First I want to thank Joseph for hosting this hang out. You did an excellent job explaining the new software on very short notice, and based on tonights information I will give it a second look.
I logged on as a participant, but had difficulty. I got disconnected several times and could not get my microphone to connect. So unfortunately I was unable to share my views about Aperture 3.3 in real-time.
I guess I am an outlier. After playing with version 3.3 for an hour or so I am disappointed.
1) Why create icons that are low-res and graphically crude when they already had perfectly nice, high-res, colorful icons? I know it doesn't affect the quality of the images, but jeez, why make something that is already good, worse?
2) It is obvious to me, that Apple is dumbing down the software. Changing the names of various functions so that non-photographers can better relate. 'Presets' to 'Effects' and 'Metadata' to 'Info' for example.
3) Joseph showed a good demo of Highlight and Shadow and I am encouraged. But in my hands, the Highlight slider does very little and the Shadow slider alters the entire dynamic range, not just the shadows.
4) Joseph gave a good demo of the new White Balance. It is nice that the tool has been upgraded. I hope with further testing I will see the same results. But I have not on the few images that I have played with so far.
5) This version requires Lion. Interesting since Apple recently fixed bugs that make the program more robust on Snow Leopard. I have machines running both operating systems and have been able to share the Libraries - until now.
In conclusion, I know these views will be controversial, but I believe that Aperture and IPhoto will soon become one program, targeted for IOS devices and the mass market. They might as well have crude icons, since the human finger is crude pointing device.
There is more, but I will conclude here and so that others can respond to these points.
Hi Larry,
Not saying you are wrong or that your initial assessments are inaccurate … but for the sake of discussion, I’ll share my views on your points.
1) The color icons always baffled me. I thought they looked a bit cartoonish for a “pro” app … so I don’t really miss them … though, I’m not convinced what they replaced them with was the best option either …
2) The new terminology is in no way “dumbing down” anything … “metadata” is still information and it is still added, used and recorded in the same fashion … only the words have changed on some tabs and drop down contextual menus … Photoshop has always called this “File information” … Ps is far from a “dumb” application … If Apple shortchanged us as to how much or in what way we use metadata … then I would agree … but all we are seeing here is a difference in semantics … hardly anything dumb.
3) It is my opinion that the new Highlight and Shadow tool is much improved by not creating as much in the way of artifacts and other issues that require the extra sliders to clean up an image after applied … which makes it much more efficient …
4) I agree that the new White Balance tool is a welcome improvement … I’m a career PJ and sports photographer and have to work in some very difficult, changing and challenging lighting conditions … all too often using a WB target isn’t possible nor is custom WB in-camera, but almost everyone of my images has skin tones in it … so that target range for targeting WB seems to be a major step forward …
5) It’s always disappointing and problematic when our apps rely on major OS and/or new hardware for improved functionality and performance … but time and technology moves on and we benefit because it does … I don’t “need” to upgrade … but my iMac is getting very long in the tooth and it looks like it won’t be supported for the upcoming Mountain Lion .. the potential improved efficiency, performance increase and functionality should pay for itself with the time savings in short order … so this fall may be a good time for me to take the next step … I’d rather put it off a little longer but I’m sure it will be a good move …
Be assured I am not disagreeing with you for the sake of argument … but for the sake of discussion … best wishes …
I think Apple will always have two photo programs. One for my parents and kids and one for serious photographers. Also I never thought that Aperture would replace PS and I don’t want it too. I want Aperture for DAM and general first go around editing. PS is for layering and heavy editing, like Channel blending / mixing. Im not a big fan of Instagram push button plugins, but that is the way things seem to be going.
davidbmoore@mac.com
Twitter= @davidbmoore
Scottsdale AZ
I agree with DBMoore, above. Two-phase asset management works best for me too. However, I would like Aperture to continue to upgrade their feature-set. I envy, gradients, lens corrections and the overall speed of LR. However with > 40,000 images safely stored away in Aperture, I am still evaluating the need to move.
I also appreciate Butches thoughtful and reasoned reply to my post. I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree on the icons and new terminology in 3.3. The loss of Snow Leopard compatibility is bothersome though. I need to stay with SL a bit longer on my desktop because of legacy software that does not run on Lion. Adobe has been much better about retaining backwards compatibility with Apple hardware/OS than Apple has. That is frustrating when I would prefer to stick with Aperture, if just for laziness sake.
I know that I sound all negative on 3.3, but after Joseph’s Hang out, I am going to stick with it until I have had time for more training and experience. I use Aperture daily and within a few weeks I will make my decision -
www.grayfoxphoto.com
I personally think it’s a little hasty to make any decision until version 4 is out. This is a relatively minor update.
What if version 4 comes out in the next few months and it blows everything away? You’ll want to switch back and you’ll have a huge mess on your hands, and for what? A few frustrating months of learning something new?
I think patience is the best policy in this case.