Great article, thanks.Looks like the Aperature project management ain't all it's cracked up to be. The library can be only as large as the disk holding it. Useless for huge libraries.
Most decent photo management applications will allow you to store images offline (e.g. burnt to DVD's, external drives, etc.) and keep an index and thumbnail of them in the library.So EmmEff has a valid point
Hey thepharaohWhat they are saying is, your library (contained in a single file) can't be bigger than your largest drive. The article points it out this way:"Before you can do anything with your photos in Aperture, they have to be imported into its Library." And then later they reveal: "Aperture's Library can, theoretically, hold an unlimited number of pictures. Apple has tested it with Libraries containing hundreds of thousands of pictures, we're told. But Aperture will support only a single instance of a Library at a time, and that Library can be no larger than the hard drive it's sitting on, so the number of pictures that can be stored is capped by drive capacity and not a hard limit established in the software."So, basically, you can't spread your library around on several drives, unless you RAID 0 them into a "SuperSizeMe" virtual drive.
"I really don't see the true point of apperature (I've used it). Photoshop CS2 is a much better editing application for any photographer (I use a mac too), and for photo management iPhoto does a nice job. This is supposed to be an entry level Photoshop type thing."Hardly. If you've ever had to manage thousands of images on slides and select/compare you'd know better. There is no easy way to handle digital RAW images easily and manage them the way you could with film. iPhoto is a basic consumer app that chokes on large RAW images and libraries. Aperture is a pro photo management application and a huge step forward for digital photographers. It isn't meant to compete with Photoshop. It's supposed to work with it. Aperture does most of what photographers could do in the darkroom. Photoshop can take care of everything else, but by that time you're moving into the area of photo-illustration.There's a long discussion here:<a class="user" href="http://37signals.com/svn/archives2/aperture_gunning_for_photoshop.php">http://37signals.com/svn/archives2/aperture_gunning_for_photoshop.php</a>
This isn't a photoshop replacement. It's everything that photoshop isn't. Basically it is supposed to be a workflow for editing, organizing and printing. It does lite editing and It doesn't do layers. With one click you can open up files on photoshop, work your magic, and you go back to the workflow. Nobody can replace photoshop, and Bridge just isn't that great.On saturday i got to check aperture out on a quad powermac at the Mac Expo in London, pretty damn impressive.
I wish Adobe Bridge was more like Aperture. The article is right, this wont impact Photoshop much. This is a tool for pro-photographers that are mainly dealing with RAW image conversions. +great digg
looks like a great app, something that many, many PROFESSIONALS can use on a daily basis. it doesn't have the reach of photoshop, though, as it does separate things. photoshop, in my opinion, is much more for the use of total overhauls and graphics projects from the ground up. this looks much nicer for those photographers taking thousands of high-res pictures, and I'm sure it'll be a hit.
emmeffNov 1, 2005
Great article, thanks.Looks like the Aperature project management ain't all it's cracked up to be. The library can be only as large as the disk holding it. Useless for huge libraries.
16x9Nov 1, 2005
livesunkept wrote: "Good review. But now I am waiting for it to hit the torrents."Yes, indeed take pride in the fact that you are a thief.
naruto28Nov 1, 2005
Most decent photo management applications will allow you to store images offline (e.g. burnt to DVD's, external drives, etc.) and keep an index and thumbnail of them in the library.So EmmEff has a valid point
fx101Nov 1, 2005
take note that I had a chance to try a pre-production version
hemidurangoNov 1, 2005
Hey thepharaohWhat they are saying is, your library (contained in a single file) can't be bigger than your largest drive. The article points it out this way:"Before you can do anything with your photos in Aperture, they have to be imported into its Library." And then later they reveal: "Aperture's Library can, theoretically, hold an unlimited number of pictures. Apple has tested it with Libraries containing hundreds of thousands of pictures, we're told. But Aperture will support only a single instance of a Library at a time, and that Library can be no larger than the hard drive it's sitting on, so the number of pictures that can be stored is capped by drive capacity and not a hard limit established in the software."So, basically, you can't spread your library around on several drives, unless you RAID 0 them into a "SuperSizeMe" virtual drive.
mrblankNov 1, 2005
"I really don't see the true point of apperature (I've used it). Photoshop CS2 is a much better editing application for any photographer (I use a mac too), and for photo management iPhoto does a nice job. This is supposed to be an entry level Photoshop type thing."Hardly. If you've ever had to manage thousands of images on slides and select/compare you'd know better. There is no easy way to handle digital RAW images easily and manage them the way you could with film. iPhoto is a basic consumer app that chokes on large RAW images and libraries. Aperture is a pro photo management application and a huge step forward for digital photographers. It isn't meant to compete with Photoshop. It's supposed to work with it. Aperture does most of what photographers could do in the darkroom. Photoshop can take care of everything else, but by that time you're moving into the area of photo-illustration.There's a long discussion here:<a class="user" href="http://37signals.com/svn/archives2/aperture_gunning_for_photoshop.php">http://37signals.com/svn/archives2/aperture_gunning_for_photoshop.php</a>
murusakiNov 1, 2005
This isn't a photoshop replacement. It's everything that photoshop isn't. Basically it is supposed to be a workflow for editing, organizing and printing. It does lite editing and It doesn't do layers. With one click you can open up files on photoshop, work your magic, and you go back to the workflow. Nobody can replace photoshop, and Bridge just isn't that great.On saturday i got to check aperture out on a quad powermac at the Mac Expo in London, pretty damn impressive.
alexander000Nov 2, 2005
I wish Adobe Bridge was more like Aperture. The article is right, this wont impact Photoshop much. This is a tool for pro-photographers that are mainly dealing with RAW image conversions. +great digg
psustoeklNov 2, 2005
looks like a great app, something that many, many PROFESSIONALS can use on a daily basis. it doesn't have the reach of photoshop, though, as it does separate things. photoshop, in my opinion, is much more for the use of total overhauls and graphics projects from the ground up. this looks much nicer for those photographers taking thousands of high-res pictures, and I'm sure it'll be a hit.