview generation. That really slows things down right after import. You can always selectively render previews later.

Another note: preview are required for the slideshow features. Also, having previews rendered allows you to just drag images straight out of Aperture. If you drag an image ontot he desktop for example, the preview will be copied there. If you have previews set to be the same size as the original, then you will save yourself the time of exporting the version.