share this articleAperture Handles Hasselblad RAW Better than Hasselblad Does - cont'd
http://www.apple.com
Score: 
The Hasselblad RAW support immediately showed me how well Aperture (or Leopard, never mind) now handles RAW files. The quality of Aperture’s (definitely Aperture, this time) built-in RAW adjustments --even in automatic mode-- is simply stunning. I compared the H3D test files renditions by Aperture 2.1 with those rendered in Hasselblad’s own RAW conversion program and to my eye, the Aperture auto-adjustments did a better job of getting out the detail while simultaneously giving the image more “punch”. In Aperture I could finally see why photographers become lyric when they are allowed to play with a Hasselblad.
Adobe’s Digital Negative format (DNG) is also finally supported by Aperture. The Kodak P880 files that I had converted into that format will now show, and I can adjust them as any other supported format. Of course, the quality is not as good as of an original RAW file.
Premium 1 Content
NEWS ALERT: Level 1 Subscribers can get the Basic Quark Job Jackets Training Pack for FREE!
V.I.P. Content
NEWS ALERT: Level 2 Subscribers can get the Advanced Quark Job Jackets Training Pack for FREE --next to the reports, analyses, Basic Packs, etc.
RAW is what most semi- and professional photographers will use. RAW and JPEG is what you can also use with most dSLRs, and when using Aperture there’s actually a sense in doing that, because the program will use your JPEG images as Quick Preview versions. Aperture will transparently use your camera’s JPEGs while adjusting the RAW file.
On the Adjustments front, a lot has improved and added. On top of its built-in adjustment features, Aperture 2.1 has the first plug-in that shows what can be done with Aperture’s new architecture. The built-in adjustments all work on the photo as a whole. Although you can saturate or de-saturate on specific colour areas, and you can brush-retouch using textures from other areas (with colour and lightness adjusted to the target), the big and good news is that you can now dodge, burn, saturate, de-saturate, etc, using a brush in the plug-in window.
Lens Correction: an Idea for a Plug-in
Image editing companies like Nik and PictureCode have already announced they’re going to deliver plug-ins for Aperture 2.1, and that’s good news, as this will potentially set Aperture 2.1 further apart from its competitors than anything else. Even with that one Dodge and Burn plug-in available now, you can see where Aperture is going to. The special window that has to be opened to use the plug-in is not even a drag, as it makes sense to have other controls than the ones the main Aperture application offers when using these plug-ins.
Some effects Aperture 2.x offers are new or so dramatically improved they look new. Vignetting, for example, can be done by adjusting exposure or gamma. The latter creates a more dramatic effect. Vignetting is applied to the photo after cropping it. Devignetting is applied before cropping it. At least, that’s what some other reviewers have noticed in Aperture 2.0.1. In Aperture 2.1 I can’t see the difference before or after cropping anymore. So, it’s very clear Apple is closely listening to comments, irrespective of where they come from (and --I hope-- only when they make sense).
Other complaints, even after version 2 was just released, were that Aperture really should have lens correction capabilities (type barrel, etc). Well, they are potentially there now that the plug-in architecture has been thrown out in the open. Perhaps a good idea for DxO Labs; to develop a plug-in that links to their lens corrections capabilities?
Wanted: XML Export
At the end of the day, I don’t think you can currently do better than what Aperture has to offer. It has a strong management system, excellent adjustments, a near-perfect RAW engine that gets basic corrections right in 99.90% of the cases as far as I can see, and support for plug-ins. And it costs less than the first versions. For the time being, Aperture is aimed at individual photographers, rather than to photographers working in workgroups, like photo reporters, for example. I can see that changing --if Apple can make a digital asset management server system for TV studios, I’m sure they can do the same for a relatively simple workflow like photo management.
If that should happen, publishers will have another reason to migrate to Mac OS X and its products. Even without such an asset management system, Apple should really offer XML export capabilities to Aperture. The ability to publish photo journals and web pages is all good and nice, but for photographers to merge their work with cross-media publishing systems, Aperture would vastly benefit from XML export capabilities. Although most big-name publishers will have a Digital Asset Management system in place and won’t need an XML export capability, smaller publishing companies have nothing in place, and would benefit from such capability.
Surely, even individual photographers who want to expose their work on the web could benefit from a semi-automatic system to upload their photos and update the related contents.
To wrap up this review, I believe Aperture 2.1 could be a Lightroom killer on the Mac. I think much will depend on plug-in developers being willing to create interesting solutions for real problems. I also think Aperture should further move in the direction of professional photo management as well as keeping its appeal as an individual photographer’s management and adjustment tool.
| ← previous page |  comment ↓ 11 so far
|
| what are these? ↓ (wikipedia link) | |||||
 digg! |
 delicious |
 reddit |
 facebook |
 stumbleupon |
 technorati |
Premium Level 1 Content
- Basic ProofMaster 3 Calibration Training Pack
- QuarkXPress 7 vs. InDesign CS3 Report (also in French)
- 4 Camera RAW Applications Report
- QPS 7 vs. Smart Connection Enterprise 4.x vs. K4 Report
- Smart Connection Enterprise 5 Feature Report
- Quark Job Jackets Technology Report
- Atomik Dynamic Publisher Report
V.I.P. Level 2 Content
Comment Form
Time of Entry: 2008 04 03 UT - by Gianni
At first I was hesitant to use Aperture because I still use my trusty Olympus 5050 which takes .ORF RAW files - which are not supported by Aperture. However they (and others I’m sure) are easily converted to the Adobe .dng RAW format which Aperture handles. I now use Aperture and am very pleased (even though I have the extra conversion step for my camera)
Time of Entry: 2008 04 08 UT - by Jack
Mac OS and Aperture support the new Olympus E-3 raw format. Aperture 2.1 has replaced Lightroom in my workflow.
Time of Entry: 2008 04 08 UT - by matt
And summarized in the headline to your story, we have the reason that professional photography is getting harder and harder. You claim that Aperture is the perfect tool for professionals, meanwhile, your c/v reads publishing and technology journalism… not photojournalism, not commercial photography, no ad experience. What professionals (who aren’t sponsored by Apple) did you speak with?
owning professional camera equipment, a hefty mac computer, and the newest photo editing software does not make you a professional.
The tool of professionals is Adobe Lightroom, especially Beta 2.0 which was just released. Aperture is sluggish (i run top end Macbook pro’s, and my Mac Pro with dual processors and 8GB of RAM), i still get the feeling that pixels are being tossed into an inferno whenever i touch the levels sliders, and file management could be so much better. and who’s idea was that import gimmick that remains animated for whatever reason. in response to your claim that lightroom is confusing.. how difficult is a dialogue box with different “Folders” (aka collections) to manage? regardless, professional photographers rely on meticulous folder structures which allow us to move from office to laptop to studio without worrying about relying on consistency between photo library’s.
There is no ability to export web galleries to anything but a .mac account, and Lightroom’s raw engine remains cleaner and more responsive than Aperture has ever been. have you even used Lightroom beta 2? the dodge/burn dialogue is cleaner than anything i’ve ever used, the develop panels are responsive to every click, no slider lag whatsoever. all things aperture is dragged down by within seconds of launching.
i’m sure this comment will be moderated out.. but i’d love to hear your rebuttal to my response. feel free to email me.
you can call it personal preference, but don’t call yourself a professional photographer or one who speaks for us.
Time of Entry: 2008 04 08 UT - by michael Epstein
i enjoyed the article - I was wondering how Aperture 2.1 compares to CS2 or CS3
I own CS2 but haven’t used it much because it is so intimidating
but I wouldn’t buy aperture if it were a serious step down in editing capability
what do you think?
Time of Entry: 2008 04 08 UT - by david
I think matt made some good points about the strengths of LR, I didn’t find his tone overly hostile. But maybe I didn’t read it in the same tone of voice you did. He was a bit annoyed I suppose, but I think he was reacting to your slightly biased assessment of LR.
It’s probably a good point in time to remind ourselves that the Aperture v. Lightroom debate is no different from the Nikon v. Canon one. I’ve used both of these programs extensively and from their first releases. They are both extremely capable, and offer different advantages based on what’s important to your workflow and point of view.
There is no right answer here, as they are both strong solutions for professional and prosumer workflows. Anyone who for whatever reason can’t acknowledge that probably sees the world largely in black and white...which maybe comes natural for some photographers.
Time of Entry: 2008 04 08 UT - by David
Does anyone know if Aperture has the capability to make bloodshot red eyes white?
Time of Entry: 2008 04 08 UT - by Jimmy Cheng
I think it’s a good review and I personally use Aperture since the start of it two years ago. I first installed to my Powerbook G4 and ran ok with Jpeg files. Although compatible with my Canon 5D, the overall experience was at turtle-speed. Despite what Apple described my Powerbook was sufficient to run Aperture, it did recommend a minimum of G5 system.
What I gather was that Aperture 1.5 was a huge improvement, both in conversion and adjustment. I think Erik’s comment is a bit harsh and unfair. Digital management software is very different to Photoshop. Aperture is a management tool that lets you deal with a vast number or RAW image files easily. Despite Adobe’s Bridge, it is virtually impossible to use PS to manage RAW files. I simply use Aperture to manage and select the best ones for PS to do more ‘refined’ touch-up.
Stepping up from Aperture 1.x to 2 was a shock! First, even my Powerbook felt the difference. The preview loaded instantly, but conversion is still pretty slow by comparison. I am upgrading to Macbook Pro this month and I am eager to see the supposed 300% speed enhancement as Apple claimed.
2.1 is definitely a yes yes to me, with plug-ins, it means that Aperture’s future is now bright and clear. I am fond with its ease of use and speed. Lightroom, is a little ‘complicated’ by comparison but PS is still my favourite for touch-ups. Yet, I always do bulk of adjustments in Aperture before outputting to PS.
Cheers
Time of Entry: 2008 04 09 UT - by Ian
Still needs work. Not to impressed with the webpage layouts, but thats a minor wrinkle. In use Capture NX for most of my editing, but I’ll wait and see if Apple can impress me with the next update as well as any Plug Ins that come along.
Time of Entry: 2008 04 09 UT - by KBeat
Matt,
Well, I’m not sure I meet your standards of professional or not. Let’s see, I do have some fancy equipment, a hefty Mac computer or two, a few Canon SLRs (5D, Mark IIIs, 30D, S80 for pocket fun), and about 15 years of Photoshop experience. My Dad was a photo journalist and I could develop photos in a darkroom by the time I was 5. I moved to Macs in the late 80s and began shooting digitally as soon as it was possible. I shoot commercially and have product shots in catalogs, websites, and magazine spreads. Additionally I do some side work with schools shooting dances, athletic events etc. I’ll let you decide if that’s professional enough or not.
Anyway, I agree wholeheartedly with Erik’s review and have become a huge fan of Aperture 2. In fact, with 2.1, I rarely leave Aperture any longer. I love the RAW conversion, I greatly prefer the color workflow and the handling of color space to that of Photoshop CS3. I find I can get the results I need very quickly with Apertures tools. Really, other than HDR work which I do primarily in Photomatrix, I only leave Aperture and pop into Photoshop when I want to do some layer work. I understand that an HDR plug in is on the way for Aperture as well, and if it’s up to snuff, it’ll pretty much keep me in Aperture full time.
The performance issues which plagued 1.x are now gone. On my systems, with the pesky project preview management turned off, I find performance silky smooth most of the time. I greatly prefer Aperture to Lightroom 1.x, although I’ve not tried the beta. You are perfectly within your rights to prefer LR yourself, but to dismiss Erik’s opinion based on your evaluation of his credentials was exceedingly smug. Happy shooting.
Time of Entry: 2008 04 09 UT - by mocmac
I am an indoor sports shooter and deal with large volumes of shots that often require a fair bit of adjustment, particularly noise reduction.
I thought the original Aperture 1.0 was brilliant in concept but it was so slow in execution on both my Powermac G5 and Macbook Pro that I dropped it when the trial expired.
I settled on Lightroom and saw a dramatic productivity improvement. Difference was night and day, maybe 4 times faster. Was also nice that they immediately supported the new Nikon DSLR’s that came out last November. With my new Nikon, I would have been SOL if I had been on Aperture.
Well I have been using Aperture 2.1 for the last couple of weeks on 30 day trial and I now see another significant productivity improvement. After a couple of sessions, I can see that the speed increase is again noticeable, my workflow output increase over Lightroom 1.3.1 is probably double.
When the Noise Ninja plugin arrives, I will potentially avoid a stop in PS CS3 on many shots, that will also cut the amount of time. I can hardly wait for that release.
Slugging through edits and being continually interrupted by beach balls is no fun. Glad to see that this healthy competition is making our lives better.
I think that Adobe has an incentive not to cannibalize PS too much while Apple has no such restriction. I expect that the built in editing features of Aperture will strengthen with each new release.
Time of Entry: 2008 04 10 UT - by RJVB
> I think that Adobe has an incentive not to cannibalise PS too much while Apple has no such restriction
True, but they also have an incentive to sell both products, so they’d have to compete with Apple. One way out would be to have LR and PS share functionality and code, via a plug-in architecture. Access to PS’s functionality without having to fire up a big app…
How large is the potential customer base who’d require cross-platform compatibility, i.e. being able to work on both MSWin and MacOSX? Aperture wouldn’t be for them, right?
