The DAM Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 28, 2014, 03:18:59 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
28016 Posts in 5137 Topics by 2912 Members
Latest Member: kbroch
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  The DAM Forum
|-+  Software Discussions
| |-+  Aperture
| | |-+  Aperture 2.1 vs Bridge in CS3
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Aperture 2.1 vs Bridge in CS3  (Read 3940 times)
Martin 095
Newbie
*
Posts: 5


View Profile Email
« on: June 21, 2008, 07:27:11 AM »

I am just about finished with Peter's book and I am new to both PS CS3 and Aperture.  My question is fairly simple in nature, though I suspect the answer will be quite complicated.  As I not fully aware of all the changes in both apps (relative to the versions that were current at the time Peter's book was published), can I use Aperture 2.1 as a substitute for some or all of the work to be done in Bridge?  I am inclined to just stick with Bridge to minimize my exposure to different software interfaces, but still Aperture appears to be pretty powerful and I would hate to ignore this out of ignorance or laziness.

Thanks for the help.

Regards,
Martin
Logged
johnbeardy
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1813


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1 on: June 22, 2008, 03:01:13 AM »

As you suspect, it would need a long answer. Remember that Peter's book focusses on a best-of-breed solution involving more than one application - it's Bridge (a folder browser) plus iView (catalogue with folder management), and advocacy of the DNG file format. Aperture's aim is "one ring to rule them all". 

People obviously get it working to their satisfaction, but from a DAM Book perspective I'd throw these at you to think about:

  • You lose control of your own folder structures. The bucket system means that if (when) something goes seriously wrong, you only need low level Finder/Explorer folder skills to reconstruct your archive. Aperture only works with virtual sets (its projects correspond to iView's catalog sets) and obscures the real folder locations, so for a reconstruction you're dependent on Apple having thought of everything and on you understanding how they want you to do it.
  • It won't write metadata (either descriptive metadata or adjustment instructions) back into a sidecar next to the original or into the orginal DNG, or update the embedded preview.
  • It won't read xmp sidecar files
  • It's a single platform solution.

John
Logged
Martin 095
Newbie
*
Posts: 5


View Profile Email
« Reply #2 on: June 22, 2008, 06:46:15 AM »

Thanks John.  I guess I wasn't clear enough but I was just considering whether Aperture could replace Bridge only.  I recognize the need for other software.  Still you answered my question.  Bridge does so much more in the way I need it to, so Bridge it is.
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!