I need something that will run natively on my new iMac and handle RAW files. Photoshop costs 5 times as much as Aperture. I have a copy of Photoshop 8.0 but I don't think I can upgrade it since it came on a used iMac I bought (but it still works on my new iMac after doing the firewire transfer). Photoshop will do all those neat tricks like putting someone else's head on another person's body and Aperture won't? Not sure I really need the tricks, although one time I did splice my bird onto the top of my son's puppy, but that's been the extent of it for me. Seems like Aperture is getting pretty good reviews.....

Aperture and Photoshop aren't interchangeable. Regardless, it sounds like Photoshop Elements ,or iPhoto (which should have come with your new iMac), would be as much photo processing muscle as you would need.

I thought Aperture was more of a Photo Management Tool.... no?

The comparison should be between Aperture and Adobe Lightroom. I recently switch to Lightroom for better integration with Photoshop.

For "neat tricks", Elements is all you need. And it can handle RAW files. But despite the fact that it comes with Bridge it's not suitable for managing a library with any sophistication, and different iterations of files.

iPhoto can also handle RAW files but the limitations for managing them are also severe.

Aperture and Lightroom are for better managing a library, but also include some "Photoshop-like" functionality, or can pass the image to Photoshop with limitations.

As has been said already, it's apples and oranges.

Aperture is indeed a digital asset management tool. It will also do just fine in processing and printing RAW files. The majority of the adjustments it can do are global. For example color balance, highlight recovery, fill light for shadows, sharpening, black/white conversion, cropping, straightening ,etc.It can also do a minimum amount of local adjustments such as dust spotting and minor cloning.

Photographers that pretty much get it right in the camera , and those like wedding/product photographers who are interested in producing a lot of very good images quickly and efficiently don't use anything else. Others such a fine art photographers that are happy spending a day or more to get a single image perfect will be using photoshop.

No matter what you will eventually need some kind of digital asset management system if you take enough pictures. There are lots of them. Aperture, and Lightroom are just two examples that also have image processing capability.

iPhoto will do all the basics. When you out grow it will be time to look around for what you want next

I keep thinking I'll grow out of iPhoto but then they improve it again. iPhoto '08 is a very nice application that will do management and photo editing sufficient for most people's needs (and IMHO the interface is a zillion times better than Adobe's).

---

"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion." (1987) -- Carl Sagan

I didn't realize the newest version of iPhoto would support RAW files - that was the main reason I was looking at Aperture. This must be new because my last version would not import them. So far I've been happy with iPhoto as a file management tool - I've only got a few thousand at present. The new version that was included with my new iMac seems better than the last version I was using and now that I know it will also work with RAW files I might see how far I can get with it instead of laying out more $$. As Pipiens points out, I tend to try and get the shot with the camera, by sheer bulk if nothing else, and by bracketing my shots. Mostly I only need to do a little color adjustment here and there or some cropping. I guess I can get by with my older version of Photoshop for the times I need something more. Unless anyone can convince me that Aperture is significantly better for file management? Thanks for the input. Next issue will be lens.

i think iphoto 08 is excellent for free -- you wont find me talking you out of it -- and i have tried several others, but just keep coming back to iphoto

---

Edited 999 time(s). Last edit at 12:08PM by jdc.

Quote
Wags
... As Pipiens points out, I tend to try and get the shot with the camera, by sheer bulk if nothing else, and by bracketing my shots. Mostly I only need to do a little color adjustment here and there or some cropping. I guess I can get by with my older version of Photoshop for the times I need something more. Unless anyone can convince me that Aperture is significantly better for file management? ...

"Better" depends on your needs. iPhoto isn't better than Aperature/Lightroom and Aperture/Lightroom isn't better than iPhoto. Aperture/Lightroom ARE more capable but that doesn't mean they are better for you. I love iPhoto but with RAW files I've outgrown it.

FYI one main reason why I shoot RAW is so that I don't have to bracket for exposure. One shot and you can fix exposure later. I can save my multiple-shots feature on the camera to better capture action, or maybe to just reduce the chances of capturing someone with their eyes closed.

Don't like the exposure next month, next year? Re-do it --- but with one good JPEG original you can't, and a Brightness or Levels adjustment isn't the same. RAW is "better than a negative" in that regard, whereas even the original JPEG is like a first print ...

Look, I don't mean for this to turn into yet another RAW vs. JPEG thread, however a better understanding of both has important implications on which software you use as a cataloger.

Look up some of the reviews for Aperture and for Lightroom (or maybe iView Pro or Expressions) to get a sense of why and how they are different from iPhoto before deciding which one is "best."

Doesn't Aperture allow you to manage your photos, whereas iPhoto manages the photos for you? I guess what I'm trying to say is once a photo is in iPhoto, it's there pretty much for good, just don't mess with the photo files directly.

Primarily because I want to use my photos in Photoshop and want to back them up to CD's/DVD's on my own organizational terms, I have ended up importing photos from the camera using Image Capture, viewing them in Preview, modifying them in Photoshop, printing them in Portraits and Prints.

I keep wanting to try to use iPhoto again, but previous iPhoto versions corrupted my photo database and I'm afraid of getting more corruption.

I thought that I had read that Aperture. like iView Media Pro, don't hijack your photos, you can manage how, where and why you want to move the photo files around. Is this true?

As great as it is, iPhoto is almost useless for RAW photos--it'll store them for you until you get an app that will process RAW.

Another mis-info: Aperture v2.1 supports 3rd party plug-ins and does an AMAZING job of spot enhancement on photos (the included "dodge and burn" plug-in, by itself, offers 8 different adjustment layers that can be feathered and erased individually). There is also the existing "retouch" tool that heals and clones better than Photoshop CS3 (the cloner has edge-detection).

I'm a long-time Photoshop lover, but I don't need it anymore except for compositing and "graphic-design" type uses. BTW, Apertures integration w/Photoshop is just fine.

---

I use iPhoto to manage upwards to 4 thousand photos per week. You can't do anything to raw files, but you can send the raw file over to your favorite raw editor (9 times out of 10 the jpeg is fine). I use Nikon Capture for that. I use Photoshop a lot though. I use iPhoto Buddy to create different libraries on an external drives for different occasions. I'd use Aperture (which can read from your iPhoto libraries), but I found that Aperture would create it's own gigantic library too.

There is no tool easier to correct bad white balance than iPhoto. If you accidentally have a florescent white balance going your pix will look really blue. A simple nudge to the right on the color temperature slider and then a simple nudge to the left on the saturation slider will fix it right away. Yes, i accidently forget to change white balance and iso sometimes.

Quote
Wags
As Pipiens points out, I tend to try and get the shot with the camera, by sheer bulk if nothing else, and by bracketing my shots.

Aperture has a built-in technique for managing bracketed shots:

[docs.info.apple.com]

Quote

Unless anyone can convince me that Aperture is significantly better for file management?

Aperture was made for professionals for photo management of huge photo libraries. File management is its thing. Interestingly, as JimBrady points out, its now an excellent photo editor too.

In any case, it seems to me that iPhoto will more than meet your needs.

One more thing--Pixelmator is an great photo editor. What makes it even better is that it costs just $59:

[www.pixelmator.com]

Is it feasible to use Aperture for organizing photos, and then Photoshop for editing, bypassing Adobe Bridge altogether? I am an Aperture user, but find that I need the expanded functionality of Photoshop. Not being familiar with that program, however, I don't know where to start. How, for example, does one export Raw files from Aperture to Photoshop CS4? I see no Raw format as a choice. Only Tiff or PSD. Does the PSD file format stand for Photoshop Digital? Are these files uncompressed, with all of the information contained in the original Raw file? I really don't know where to start. Leafing through books on the subject are getting me nowhere.