Aperture 2 Impressions from an iPhoto User

I am playing around with it and think I will use both and keep my more photographic photo’s in Aperture and the more home based one in iPhoto.

(subscribed to comments)     +4

So you compared a photo app aimed at professionals and a photo app aimed at amateur home users and your conclusion is..

Aperture is worth it if you’re a professional.
iPhoto is is all that most of you will need.

COME ON. I mean, what was the point of this post? What have you told us that wasn’t so blindingly obvious already? Why did you waste your time writing this? Did you think the average MacApper reader wouldn’t have understood the differences in the apps?

(subscribed to comments)     +9

This interface (the gray, one-window focus, rounded corners, style) seems to be the new look of pro-apps. Logic 8 has this style now, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see a new Final Cut with it.

    +0

The graphite grey menu highlighting and other ‘unique’ interface features are actually the same across the Pro app range. The Pro apps have always had tweaks to make them look more serious and to make them obviously separate from the usual ‘home user’ apps.

For me, Aperture 2 doesn’t offer a great deal extra compared with v1. The price is certainly better, but still not really low enough if you ask me… I also noticed that the UK version is (as Apple annoyingly ALWAYS does) priced considerably higher in a direct price comparison.

    +1

Two Words…. well, one compound word — LIGHTROOM. There comes a time when being an apple product devotee just isn’t worth it anymore.

    -7

@Eric
The problem with your comment is that not everyone fits so neatly into the “Professional” or “Non-Professional” categories. I myself am certainly not a pro, but I do enjoy photography as a hobby, and I find some of Aperture’s features to be useful.
My article was really intended for the people in that boat. The semi-pros that weren’t blessed with your decisive personality.

    +11

What? My comment got a thumbs down? Silly. I’m telling you, LIGHTROOM. The only advantage to using Aperture is the integration into iLife, but if you are a PRO then that doesn’t matter. If not then there are methods of getting Lightroom to work seamlessly with most aspects of iLife. And, using Lightroom, one benefits from all the advantages in using a product that was developed by a company who specialize in computer graphics and photo design/editing. It just makes sense. Note also, that every Aperture update adds elements that it, no doubt, was introduced to by Lightroom. Hee Haw.

    -17

“The only advantage to using Aperture is the integration into iLife, but if you are a PRO then that doesn’t matter.”

Actually, Aperture has quite a few advantages over Lightroom including superior asset management, smart albums, professional book features, support dual screens, better color profile support, light table feature… I could go on. For me, Aperture bitch slaps Lightroom as an organizational tool. Which is very important when you are dealing with 30K images.

(subscribed to comments)     +9

I started with iPhoto years ago. It’s a nice app for casual, home use.

However, in recent years I’ve taken my photography more seriously. So, I needed something more.

I too looked at Aperture in the early days. I too didn’t like it.

So I started using a combination of Adobe Bridge and Photoshop, CS2. That has served me well. I needed it for the strong RAW processing, and I wanted to have speed when working with large photo shoots.

But, I found Aperture 2.0’s trial and fell in love. I’m scheduling to purchase it ASAP.

My flickr (most of my shots since mid-Feb ‘08) have been processed with Aperture 2.0

(subscribed to comments)     +4

I use Lightroom in professional practice, and it’s great. The thing that I really want though, is to be able to use dual monitors, as Aperture supports (and not just stretch the window). I guess there are pros and cons for each.

    +2

@bryan
Lightroom is fine and dandy, but aperture is better IMO in terms of working with the image.
It’s all preference though. I hate how lightroom makes me go through modules. I like everything available on one ‘page’, much like aperture or even picassa.

Aperture also seems more intuitive by default. Lightroom is fine, but I find it very clunky to work with whereas aperture is beautifully simple.

Anyway, both apps will grow and it’s upto the individual user to select which app works best.

    +1

Thanks for writing this up, Will. It’s nice to have the marketing pitches interpreted through the eyes of a real-world user who might be wondering if the stated differences between iPhoto and Aperture, including the price difference, is worthwhile to someone thinking of upgrading.

The comments denigrating this article don’t seem to understand that getting someone’s impressions and thoughts, even if the conclusion supports the marketing pitches, can be really helpful when someone is unsure of the real advantages for their scenario. Will’s article is perfect for someone in that situation.

    +4

Bit off track, but this year it sounds like iPhoto will have competition, in the form of Google’s hugely successful Picasa!
Picasa has always (to me) been slightly better/easier to do some quick editing, so it will be good to see which is better!

    +1

http://www.flickr.com/photos/7934237@N03/

Mostly processed with iPhoto but some of the more recent ones were done with Aperture.

    -2

After testing Lightroom, Aperture 1.5 and Bridge, I went with Bridge / CS2. But now iPhoto 08 and Aperture 2 have changed the equation. I’ll give Aperture a try and see how hard it is to modify my current workflow.

    +1

I have flirted with the pro-photography apps like Aperture and Lightroom whilst remaining a semi-pro photographer at best. At that level of low-end professionalism, I, like Bryan, have also found Lightroom to be a far superior *editing* tool. It maintains the simplicity of iPhoto while providing more sophisticated controls. Aperture in its first avataar was too complex for me.

However, at the end of it all, I only use iPhoto ‘08 all the time. Guess I am not ready to transofrm into the pro world as yet.

And yes - I hope we get to see a Mac version of Picasa. Its undoubtedly the best app out there for Windows in photo management. But I suspect that the whole iLife integration would make a Mac user stick with iPhoto.

    +0

If you want the ability to put your photographs into projects folders and albums then you need Aperture, iPhoto only works with Events and you can’t put Events within Events, making the program really for the home user. Any one wanting to organize photos into some sort of order will need something more powerful than that. So Lightroom or Aperture, well the later obviously works better with a Mac, and if you need to edit the pictures your going to use Photoshop anyway…

    -1

IMO, if you mainly use photo software to do major photo edits then use LIghtroom. If you take decent photos with your camera and only need minor editing, then use iPhoto. If you have thousands of photos (I have over 100,000 since 2001) that you want to manage Aperture is your answer.

(subscribed to comments)     +0

The biggest two negatives are the lack of photo/book ordering, and VIDEO! Yes, I know most Aperature users are pros and most DSLRs don’t do video, but video is becoming so common in these cameras that it’s crazy not to support/add it to a library. That makes it a total non-starter for me. I mean, where the heck am I supposed to catalogue all those videos?

And the notion of needing to use BOTH iPhoto and Aperature and maintain and double the size of my photo library is just crazy. Some more thought needs to be put into Aperature.

    +1

@Video: if i’m comprehending your comment correctly you are saying that aperture does not have photo/book ordering when indeed it does…i’ve actually ordered many books via aperture. as far as video goes, while on the surface it may seem like a good idea to have an all-in-one media asset manager, in reality it never works out. i’ve used several of those all-in-one asset managers and since they are trying to do it all, they do nothing well. i would hate to see aperture lose focus on being the best photo management tool out there. of course, this is just my opinion, but i have tried over 20 products (Windows and OS X) over the course of the last 4 years and only a couple of them tried to do it all…and they were awful.

(subscribed to comments)     -1

You can edit and order photo books from Aperture. The designs are different from what’s in iPhoto, and the book quality is higher.

For video, there are a wide range of different tools than are what’s needed for photography, and it makes sense to separate them in pro-level applications. iMovie has a movie clip inventory manager, so that might be the best place for them.

    +0

Thanks for the comments guys, I actually wasn’t aware that Aperture had photo book features as well.

I’m just looking at them now and they do seem quite nice…

    +1

I must add, I attended the Pro Photo Expo, in Pasadena, CA, last weekend. The first thing I did when I arrived is walk to the Apple booth. They were offering an Aperture 2 demo.

It was great. They covered a lot of stuff, and convinced me to purchase a copy ASAP.

On the books, they covered even making your own templates. Much more professional than anything iPhoto has to offer, or Lightroom.

(subscribed to comments)     +0

Well after trying the demo for only a couple of days, I am able to conclude that, for me at least, the massive productivity increase that i experienced when I first moved from Aperture to Lightroom has been duplicated again by moving back to Aperture! True progress in reducing the drudgery of pixel pushing. Competition is good.

    +0

Price aside, I find Aperture to be a very confusing product. It certainly has a more refined interface than iPhoto, along with more advanced and sophisticated photo correction tools. As I consider myself a serious hobbyist, these qualities keep drawing me back for a second, third and fourth look. My problem is that I don’t see how it can fit into my daily routine.

First of all, it is absolutely absurd to suggest using BOTH Aperture and iPhoto. I mean, MAYBE, if they shared the same library and if there were distinctly separate and complimentary uses for both apps, but that is certainly not the case. Using both means wasting enormous amounts of hard disk space - something that makes no sense given limited laptop hard disk capacities. It also means relying on an awkward and inefficient process of importing images (and video) from my digital cameras into one application, only to have to repeat the process with the other. Why on earth would anyone want to do this?

If grouping video clips with photos made no sense, then why does Apple allow it on iPhoto? I’ll tell you why - because when I come home from a trip I like to enjoy all my trip photos and video clips in the same context, rather than having to use two separate apps. Sure, iMovie or some other dedicated video app is appropriate for editing those video clips, but that’s an entirely different thing from browsing all media from a given event.

On top of all this, Apple continues on their stubborn-as-a-mule strategy of depriving users of the option to BROWSE media without having to IMPORT it. Don’t think this is a big deal? Try importing an existing collection of 10,000 or so digital photos into either app. Go on, I’ll wait. if these apps had a browse mode (which Lightroom does, by the way) then you could simply point to any image folder and browse to your hearts content INSTANTLY.

Apple has created an impressive app with Aperture, and version 2 demonstrates significant improvement to the user interface. But a lot of work still remains to properly integrate Aperture with other iLife apps.

Before wasting time talking about whether Aperture is worth the price, how about we consider it’s proper role, pros and cons, assuming it were completely free…

(subscribed to comments)     +0

For those of you who have experience with both photoshop and Aperture 2, please let me know which you preferred and why. Also, does Aperture 2 have the editing feature of burning (?) specific areas of photos as photoshop? Lastly, going to Hawaii soon. Can anyone familiar with the Sony Alpha recommend a wide angle lens? Thanks.

(subscribed to comments)     +0

Regarding the Aperture vs Photoshop question, that’s a bit of an apples to oranges comparison. For basic editing and color correction tasks, Aperture is easier and quicker to use. Photoshop’s strengths lie in more advanced and complex work like compositing.

(subscribed to comments)     +0

I’m a recent PC to Mac switcher. I really like iPhoto but wanted something a bit more professional. I do the home photos but I’m also a hobbyist looking to get a bit more professional.

Anyway, I’m interested to hear from folks about how they store their photos. I’m still not sure I want to totally walk away from iPhoto. I have plenty of disk space but the thought of having two libraries seems weird.

So any thoughts? Do I just move everything to the Aperture library and if I ever want to work in iPhoto just move individual photos or events?

Can anyone share how they have organized their Aperture library after moving from iPhoto? Event -> Project is simple, but you can setup a much more complex hierarchy in Aperture and I’d rather do this once right than have to change it later.

Thanks a lot.

(subscribed to comments)     +0

One nice thing is that choosing between Aperture and iPhoto isn’t an all or nothing choice. In iPhoto you can reach right into your Aperture library, through the hierarchy you made, and pull photos for the things where iPhoto is the better choice. For a quick slideshow or calendar printing, I prefer iPhoto, and pulling in photos from local storage is pretty quick, but I much prefer Aperture for organizing and touching up photos. Best of both worlds, with only a little bridge work for the user between them.

    +1

The one and only advantage to using Aperture is, unless iPhoto has it and I don’t know about, is that you can apply multiple keywords to a photo and when typing “Apple + F” for Find, you can start to simply “click and select” a keyword at a time to get the exact finds you really want.

For example, I have sorted photos by SERVICE, INDUSTRY, DATE, and COLOR.
So, let’s say, I want an AUTOMOTIVE (sub category within INDUSTRY) websiet (subcategory within SERVICE) created in 2006 (subcategory within YEAR), plus I only want Yellow color websites (subcategory in YELLOW)… I can find the results within seconds…
I don’t think you can do such an advanced search in any other software as conveniently as you do in Aperture.

Aperture also allows you to open the “Kewords HUD”, where you can Organize, Create, Move and MERGE keywords to manage them.

To make things better, then i can filter the results with RATINGS…

Can iPhoto08 do that? If so, then Aperture for me is not worth purchasing perhaps…

——————
I do have one question though….
I cannot wait to find out how you can PERMANENTLY add a keyword to a photo within Aperture. I have 50,000 photos and sometimes I have to reimport them to Aperture, and all Keywords applied to a photo in a previous instance is GONE for good when the image is reimported back to Aperture…

iTunes, however, DOES remember the information you apply to MP3 files… such as GENRE, COMMENTS, etc… You would think Apple would have applied the same to Aperture?

(subscribed to comments)     +0

Aperture vs iPhoto doesn’t make a lot of sense; they’re not really meant to compete… for me, it’s Aperture vs Lightroom. I prefer the more elegant interface of Aperture over Lightroom with features such as support (in version 2) for plug-ins. But the deal breaker is the gigantic size of Aperture’s library… even with previews turned off and storing the actual photo files on an external hard drive. I loaded a sample collection of about 1200 RAW images into an Aperture library and a Lightroom catalog, Lightroom’s catalog was about 310 MB vs Aperture’s nearly 18 GB! Also, although I found it a bit hard to quantify, it seemed to me that Lightroom’s processing of RAW files is slightly superior to Aperture’s. (I demo’d both programs before Apple’s recent update to their RAW processor, so that may no longer be a valid observation).

    +0

@jotaeh: you are right, it’s more about Aperture vs. Lightroom…and I already stating the core difference in comment #18. with aperture 2.1 though, the gap in photo editing is shrinking. maybe in LR’s next release we’ll see the gap narrow in photo management as well.

if library size is an issue with you, have you tried using referenced files instead? may work better for you. i am very surprised at your library size though. i no have a single aperture library with photos from 1998 to current. i have over 100K photos with the last 20K being taken with a Canon 5D (12MB RAW files)…plus i have a lot of generated thumbnails in my library and still the library size is only 350GB.

(subscribed to comments)     +0

OK, I recently switched from Win to Mac (Elements to iPhoto). I am becoming more involved in photography but I have a difficult time understanding where iPhoto and Aperture are different as related to iLife. I chose Aperture over Lightroom not only because of its features but because it integrated well with iLife and .Mac. I transfered my iPhoto library to Aperture so why do I need to keep my iPhoto libray and consume more GB? I don’t want to switch between applications, just want to have my catalog available in one place and accesible by all iLife/eMail/iMac applications. I have Phososhop Elements for Mac if I need to go further than Aperture (until I can afford CS3- I have Nikon Capture NX). What is the best solution?

(subscribed to comments)     +2

@Lewis, you do NOT need to maintain an iPhoto library when using Aperture. I’ve been a huge Photoshop user since version 3, since Aperture came out I’ve only used Photoshop a few times to do panoramic photos, collages, or to correct serious mistakes on my part.

(subscribed to comments)     +0

Will,

I read your post, being in much the same situation - only, photography is not my hobby, but HAS TO BE my hobby (for PR use, I’m a musician). I appreciated that you said obvious things, as compared to the first (Eric’s) post, who did not appreciate this. Yes, iPhoto is a consumer and Aperture 2 a pro app. In my situation, I’m exactly in-between: it must look professional, but I’ll never be a pro (laking talent-time-ambition).

I looked at your pictures and was very pleased - you have a very good eye, and I very much liked the titles! They were so “obvious” that it’s delightful (ask me why?).
Only I missed your profile - “I’m male” - OK …

Thanks for your post!

    +0

What are the facts/features that make iPhoto a better tool (compared to Aperture) when creating and ordering Photo Books (as indicated in this post)? I am planning to create my first book and then, I am interested on any available feedback in this topic. Thanks in advance.

(subscribed to comments)     +0

Actually, Aperture is much better for ordering books. You can specify so many more options!

http://www.apple.com/aperture/tutorials/

Check out the one on making books

    +0