Is anyone talking about Aperture here?

[skahn]

I have been reading everything I can find on Aperture...thinking a lot about it, wonder if it is THE tool for me.  I'm surprised not to find a strong thread on this very important addition  to our workflow toolkit.  Perhaps it is being discussed to death elsewhere?  Is it appropriate to discuss here, especially given Peter's milestone book on using Bridge?

[peterkrogh]

Steve,
Aperture is not ready, IMO.  It locks all your work into the application, which I consider to be a dealbreaker.  There are other problems as well.

It might be a viable product for the professional by the second or third version.
Peter

[Rick McCleary]

There are many discussions on various fora about Aperture.  A lively one is taking place on the Adobe Photography forum.

Aperture has many appealing features and makes many promises.  However, the entire topic of digital asset management is based on a foundation of security of assets, openness of architecture, and total cross-platform compatability.  Think back 5 or 10 years to what the industry looked like.  Any file that was created in a proprietary format is largely unreadable now.  Remember Live Picture/FITS format?  How many of us still have OS9 and Live Picture on our machines?  And who is wise enough now to predict what the industry will look like 5 or 10 years from now?  I say this as a way to underline Peter's statement that Aperture's closed-loop approach is a deal breaker.

Aperture offers some wonderful ideas.  No doubt, those ideas will be picked up by other companies and incorporated into existing DAM solutions.  But right now, I would just sit back and watch to see how things develop.  I'd stay away from anything that is version 1.0.

DAM is not an area for "early adopters".  The stakes are too high.

[skahn]

Thanks guys.  Points well taken, although I'm not sure I understand the phrase "early adopters."  I'll gladly continue with my iViewPro.

[peterkrogh]

Also called "the Bleeding Edge".  It means the first guys on the block to buy and use new technology.
Peter

[msbc]

I disagree with the statements made by Peter and Rick. Aperture does not 'lock' your work. And does not create a 'propriatery format'.

If you recognise the Aperture Library as a database (which it is: SQLite) then your more on track. The majority of enterprise based asset managment systems are DB based.

Aperture provides mechanism's to export your original image files from the database - so why are you 'locked in'? Also, using tools built-in to Tiger you can see your original files - just create a Spotlight Saved Search.

There seems to be a lot of paranoia here.

[peterkrogh]

MSBC,
The part that is locked in is the association of the informational metadata with the RAW file itself.  Sure, you can convert it to a TIFF, but that is not a good answer if you decide that Aperture is not for you, and you want to switch to a different database to manage your RAW files.

Asset managers like iView and idImager let your export the data easily with the RAW files (in several different ways) so that you CAN take it with you if you decide to leave.

This is not to say that we won't see some people writing custom tools to export Aperture database information, and bring it into other applications.  But COUNTING on third-party developers to provide this kind of solution can be tricky.  Ask the people who are tying to get years of work out of Portfolio. 

As Beardy says, your relationship with your asset manager is likely to be one of serial monogamy over the years. Unless you have a good pre-nup, the breakup could get ugly.
Peter

[msbc]

Asset managers like iView and idImager let your export the data easily with the RAW files (in several different ways) so that you CAN take it with you if you decide to leave.

Peter, iVMP 2 on Windows never could sync to RAW files - only on Mac.

The iVMP 3 manual states "MediaPro supports the export of XMP metadata to JPEG, TIFF and Photoshop formats only." and additionally "MediaPro support synchronizing annotations in three Raw formats: Nikon, Kodak and Adobe Digital Negative (DNG)".

So, for a Canon RAW shooter, how is iView superior to Aperture in this area?

[peterkrogh]

Well, I'd suggest that the Canon shooter should consider DNG, since Canon will not make an SDK available to safely write metadata back to the file.
That said, if you like it despite the v1.0 limitations, go to town.
Peter

[SeanD]

Well, I'd suggest that the Canon shooter should consider DNG, since Canon will not make an SDK available to safely write metadata back to the file.

MSBC...I am a Canon RAW shooter and I find the DNG workflow to be emminently acceptable for my needs. No separate XMP files to worry about, an openly documented format and the ability to edit my images in Adobe Camera Raw and (sometime this year if they are correct in their predictions) also in Phase One's Capture One. Not to mention the support for safely writing metadata back into the DNG file so it is transportable beyond any one application.

--Sean

[msbc]

Sean,

Thanks for your feedback. I do not like ACR - I much prefer Canon's DPP as a RAW converter for color and quality.

Regarding Aperture - I intend on using this as my DAM and workflow solution - I already like 1.0.1 and see the HUGE potential that future versions will deliver. Being able to use a single application for your entire workflow has so many advantages - previously I was using 6 different apps! I am expecting great RAW converter improvements in version 1.1 and then won't be sorry to leave DPP behind. I am more positive that Peter in regards to Apertures metadata handling and file management. I actually see Aperture's implementation as a positive solution, not a negative feature. You just need to 'think outside the dodecahedron'!

Mark

[johnbeardy]

What Aperture has clearly done is break a logjam and lurched us forward from the late film era and individual image processing in Photoshop (I don't buy the line that Photoshop isn't for photographers), and into a period where capture is predominantly-digital and processing needs to be in volume on batches. Apple rightly identified that picture management and batch processing are two sides of the same coin, but for me the fact that it fails to open on most computers is enough to forecast it'll be remembered as a footnote, a niche f22 rather than a wideopen f2.8. Even at a beta level, Lightroom outmatches Aperture's raw conversions and given Adobe's track record, they'll also be including far more open metadata standards when that part of the package is completed. And we're going to see more of these DAM-batch processor fusion programs and, thanks to Aperture's raising of the bar, with similarly-pretty and innovative interfaces.

A DAM solution needs to give you the ability to reliably and routinely move on to your next love or have casual affairs, regardless of which side of the fence, and freely carrying all your data and files with you without having to get into data migration and other geekspeak. As long as it won't run on most computers, and doesn't meet those prenup criteria, Aperture's destined to be a DAM beautiful but misleading siren.

John /rant

[msbc]

but for me the fact that it fails to open on most computers is enough to forecast it'll be remembered as a footnote

As appossed to Lightroom which is, at present, Mac only? Aperture wil run on all Mac's with sufficient CPU and graphics cards by the end of this month - 1.1 will be a Universal Binary. Are you seriously knocking a solution just because it requires greater computing resources? Thats a bit short sighted, isn't it?

Even at a beta level, Lightroom outmatches Aperture's raw conversions

Not true! Maybe, for some cameras but not for all, as example Canon 1DS, or 1DMarkII.

Anyway - this is a DAM forum so what does RAW conversion have to do with it? Is Lightroom a DAM? I don't think so.

and given Adobe's track record, they'll also be including far more open metadata standards when that part of the package is completed.

So, you have detailed knowledge of both Apple and Adobe's future product plans?

A DAM solution needs to give you the ability to reliably and routinely move on to your next love or have casual affairs, regardless of which side of the fence, and freely carrying all your data and files with you without having to get into data migration and other geekspeak.

So, which DAM will allow me to annotate Canon 5D RAW files today on a Mac and tomorrow use that metadata on Linux O/S? Or, even Windows. Please don't use DNG as part of the solution here for two reasons:
1. The DNG Converter is propriatary product of Adobe - not open source - and so is as limited as any application.
2. It's not integrated into any DAM and is an additional workflow process.

As long as it won't run on most computers, and doesn't meet those prenup criteria, Aperture's destined to be a DAM beautiful but misleading siren.

Very eloquent, but lacking in substance. Compare and contrast with Final Cut Pro - the leading Digital Video processing application. Won't run on 'most' computers - only Macs?

Mark

[johnbeardy]

There's a world of difference between publically-documented DAM-ready solutions such as DNG and monoplatform box-shifting solutiions that take us back to 1980s' high margin business models of propriety software on proprietary hardware. I'm knocking a solution because it's Mac only and, unlike Lightroom (for which DAM features are firmly planned) will never run on more than a significant if small fraction of computers. Adobe's got the track record of making the DNG spec public and supporting extensible XMP. Aperture's a mould breaker and I've enjoyed trying it out, but it's a year or two away from being what it claims, even if I were a believer (in anything).

John

[kgelner]

What Aperture has clearly done is break a logjam and lurched us forward from the late film era and individual image processing in Photoshop (I don't buy the line that Photoshop isn't for photographers), and into a period where capture is predominantly-digital and processing needs to be in volume on batches. Apple rightly identified that picture management and batch processing are two sides of the same coin, but for me the fact that it fails to open on most computers is enough to forecast it'll be remembered as a footnote, a niche f22 rather than a wideopen f2.8. Even at a beta level, Lightroom outmatches Aperture's raw conversions and given Adobe's track record, they'll also be including far more open metadata standards when that part of the package is completed. And we're going to see more of these DAM-batch processor fusion programs and, thanks to Aperture's raising of the bar, with similarly-pretty and innovative interfaces.
[/q]

With 1.1 Aperture may surpass ACR, or at least come close enough to equalling it that it doesn't matter - ACR is already not quite as good as some programs like Bibble or C1 but it has been enough to help it gain traction because the app it was ted to (Photoshop) was where everyone wanted to end up anyway - it made the journey shorter.  If Aperture becomes that initial destination of choice then the RAW conversion needs only be really good instead of spectacular to catch on.

As for the fact it does not run on "most" computers - that is not the case.  It runs on my older G5 1.8 DP, with an upgraded video card.  It runs even better on ever new Mac going forward except for the mini, even the iMac was given a video card sufficient to run Aperture decently.  Add to that Apple's ability to optimize over the life of an application - look at the progress iPhoto, and OS X itself has made.  Apple always designs for the future and then kind of backs into making software work better on older systems, meaning a market that expands at both ends.

Another consideration is this.  While other applications move forward relying on main processors that slowly creep up in speed, Aperture is the only photo editing application that is making serious use of the video card processor - allowing for much faster manipulations of photos.  On my computer today adjusting exposure for a D70 NEF is about as fast in Aperture as an Lightroom - BUT while Lightroom is doing the adjustment it reduces the resolution of the image by a factor of four, making it impossible to evaluate fine detail while adjusting.  Aperture lets me view the image at 100% with full detail while doing the same adjustment.  Video card development is not standing still, nor is Aperture optimization - again expanding the capabilities at both ends of the system.

[q]A DAM solution needs to give you the ability to reliably and routinely move on to your next love or have casual affairs, regardless of which side of the fence, and freely carrying all your data and files with you without having to get into data migration and other geekspeak. As long as it won't run on most computers, and doesn't meet those prenup criteria, Aperture's destined to be a DAM beautiful but misleading siren.[/q]

I fully agree with this thinking of what criteria to use when selecting a DAM app.  However Aperture offers the ability to move on pretty easily - for one thing there is a database that I can read from with standard tools and directly export metadata for images.  But also there are sidecar files that are all in XML, just waiting for the slight transformation it would take to migrate them to XMP.  Sure they are not in XMP already but they are no more proprietary than the Lightrom XMP you get today, if you really look at what that contains.  An edit in Lightroom for example describes sharpening with a single number - how are you supposed to move into any other application with that?  How is it supposed to understand exactly your sharpening intent?

Lastly of course there is always TIFF export which in my mind is a valid option to move on because it does hold keyword metadata quite well - TIFF was I think envisioned to be the container that Adobe is trying to make DNG become.