All,

As I've mentioned before, we've been working with Apple quite a bit, providing them with feedback from the photographic community on Aperture. Last week they came to us asking for image submissions to help improve the raw processing in Aperture. In turn, we asked that they open that request up to PDN readers, as we'd be able to give them a greater selection of images that way.

They agreed nearly instantaneously, and as a result, today we've posted on the Product News section a story including details of how you can submit images to Apple for their development team to use to improve the RAW processing.

In a nutshell, all you have to do is provide one image (16bit TIFF with Aperture's default conversion, and one using any other program's default (be sure to turn off all auto-adjustments in ACR or other programs) and a note of what you think the other program did better. They ask for info on camera type, so they can nail down specific camera processes.

Here is a link directly to the article.

Apple request on PDN

So Apple is asking for those who are licensed users of Aperture to submit. I guess that leaves those of us who aren't out of the loop?

Is this an admission from Apple that their program has some serious faults? I am just saying, since they are asking for samples from another program of the same image to compare?

Not getting on Apples case per se, just that all the hype obviousley does not correlate with the product.

I am actually hoping that Apple does good with their program. I do not use an Apple computer, have'nt for about six years. I do feel that once Apple gets it right though, that it will lead to improved products across the board from all manufacturers.

Although it is plain to see that the actual product does not match the hype, it's good to see that they are really trying to improve the program.

I hope everything works out well for them.

-Koa-

quote:

Originally posted by davidschloss:
All,

As I've mentioned before, we've been working with Apple quite a bit, providing them with feedback from the photographic community on Aperture. Last week they came to us asking for image submissions to help improve the raw processing in Aperture. In turn, we asked that they open that request up to PDN readers, as we'd be able to give them a greater selection of images that way.

Good morning David Schloss,

Thanks for all your work on this. As John MacLean pointed out, it is just a bit disappointing that Apple is only opening up this to registered users of Aperture. That almost seems like you have to pay to be a beta tester. Their competition is fast becoming Adobe Lightroom.

quote:

They agreed nearly instantaneously, and as a result, today we've posted on the Product News section a story including details of how you can submit images to Apple for their development team to use to improve the RAW processing.

In a nutshell, all you have to do is provide one image (16bit TIFF with Aperture's default conversion, and one using any other program's default (be sure to turn off all auto-adjustments in ACR or other programs) and a note of what you think the other program did better. They ask for info on camera type, so they can nail down specific camera processes.

Here is a link directly to the article.

Apple request on PDN

I hope this does go some way to improving Aperture. Unfortunately, I still see this much the same as when Final Cut Pro was launched. The first product really was missing many important tools, and it took a few releases until the potential was realized, and it became a stand alone solution. With Aperture, Apple seems like it cannot decide whether they are creating a PhotoShop replacement, or an expensive organizing tool.

If Apple want Aperture to be a stand alone product, then they need to build in some of the usefulness already in PhotoShop. While I don't think people will give up PhotoShop, it seems to me a few changes to Aperture could allow a true streamlining of a photographer's workflow, to the point of elminating a need to go into PhotoShop. The greatest improvement they could do to implement that is CMYK support; in the form of CMYK previews, Gamut warnings, and CMYK output. That would create print and press ready images, from the camera to the CD-R or DVD-R. Without that Aperture just becomes an expensive organizing tool. PhaseOne Capture One Pro should be their target, and I hope a few people pass them files from that so Apple can improve Aperture.

quote:

So Apple is asking for those who are licensed users of Aperture to submit. I guess that leaves those of us who aren't out of the loop?

Correct. That would leave about 99.5% of pro photographers out of the loop!

All,

I think perhaps you're misunderstanding this.

This isn't a beta test program.

Many reviews of Aperture have been critical of the program's raw processing compared to other programs. Apple would like to see specific examples where other raw conversion tools are preferred over Aperture, so they can make sure they get the best possible processing in the program.

You can't be one of the people who thinks that ACR (for example) does a better job of converting raw images if you're not able to compare the two. So, specifically Apple is asking people who are users of Aperture, who are critical of the raw performance to provide specific examples.

Gordon, John, et. all. If you haven't been using Aperture already then you haven't had an issue where you think Aperture's raw isn't as competent as some other tool, so this wouldn't apply to you.

If you'd like to go to the Apple store with some images in raw format, convert them, and upload THEM without buying Aperture, I'm sure they'd be just as thrilled to see them.

This is just a call for entries, so to speak, of people who have used the program, and would like to help make it better. It's not a general call for photographers to participate in a beta program (that would require people using beta software) but more of a customer-feedback opportunity.

If you are not currently using Aperture, and not currently using another tool, than this wouldn't really apply to you, as you'd have no images to compare.

well, forgive me, but, shouldn't they (apple) have done that already about 10,000 times...? wouldn't you test your product against existing products prior to launch....?

Horse, cart, messenger; or is it cart, messenger, horse... no matter - we most all agree that Apple fumbled on this rollout, something they seem to be getting better at sadly, but the the origional offer (from DS / PDN) was reasonably clear, stupid as Apples process is.

If Apple is serious, as all of us are, they should be giving out time limted demos - have you written Apple today?

They DID, and they're pretty happy with the images. But nothing is perfect, especially not a 1.0 release of a program. There's only so much testing you can do before a program launches. (I think we covered this in previous posts a lot). As a result, many of the reviews of Aperture touch on the raw processing as an area that needs improvement.

So by opening this up to more people, they're going to be able to see a lot wider range of photos, shot under a wider range of conditions, with a wider range of gear than their first batch.

>they DID, and they're pretty happy with the images.<

they aren't photographers.
I'm testing Aperture for a review, and when comparing, I easely can figure out the Aperture's conversions, as they produce artefacts, on a big percentage of the conversions.

The actual conversions are pretty useless, for a high-end photographer.

I didn't intended to stop the discussion, but IMO, Aperture 1.01 has some shortcomings that NEED to be adressed. It reminds me rather to a beta-version than a working evironnement-app.

The clearer Apple is aware of that, and can handle it, the better for them - and the photographers.

That said I' m fully saddiesfied with my rocket, aka Quad.

From my own perspective; I was eleated when I first heard that Apple was releasing Aperture. I thought to myself "finally, some competition to pull those Adobe jerks heads out of the clouds and bring 'em back to earth a bit, but it hasn't really panned out that way, now has it. I mean like I'm a MAC-daddy all the way, so I was stoked to see Apple bringing out an answer that was designed specifically for Apples, however as others have pointed out; there was no limited demo version that we could test it out with and with a hefty price tag of 500 clams, that's a huge mistake. Then of course came the many critisisms on the program itself. I really think Apple have blown it. By the time they get Aperture together, Adobe will have most likely blown them out the door with their answer to it and I have no doubt that there will be tempting offers for the great majoritory of us who are already using Photoshop.

Just my 2c from someone who sees the writing on the wall......

Sean


www.seandavey.com

that is the whole point, how many of you have ever spent 500 on a program without trying it out first....? and now you are asking for our feedback...? its laughable....anyway, I never would have purchased C1 Pro without trying the demo first, i tried it, liked it, then bought it.....isn't that the way it should work, earn my business instead of blasting the internet (and the photo expo) full of hype and hope people fall for it....i've always been a fan of Mac's, its the only computer i've ever owned....but they completely screwed this up from day 1...nice job with the marketing though....

Strange that they want default settings? Who sticks with default settings?

yes I understand that it's to be an apples to apples (pun intended)
comparison but really....
I don't think I've ever been happy with any default settings

Doods,

Can't you see that Mr. Schloss is getting a bit dampened with regard to everyone hammering away at this Apple program? This thread is to call for raw submissions for the purpose of comparing and making better. If you didn't buy the program then just give him a break and let those that did and would like to submit, do that.

There is another thread for hammering at the Apple release of Aperture and Mr. Rodney seems to be doing a hell of a job picking it apart.

Don't you guys have better stuff to rag on? try directing some of this contempt towards your evil Aunty's Avon cologne.

How about your client's determination to place a perfect, ripe pear in your shot of the latest John Deere hand shredder. Rag on that because pears might be the most overused accessory in the history of metaphors for the shape of a woman, or autumn coziness.

Sincerely,

The Moderator, Ohgimmesomebeer.