Apple Aperture 3

[Droog]

Aperture really has raised the bar with this release - it now has a far greater number of editing options. It is as intuitive as ever, requiring no reading of any manual to know exactly how to do almost every task. This is in direct contrast with Photoshop, around which a whole publishing and teaching industry has sprung up. Aperture was designed for photographers and anyone who has done any darkroom work instantly will feel right at home with dodging and burning tools and the rest. Just "set and forget" your image library and storage options, and off you go.

The latest release has added numerous functions that previously had required plug-ins, plus many more. I am using it already so if anyone here has any questions, I'll do my best to answer them.

Andrew

[Overbeyond]

Thanks Andrew
I am happily using Lightroom (on my Mac) for most of my photography now and it helps to keep me far more organised  than I would be  without it.  I have yet to visit many of it's deeper areas and perhaps I never will.  I have yet to see a piece of photography software that does not contain all the superfluous stuff that we think we want but really don't need.
If you have experience of Lightroom I would be interested in hearing your thoughts and where Aperture scores better.

[Droog]

Hi

Sometimes it's the best tool but I don't much like using Photoshop. I sat in an airport lounge one time watching the person beside me using Aperture to sort through and edit photos on her Macbook and that was it! I knew that this programme would be intuitive for me, easier and quicker than Photoshop and I had to have it.

Others obviously felt the same because Adobe very quickly rushed out Lightroom with a lot of the same organising and editing features. Although it was buggy at the start, it is a phenomenal piece of work.

My advice always is to try one of these (or some other flavour) to save time and effort when organising photos. With either Lightroom or Aperture it is possible to set up a clean, hassle-free workflow right through to storage and automated back-up. Whether you choose Aperture or Lightroom doesn't matter in the least. More people use Lightroom and it has fewer compatibility issues; I find the Aperture interface more natural and more to my taste. The beauty of either is that you don't need a degree in graphic design or to become a computer geek to get along very well with them.

Glad to hear you are happily "photo-organised".

Andrew

[Joe Tully]

Hi Droog et al

As it happens there is a 4 page evaluation of Aperture 3 in this week's Amateur Photographer Magazine. You might be interested in it. If you cannot lay hands on it, let me know and I'll keep you my copy when I'm through with it.

Personally I have no experience at all with Aperture but I do have a copy of Lightroom 1 which I gather is a similar piece of software. It seems to me that all the usual adjustment tools are there. I certainly have no gripe at all with that. What I really do not have any need for though is a system which automatically bangs my shots into whatever folders it likes and tags them or puts little stars on them. A few years ago when I started out in Digital capture I initiated my own system of folders which has served me well thus far and I have a pretty good idea as to where everything is without having to have a machine to tell me where I put them. As far as back up is concerned, I just make sure that I back up every time I write files to my permanent archive, which by the way doesn't live on my P.C. but on an external hard drive, which is backed up onto two additional external hard drives. I reckon I am going to have to be REALLY unlucky to lose that lot. Used to back up onto DVD's but found them to be too unreliable having had at least 3 of them suddenly refuse to be read any more.

This morning I shot some work in Woodenbridge only to find that the first 10 frames or so had a gloop of dust on the sensor. Strangely enough it seems to have fallen off because the remaining 20 or so are dust free. If I didn't have good old Photoshop, or a near equivalent, how would I deal with that little problem? If Lightroom has a cloning tool, a patch tool, layers palette, masking etc, etc, I have failed to find them. I suspect that Aperture is similarly under endowed in this department. If I am wrong and someone can tell me where to find these items in Lightroom I should be most interested. In the meantime for the sake of a comprehensive toolbox I think I'll just have to stick with Photoshop.

Finally, don't let anyone kid you about Photoshop Elements, now up to version 8. I have version 6 and for the money it is a wonderful bargain which can do almost everything its big brother can do, and one or two tricks which are unique to itself. For those looking for a really nifty package at a budget price, you won't beat Elements.

Night all............  Joe

[Droog]

Joe

I prefer not to spend too much time at the computer. So (back in Aperture 1) I set my filing preferences once at the start and no longer give them a thought. My shots automatically are backed up wirelessly to an external hard drive in another part of the house - I don't give that more than an occasional glance.

There is a fairly comprehensive set of editing tools in Aperture, including clone and patch tools (for those messy sensors that do not get replaced for each shot!). It doesn't come pre-loaded with masses of bloatware but offers the ability to add extra functions via applications and plug-ins that I can download as needed.

You (and Glenn!) are not average users but enthusiasts - you have already expended considerable time and effort to master Photoshop. Others (gulp!) do not like using that software and (gasp!) I am one - it's not blasphemy! Luckily, there are some alternatives offering much of the functionality of Photoshop.

I also use CS3 and know that it can do some things that Aperture cannot, but that is completely beside the point. Photoshop might be the Bugatti Veyron of photo editing software but very many people, if they're honest, will find that a less highly specified vehicle would suit them better. One that doesn't need how-to lessons and textbooks and courses, and that they can feel confident to start using intuitively without feeling discouraged or intimidated by an awkward interface.


Andrew

PS - I'll have a look for that AP; ta muchly.

[Joe Tully]

Hi Droog

According to AP article, Aperture3 has the facility to brush on certain effects which sounds good and the review is very favourable. Of course one needs to be running a Mac, so us PC people will have to soldier on with Photoshop and Lightroom

Joe

[Droog]

Exactly! Use what works for you. The world-leading photo editing software doesn't really appeal to me - I prefer an alternative and use it for more than 99% of my work. It's not about what you (or I) choose, it's about the fact that there is a valid choice; one that shouldn't offend adherents of what Frank has referred to as the "religion" of Photoshop.

Some photographers with whom I have spoken recently do not print their images and state as a reason for their reluctance that they "... haven't quite mastered Photoshop...".

My advice is to use whatever works and get those photos printed and proudly displayed.

Andrew

PS So it looks like I'm the only Aperture user hereabouts...?

[Glenn Rossiter]

I couldn't agree more Joe .........  in that PS Elements is all that most new users need for even some advanced techniques. I'm not sure if the latest version has a "Select by Color range" tool finally, but it is one of the few things I really miss between PSE and Full PS. .. I make good use of it in my CS3 work.
By all reports the latest CS5 Tools of "Content Aware Fill" and "PatchMatch" are going to be awesome, I'm starting to wonder whether such advanced and technically proficient tools such as these are beginning to push the fine line boundaries of the Big NO-NO in our work which is CGI.
Any Thoughts by the group
Glenn.

[Joe Tully]

Hi Glenn

Hmmmmmm, I am going to have to take a little think about that one! There is surely a point where it may be said, "Now that's just going too far". Will have to give it some cogitation though as I am not actually sure where that point might lurk but will enjoy teasing it out in my mind and if it doesn't drive me completely insane, I will report back to you here.

Joe

[Droog]

It's already happened. Many images on this site are digitally composited and computer generated.

Glenn, do you have a more specific definition of that to which you object?

[Glenn Rossiter]

Droog.
I certainly agree that most of our Photography in this Digital age is digitally composited (Not so sure about "generated"). I'm one of the big proponents of making pictures and not just taking pictures. What I actually refer to is the ability of a Photographer using sophisticated software to create amazing new artistic Images by the power of combinations and adjustments from within one's own "Raw Photographed stock".     I always say that all Elements of an Image should be owned and optically photographed by the Author.

This is the basis of our Photography, It does NOT allow (or should NOT allow) such techniques as pure CGI material in our Images as is produced by Landscape generator Software like Terragen and Bryce3D for example.  We have not yet got to the point of using cinematic mattes.

The point I make in my above Reply, is that with the power being introduced by the tools within latest versions of Photoshop and Others, such as "Content aware fill" with its superb ability to match large pixel field areas in an image in order to remove or replace with unbelievable accuracy ... are we reaching boundaries or approaching the blurred boundaries of Digital Combinational Photography and CGI.   I have no real objections, BUT I think we will need to finely consider what we do as pure photography in the future, if such software continues to improve our ability to drastically change the original raw stock after shooting.
Glenn

[Droog]

Hi Glenn

'Content Aware Fill' seems to differ from manual cloning only by virtue of the process having been automated. It is not as able as implied here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ScWu7pG7r0

What is the difference between adding a frame or a border or a painterly overlay and CGI material? I would suggest that the main differences are degree and visibility. So one could look at your excellent image of the rainforest ferns and even if the frame were interpolated material (I assume it's not... just trying to explain with an example), one can feel comfortable that it is both visible and not the main part of the image.

Parts of many images these days do contain computer generated data; the difficulty is in trying to legislate for how much is too much. The other issue, as evidenced by some comments on a recent "Image of the Month" on this site, is that people will just assume images have undergone major alteration or CGI enhancement  and the 'currency' of photography will become devalued.

[Joe Tully]

Very funny piece that. For a few minutes it had me convinced because it starts out not far off the truth, until it goes off the rails altogether. Still thinking about what to say on the manipulation issue, rather, I know what I want to say but want to find a careful way to express it so as not to rub anyone up the wrong way. Will reply though, soon.     Joe

[Glenn Rossiter]

Droog.
Thanks for the YT URL and the hysterical movie spoof ..... I love it !!.   We now have Photoshop being able to help Us with Quantum mechanics, Cosmology and the TOE problems ... How good is it, I must go and apply it to my theoretical musings on the subjects .... just to help out Stephen Hawking of course. I'll have another wine just to make sure PS is not going on an absurd sidebranch.   And to think I was doubting ContentAwareFill.
Glenn

[Droog]

The degree beyond which manipulation is unacceptable differs extensively depending on people, subject matter and situation. To say that a certain amount is OK but beyond that 'is a no-no' is a statement of personal preference... unless written into the rules of competitions such as these:

http://www.petapixel.com/2010/03/03/world-press-photo-disqualifies-winner/

http://nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2009/04/denmark.html

Photo submissions soon will have to be accompanied by photographers' statements asserting their provenance and treatments used. How utterly boring.