40 Comments

• Digg
• Bury

Just 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...

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

Okay, 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?

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

ryan_merket said, " <a class="user" href="http://www.aperturetutorials.com&quot;&gt;http://www.aperturetutorials.com&lt;/a&gt; ".Stop Cybersquatting, you assh**e.<a class="user" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyber_squatting&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyber_squatting&lt;/a&gt;

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

Folks, 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.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

By 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.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

"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.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

Umm, 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!

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

What's wrong with some of these people on this site. Be more respectful.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

I'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: <a class="user" href="http://www.veripic.com&quot;&gt;http://www.veripic.com&lt;/a&gt;

• Reply