digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About

apple's aperture by ars technica

arstechnica.com — ars technica reviews apple's aperture.

Who dugg this? Made popular Dec 5, 2005

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

28 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • meierm01, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This is the first quality in depth review I've read of Aperture. Most others I've seen simply talk about the interface and supplied functionality, which are nice until you look deep. This review analyzed RESULTS.
    The first thing I noticed when using Aperture was the poor RAW conversion. I too had shadow blocking and noise - totally unacceptable results for a program costing $500. Plus, as the reviewer noted, the filters and histograms are almost useless when compared to anything in Photoshop.
    If Apple can fix the issues as outlined in the "cons" section of the review, then they could have a winner, as the interface and some functions (the loupe, for example) are quite nice. Until then, I won't be using it. A real shame.
  • Andy.D, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Wow, 4/10. Apple has a lot of work to do.
  • Moose_Head, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Aperture is meant to streamline workfow not do heavy image manipulation like the review seems to think it should.
  • blueice03, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Of course, you can fix it on Windows..."
    Not to be nitpicky, but you can do this on Mac OSX as well. Check out the Universal Access panel in the System Prefs...but I digress.

    Anyway, I've played around a little with this app and while I understand some of the points made by the reviewer, I have to side with those that point out that the point of this app is to streamline workflow, not to heavy-duty image manipulation. Even the reviewer comes close to suggesting this when he talks about the possibility that Aperture doesn't have some of the features you would expect on purpose. Maybe because that is not what the app was meant to be used for?

  • stokestack, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Also, the RAW importing engine is built into OSX. This is not a component of just Aperature, and gets updated with other OSX updates."

    Umm, NO.

    Anyway, a thorough review. The only issue I took was "it's a generally known thing in publishing that reverse type (white on black) is not easy to read". Yeah, that's in PUBLISHING. A piece of paper does not emit light, which a monitor does. On a computer, "reverse type" is black on white. That's why most computers used to have a hard-coded color scheme of white text on a blue background, and Word still lets you pick that scheme with one checkbox. It is much easier on the eyes than reading black text off the surface of a light bulb all day, which is what the default color schemes of Windows and the Mac force you to do. Of course, you can fix it on Windows...
  • baxkdall136, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0npacheco mentioned that there is a CPU hack - can you point out where to find that hack or give any info about it? thx
  • Wolfman~K, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0i love ars... they do a great job.
  • tantalic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The article is very in-depth and helpful, however it has one fatal flaw. To some it up from the article: "Aperture is not a competitor to Photoshop...Still, in this review I'll be referring to similar tasks or tools in Photoshop."

    While Aperture does take advantage of Core-Image to provide some image enhancement capabilities that is not it's main purpose (at this point at least) and that is the focus of Photoshop. The core of Aperture is workflow and this is where Apple has really innovated, taking the user friendlyness from iPhoto and applied that to a profesional workflow. Even without the Core-Image editing features this would make it worth $500 to a profesional photographer. Aperture makes the digital workflow easy and familiar for a profesional photographer who is used to the non-digital world.
  • ibis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I've seen a lot of people mention that it is v1.0 and to cut it some slack, both here and in other places. When you charge $500 1.0 does not cut it as an excuse.
  • marksven, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0While I am disappointed with my copy of Aperture, mostly because I fell into the hype, the program is still extremely useful to me. I have confidence that Apple will quickly correct the biggest flaws with this program.

    It seems to crash when I move over 100 pictures at a time between projects, and while most of the time it is fast on my dual 2Ghz G5, it can be very slow to do seemingly simple tasks. I "only" have 2.5 GB of Ram, and I notice that when it is running slow that it is because it has run out of memory. I'll be installing two more gigs today, and hopefully that will speed it up.

    What it does do well is working in full-screen mode on my 22" cinema display, I can enhance/crop/rate a picture and quickly move on to the next one. Also, the stacks feature is very useful.
  • inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Yeouch!

    But hey, it *is* a 1.0 product. Anybody remember InDesign 1.0? Ugh... but Adobe managed to turn it around. And I imagine Apple will do the same. Computers will get faster, too.

    Keep at it, Apple! You're definitely on the right track.
  • npacheco, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0with the CPU Check hack, here's Aperture running on the mac mini w/ 1GB RAM!

    http://synchronizedesigns.us/aperture.mov

    runs smooth on large raw images!

    can we say hardcoded marketing ripoff?
  • abhibeckert, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"can we say hardcoded marketing ripoff?"

    Did you read the article? The reviewer was having performance issues on a dual 2 Ghz G5 with 4.5GB of ram... Some things might work fine on a mac mini, but there's no way the whole program will perform well.

    As for the font size issue... I can read all of that text perfectly on my 12" iBook, and my resolution (DPI) is higher than his, and if the font smoothing was optimized for LCD I'd be able to read it even easier. And my iBook's display isn't very good by Apple's standards (it's better than most PC LCD's, but no-where near as good as the ones apple sells).

    So either he's lying about having good eyes or his display is *****. Either way it's enough to make me question the rest of the article.
  • kittynipples, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Also, the RAW importing engine is built into OSX. This is not a component of just Aperature, and gets updated with other OSX updates.
  • Boondoggle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0yeah I'm not going to buy it just yet. I would like to see 1.1 first. I don't really need it or have a CPU that will run it fast, so there is no rush.
  • mcbesq, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0What's impressive is that ars took on Apple's interface design. An "8 point party" on a 22" does not sound fun. Plus, 4.5 GB of RAM and it's only PPC compatible right now. This does not bode well.

    If I had to guess, I'd say Jobs is trying to get his foot (and only his foot) in the photo door. Good thing that this is not MEANT to be a Photoshop competitor. If Apple's not careful, Adobe might nix a MacIntel compatible version of Photoshop, like they axed Premiere when Apple launched Final Cut. Apple's going to have to make sure it stays worth Adobe's investment to make a Mac compatible version. Putting out a competitor does not advance that purpose.
  • AttroPheed, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0why does apple bother?
  • Nieton21, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I've only got to test it a little bit but from my tests it seems like apple is on the right track and in the future can have a very solid amazing product
  • geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Through my using of the app, I come to completely different results. It seems this review is very opportunistic in the images it picks, and only does work on a very small subset of images. Had he chosen a much broader range of images (or even a different camera), he would notice a lot of the things he complains about simply aren't reproducable.

    I do admit that there are a lot of things missing, but the app is brand spanking new; it's absolutely amazing for a 1.0. Applications like Adobe's have nearly a decade and at least as many versions and patches on that.

    My advice: get a new monitor, adjust your spectacles, get a different camera, take some pictures and re-review.
  • HiddenLYNX, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Boy, im most grateful for that review, i learned i cant even install it so dont try, i do want it though
  • anti_hax0r, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0It probably got a bad review because Ars Technicia is unbiased (you know, Mac isn't in their name).
  • ryan_merket, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0www.aperturetutorials.com
  • trogdoor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I am a mac fan and I am seriously disappointed. I also bought into the hype and ensured people that were saying that aperture would have exactly these problems (this was before it was released) I assured them Apple was better than that and pointed them at the demo videos on the apple website. When it came out I tried Aperture at an Apple store and had egg on my face. I then admitted my fault and added more flame to their mac bashing fire. I hope Apple will fix their product but these problems are not easily fixed and I am beginning to wonder if they will be any time soon. :^(

    and to blueice03:""Of course, you can fix it on Windows..."
    Not to be nitpicky, but you can do this on Mac OSX as well. Check out the Universal Access panel in the System Prefs...but I digress"

    That feature is for seeing impaired and inverts all the colors on the screen not just the interface witch is far from a fix, although I don't see the problem. Apple makes great products but lying exaggerating and misinformed fanboys make them loose credibility. Tell it like it is.
  • varianallen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Interesting. That's the first negative review I've seen of the app.
  • ThinkBox, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I own it, it's great. I have friends who bought it - they are all graphic designers - they say it is really awesome and it has some great inventive things about it. http://www.apple.com/aperture/ just look at the tour!
  • dmoney06, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Me too. Ive heard its amazing from every other review ive read.
  • inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Geez, I guess Mac users love to pay extra to get less. Why even bother with something like this when Photoshop has had it covered for years?
  • coolcoolglasses, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0Hmm, I have been meaing to "find" this app somewhere and try it for my self

    http://plueballs.libsyn.com/ a gosh darn funny show!

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.