What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Killer Gift For A Movie Buff view!
bestbuy.com - Insignia Blu-ray player instantly streams Netflix movies right to your TV & comes with a free disc.
39 Comments
- BadAndy80, on 03/04/2008, -0/+1I've been asked more than a few times if this would handle the larger photo volumes or if there is a secure storage solution rather than just an editor. I know of several police departments, etc that use Veripic to manage everything. They can authenticate too, which no one else truely does. Here's the website if it helps: http://www.veripic.com
- ani-pockdotnet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1this is by the self proclaimed "Mac Skeptic" [-] Digg
- cair0, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1From TFA: "Disclaimer: I am a point-and-shoot photographer with rudimentary graphic-design training, so I have not given Aperture the most rigorous workout possible. I did, however, get a sense of the program's interface and try out its major features."
Sounds like she be just as happy with a product like Kodak's Easy Photo Share... - simX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Hmm. Considering ArsTechnica's review of Aperture ( http://arstechnica.com/reviews/apps/aperture.ars ), I would still stay away from Aperture 1.0, given that ArsTechnica's review is much more in-depth and from a pro digital photographer. This one is like one page long, and is from a non-professional who probably won't use most of the tools in Aperture.
(In case you're wondering, ArsTechnica gave Aperture 1.0 a 4/10 rating. Not that great of a showing.) - verres, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Please, don't compare Aperture with Gimp or Photoshop - it's a completely different type of application. Aperture is 'iPhoto on steroids', to put it shortly. It's a highly professional photo organizing and manipulation software - actually a tad too professional for my tastes, the whole array of possibilities is almost overwhelming - a bit like GarageBand vs. Logic, for the Apple users.
- Chasin_Fat_Kids, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0She's the same reporter who said Apple didn't make it easy to change icon sizes in OS X.
- evilxhwnd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@ cair0
i was thinking the same thing after reading that part, lol - BlueStarr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0What's wrong with some of these people on this site. Be more respectful.
- davdav, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Seems like an interesting read..
+digg - electronicmaji, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0with a couple of updates i bet picasa could do what this does...and free too ;)
- wicked9, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0is this apple's killer photo editing app that they said apple would release once photoshop sales dropped.
- Malakin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Any photographers considering buying this really should read the Ars Technica review that another poster already mentioned. It's a good review done by somone who knows what they're talking about.
- Kiel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0yep im with everyone that mention the Ars Technica review. stay away until they focus on the important bits. and this from a mac zelot.
- Obsession88, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I have no need for it what so ever, but I kinda want it.
- ThinkBox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0It is a cool app - some great ideas, but it requires a lot of cpu power - it runs well on my g5, but my powerbook - it sucks, and even when performing simple operations
- zelig2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Umm, the RAW converters used in Aperture are from the Core Image updates to OSX. That's one of the scary parts. You never know when they're going to "tweek" a RAW converter and then change the output of all your "non-destructive" edits.
Did anyone else find this article useless? She states in the begining she had a conversation with Joe Schorr, the PM for Aperture. Only once does she reference this in the article when he says it's not a Photoshop killer. Whats the point of having an interview with this guy when you don't actually talk to him! - ani-pockdotnet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"She's the same reporter who said Apple didn't make it easy to change icon sizes in OS X."
haha I can't believe she didn't even try the help menu. Its right under the view menuuuuuuu! - nullvector, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Just shows how "PC" mags have gotten so much worse over the last 3-4 years. They used to be a decent resource, but as soon as people took to the internet for info, they went down the tubes.
Why would you have a self-proclaimed photo amateur "point-and-shoot" person review $500 photo software? You could at least get your staff photographer to write a blip about it.
Why do PC mags have such newbies writing for them. It's like theyre pulling journalists outta the air who barely know what a PC is, let alone digital photography. If you're gonna review someone, at least give yourself some credibility... - tuartboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Aperture's Delete Versions command, which seems like it should undo the last edit you made, gives a scary warning message saying it will delete master images, and then it deletes the image entirely."
Haha. Delete Versions. Versions. Plural. Delete the versions. What makes her think this is undo? - Julian_Photo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0i'm a pro level photographer and tried this out
has promise but isn't going to replace any of my other software for now
maybe version 2.0 - rebrad, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Will it run on my Dell OSx Box?
- pwang, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0How does the Ars Technica review have the same problem? I'm not a pro but I certainly do take photography very seriously, and the Ars Technica review was thorough enough to convince that Aperture isn't worth my time or money right now. The only thing a pro photographer could add to such a review would be to knock the app down another notch or two. It's not like the reviewer was a n00b complaining about how RAW takes up soooo much disk space. The Ars Technica review demonstrated that Aperture can't even handle RAW files *correctly*. With a revelation like that, why would you need a "pro" photographer to further diss the app?
- zone, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Ars Technica review was thorough enough to convince that Aperture isn't worth my time or money right now"
what he said. - Gardenhead, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Okay, this is seriously pissing me off. I'm sick of everyone writing reviews for Aperture who aren't pros. That's like writing a review for Final Cut Pro based on a film about your kids or something. It's really annoying, because they don't have a trained eye for what to look for. The Ars Technica review is pretty good, but still it has the same problem. I'm waiting for a decent review from a pro photographer. Then again, I have the product. So... Haha. Why the hell do I need a review?
- kday, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0ryan_merket said, " http://www.aperturetutorials.com ".
Stop Cybersquatting, you *****.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyber_squatting - Julian_Photo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0he wasn't a big fan of it either though
I can see it being a good organization tool, i was playing around with it a bit doing that. But its lack of support for offline media is going to really hurt it in a major production envrionment when files are being moved around a lot - billdcat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Folks, Aperture is not an image editor. It's not meant to compete, let alone replace, Photoshop or the Gimp. It's a workflow tool. It's for professoinal photographers generating hundreds of photos a day, who need to quickly organize them, tweak them, and select and compare them. It doesn't do compositing, layers, or even have a selection tool to modify selected portions of a picture (at least, I think so).
A lot of people seem to be trying to make Aperture into something it isn't deisgned to be. I think people want a slick, new easy to use, non-destructive, powerful image editor to replace PS. Sorry, this isn't that and it isn't meant to be.
As someone else said, Photoshop is the dark room, Aperture is the light table. If you don't know the difference, you shouldn't be using either one.
Regarding the article itself, what a load of crap. Between "I am a point-and-shoot photographer with rudimentary graphic-design training" and "I'm not qualified to weigh in on this debate, but ..." that article is junk. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Disclaimer: I am a point-and-shoot photographer with rudimentary graphic-design training"
she shouldn't even have tried to review Aperture. Ars already did it and did it better. - Boondoggle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0She is an idiot.
- LowGan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0this is a program i would download, then use like once or twice a month. i would never even think of paying 500 bucks for that
- neocitron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0By the time Aperture hits version 3.. i think all the flaws will be ironed out... it's actually perfect right now as an organizational app.... alot of magazines and newspapers are gonna LOVE this app.
- kumaravelan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Any photographers considering buying this really should read the Ars Technica review that another poster already mentioned. It's a good review done by somone who knows what they're talking about.
- EmileVictor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0$499 is a pretty good price for a professional photography. Adobe photoshop often costs more than that.
-----------------
http://www.mediahug.com/ - Rice, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Download? Software? How dare you unknown.root!
- mr804, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0wtf. gimp is trash and not even the same class of application.
- ronmexico, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I heard it doesn't work with Ogg Vorbis.
- unknown.root, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0wow maybe not i will have to ditch gimp and run this. at the low price of $499 . . i can't wait to run out and . .. download a copy off of bitTorrent.
- dextroz, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0Why the ***** does good stuff keep disappearing from the digg links and archives. fix your ***** search system in here also conceited idiots...
- ryan_merket, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0http://www.aperturetutorials.com
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is