Abbott Schindl
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.3 #2 · Aperture on its Last Leg - Replacement? | |
This thread has gotten interesting to me lately, and I appreciate seeing one of the Aperture development team participating.
As for Raw conversion: It's been noted several times in this and other forums that Apple apparently changed their Raw support format after officially dropping Aperture, and although they continue to issue Raw updates, none of them work with Aperture/iPhoto—just Photos and macOS (Quick Look, for example), and are useful for other apps that use the Mac's built-in converter. For me, it means that Aperture works fine with my 5DSr and 7DII files, but not with 5DIV or later Canon cameras.
Also, as mentioned earlier, DNG doesn't always work as one would like. For example, I switched to Capture One Pro (v11, released this month, is outstanding, btw), which doesn't quite understand DNG's default ICC profile and thus really required one to double the file size by embedding the original Raw into the DNG—not something I want to do with 5DSr files, which can get as large as 85-95 MB at high ISO! Other programs also may not work properly with DNG profiles. And I was also put off when I discovered that DNG doesn't retain all metadata written by the camera, so you really need to embed the Raw file if you want to keep everything the camera recorded.
So while Aperture's DAM module continues to work fine, and the development capabilities continue to work with relatively recent and older cameras, it's already broken for newer cameras and it's a question of time as to when it totally dies. So even if you're still happy with Aperture, I'd encourage you to at least move to Referenced libraries in preparation for the inevitable migration...
The various workflow comments/observations are good. I can understand them with respect to migrating to LR's relatively inflexible UI, but not in the general context of the relative plethora of pp products. For example, I think Photoshop still allows one to configure the workspace (and save multiple workspaces) with the tools and for the workflow one wishes (I stopped at CS6, so don't really know what CC has brought). Macphun/Skylum's Luminar, Affinity Photo and other "DAM-less" programs are also user configurable.
One reason I chose Capture One is because its UI is almost totally configurable and it was very easy to make it match my workflow. Its DAM capabilities, while still not as fine as Aperture's, are more than sufficient for me, and its initial Raw development rendering is excellent (this is a matter of personal taste imo). While it lacks some of Aperture/LR bells and whistles (no books, slideshows or social networking features), its editing capabilities are excellent. Like every other program, it's not for everyone and it's got some warts (not any real show stoppers for me). It can also import Aperture libraries (C1 supports both Managed and Referenced libraries).
I've seen other threads here and elsewhere complaining about C1 cost, but that's the main complaint I think I've seen at least since C1 10 came out last year. While it's true that the initial cost is pretty steep (currently ~$270 with an easily found discount coupon), ongoing costs are at worst the same as CC (currently $107—with aforementioned coupon—if upgrading from one of the previous two versions, or $135 if updating from C1 v8). Note the real upgrade cost: if you upgrade each version, the cost is about the same as LR (but of course you don't get PS or other CC benefits), but if you skip a version or two, the cost is pretty low. And if you skip more than 3 versions you're back to an original license. So I don't quite understand the cost arguments after you buy the initial "ticket to play". Also, one can choose to subscribe instead of paying the perpetual license cost (subscriptions cost more than CC, though).
Gosh: the initial pain we Aperture users felt when Apple killed that program was terrible. Now I'm sad to see much of the same pain (and a lot of angst) from Adobe's decision to kill perpetual LR licenses. Now, though, we have a lot more pp options to think about than when Apple did its number. The biggest problem, imo, is that making a really sound decision might involve trying a number of apps, and not all offer trial versions. C1 has a 30-day trial that gets reset with each new release (or dot update). Most other apps have a refund period. It's just so much work doing reasonable testing...
dolina wrote:
1) You could test RAW compatibility now by asking someone on FM to email you a RAW file from a 2017 camera. Aperture fails to read it then your assumption for the 2018 & future cameras will hold true.
3) Some artists keep their Macs static without upgrading for specific applications as it just "works" for them. That's why there are some printing presses that still uses macOS 9 with Quark as there isnt really a business reason to upgrade.
In my case I have a late 2012 27-inch iMac Core i7 with a broken Fusion Drive as the HDD failed. I've split it and I'm running it on the SSD. I am considering upgrading to a 12TB Fusion Drive or RAID 0 two 1TB Samsung SSD for 1,000MB/s read and writes so it's useful until the newest macOS stops supporting it.
But today Apple announced pre-orders for the 2018 iMac Pro Xeon with a starting price of $4,999. As my iMac is hitting it's 5th year on February I am tempted to do that instead.
...Show more →
|
Still I find it a natural behavior that every person is looking for a tool that suits their needs the most, and only if no such tool exists do people change their habits. For me, having to import all photos of a folder into C1 and not just a subset is a no-no, so that app is out, for instance. I fully understand that I may be the only person out there who work that way; LR allows me to work that way, which is good, and I put up with many of its shortcomings in return.
