Comment on this weblog
You must be logged in to the O'Reilly Network to post a comment.

Showing messages 1 through 5 of 5.

• Nondestructive editing
  2005-12-09 08:51:15  clarus [Reply | View]
  
  
  Your master image is left untouched while you apply corrections...And the best part is, Aperture is using metadata to perform this magic, so you're *not* adding tons of Megabytes to your hard drive with each version.
  
  I'm wondering why this is a point to make versus Adobe Camera Raw. All the reviews say "oh my god, nondestructive RAW editing!" but don't you also automatically get this with other raw editors like Camera Raw? I was under the impression that you can't write back to a raw file, meaning every raw editor that lets you make corrections before the conversion is a nondestructive raw editor. Camera Raw certainly stores your settings in metadata as well, this is especially obvious if you use the distributed cache option. So why do people breathlessly parrot Apple's marketing line about nondestructive editing as if Apple was the first company to do this with raw files? Or am I missing something?
  
  (I would, however, like Adobe to add versions capability to Camera Raw, since it only lets you associate the latest metadata changes with the raw file. And as far as I know, Adobe's Version Cue doesn't work inside Camera Raw.)

• What camera are you using
  2005-12-05 13:15:27  maartensneep1 [Reply | View]
  
  
  Hi Derrick,
  
  What camera are you using? Apparently some people aren't too happy with the quality of the RAW conversion (see http://arstechnica.com/reviews/apps/aperture.ars (http://arstechnica.com/reviews/apps/aperture.ars) ), but it may depend on the type of photos you use it one (whether it is visible at all) and on the exact type of RAW file?
  
  And a question related to this post: when do you feel the need to go to photoshop? What sorts of action do you do there? Are any of those items that should be part of Aperture 2?
  
  Maarten

• Camera Raw + Aperture = No sense
  2005-12-05 11:41:14  LouM [Reply | View]
  
  
  Derrick, it doesn't make any sense to use Aperture with Camera Raw, does it?
  
  Aperture won't recognize any changes you make, so there'd be no versioning of any kind until you re-import a PSD or TIFF back into Aperture.
  
  If you want to use Camera Raw--other than as a very rare case--then Aperture is not the right tool for you.
  
  The question is: Should Apple spend time and money developing Aperture into a product that can use other companies' raw converters. IMHO, the answer to that question is 'no'. Apple should spend its time & money adding photographer-friendly features to Aperture.

• Aperture, iPhoto, iPod, Raw files
  2005-12-05 08:36:27  etienneg [Reply | View]
  
  
  I have bought Aperture and I am wondering how to use it (developping a workflow). What I have seen of the tutorials look nice but answer only partly my requirements: they start from a clean situation where my situation is a mess with about 6000 pictures without keywords and only the few pictures sent by family members in specifics folders.
  Like you mentioned in your last article, I will probably have to keep using iPhoto in addition of aperture (I do not think that Aperture can synchronize with the iPod through iTunes like iPhoto.
  In addition, none of my three cameras raw file format is recognized by Aperture or iPhoto. Only one of them is recognised by Photoshop raw image but I have recently discovered that the two others are supported by the latest beta of the DNG converter. I have not tested if the converted pictures are acceptable to apperture or iPhoto.
  The conclusion of this is that you have great opportunities for articles and books to help people like me!
  

• FYI: Getting Started with Aperture
  2005-12-05 08:16:02  Derrick Story | [Reply | View]
  
  
  I forgot to mention that I posted a quick piece on TDS about how I recommend getting started with Aperture:
  
  http://www.thedigitalstory.com/blog/2005/12/getting_to_know_aper.html