Aperture Features and Plugins

Are there any special effects packages or plug-ins that you can get for Aperture? For instance, I use to use only Photoshop for all my processing and sometimes I'd lay 2 layers on top of each other, blur the top and make it a slight bit darker and transparent to make the picture deeper looking. It was a nice effect on some things.
Anyway, just one example of many and just wondering if there was anything like this for Aperture.
Thanks,
glenn

aperture doesn't offer "effects" as such (or layers as in photoshop), and while some plug-ins are available, they are for output/export to various formats and/or services.
of course you can achieve certain "effects" (if you want to call it this way) such as cross-film etc by playing with the different color channels in apertures levels adjustments, but this is not what aperture is about. instead of going into details what aperture is really made for and very strong at, i'd refer to the many threads in this forum discussing and covering this already in detail. look for aperture vs photoshop etc... or download the free demo version and find out for yourself.
aperture is not a replacement for photoshop, and it is not meant to be. for image manipulations, layers, blending effects, retouching etc you will still need photoshop.

Similar Messages

  • Hello! I'm using Aperture with Efex plugins and notice, what when I saving result in plugin and go back to aperture, preview mode is going to grey color and not working until I reboot Aperture. Did you saw this problem?

    Hello! I'm using Aperture with Efex plugins and notice, what when I saving result in plugin and go back to aperture, preview mode is going to grey color and not working until I reboot Aperture. What is intresting - in full screen mode everything works fine. Did you saw this problem?

    It seems there's a workaround here:
    https://discussions.apple.com/thread/5566037?tstart=0

  • Plugin Aperture: Fotos before in Aperture Database and after run Plugin?

    Does the Plugin for Aperture move Fotos to Lightroom?

    For "managed" Aperture images: The plugin will copy files to a new location
    For "referenced" Aperture images: the plugin will copy files to a new location (default), or leave them in place (if option is chosen)
    The plugin will then make all files from the Aperture library available in the Lightroom catalog you import them to.

  • How do I remove Aperture trial and go back to iPhoto (be kind, I'm new).

    How do I remove the Aperture trial and go back to iPhoto.  For my usage (just iPhone pics/movies) iPhoto is okay for me, but now I cannot figure out how to remove Aperture, when I drag to Trash I get a warning that Aperture is a system file.
    Please help, but also, please go slow if you can help, I am new to my Mac.

    Should be pretty easy as follows:
    1 - Make sure you have copies of any pictures you want that are inside Aperture somewhere on your computer.
    2 - Quit Aperture > Remove any Aperture icon from dock > drag the Aperture program (lens icon) from Applications folder to the Trash > proceed through any warning dialog (including entering password as required) to complete the process.
    Note - new security features in OS X Lion may present those warning dialogs to prevent accidental deletion of Apple programs.
    3 - Hold down the 'Option' key and use the 'Go' menu in menu bar and select the 'Library' option.
    4 - In the Library folder, open the 'Application Support' folder and delete any Aperture folder found.
    5 - While still in the Library folder, open the 'Preferences' folder and delete both the 'com.apple.Aperture.plist' and 'com.apple.Aperture.plist.lockfile' file.
    6 - While still in the Library folder, open the 'Caches' folder and delete the 'com.apple.Aperture' folder.
    7 - Go the your 'Pictures' folder and drag the 'Aperture Library' (may be named Aperture Trial Library or similar) to the Trash to delete it as well.
    8 - Empty the Finder Trash to remove Aperture.
    Note - there are some files and Aperture folders in the '/Library' folder (which is in the root of your system drive), but you don't really need to remove those. Since you are a beginner, it is probably better not to for now.
    That should do it.
    Additional edit: There are two Library folders I am referring to. The first is the one in your user account 'Home' folder which is the one you are going to by using the 'Go' menu. This is the one you are deleting files from in the steps listed. The second Library folder is the one in the root of your system drive and is not typically a location for beginners to work with (thus the final note above). Hope that is clear enough.
    Message was edited by: CorkyO2 to add clarity concerning the 'Library' folder.

  • Aperture, Photoshop, and Apple's possible direction for Image Editing

    All,
    After using Aperture now for several days, and reading many different forum topics, in particular this one which speaks of desired enhancements to Aperture:
    http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=253594&tstart=0
    there is one thing that really sticks out on my mind. While all of us photographers have slightly different specifics to our workflow, in general they are very similar. And with respect to Aperture, there is one huge area where most of us seem to be hitting the brick wall: image adjustments, and by extension, image file management. Let me explain what I mean.
    I think it is a fair generalization to say that the vast majority of serious digital photographers are using Photoshop (or some other image editing app, but I'm just going to refer to Photoshop for convenience) for post-processing of some kind. In using Aperture, and figuring out how to fit it into workflow, we've got this situation of how to move from organization and image library management to the full gamut of image adjusting functionality (photoshop) and back again to library management. The need to use photoshop then exposes the issue of how files are stored on the filesystem, etc. Stay with me here...
    I have found myself thinking, and it is pretty clearly demonstrated in the forum topic mentioned above where folks are making suggestions for improvements to Aperture, that there's this barrel people are over in knowing whether Photoshop and Aperture should live in the workflow together, or whether Aperture should (or is intended to) replace Photoshop in the workflow. This got me to thinking about the fundamental question -- what is the intent, i.e. the vision for Aperture? Is it meant to replace Photoshop, or restated, is Aperture meant to be the app in which all image adjustments are to be made, OR is Aperture meant to just ease workflow, and is it intended not to be the primary app for image adjustments, but rather integrate with the primary image adjustment app?
    The reason I bring this up is that the answer to this question makes all the difference in what enhancement requests and what people should expect from Aperture now, and in future versions. If Aperture is the primary place for image adjustment, then its obvious that there are some very significant additions that need to take place to Aperture, and likewise, the issue of putting images on the filesystem becomes much less important. However, if Aperture is a workflow-easer, then such image adjustment improvements are minimally important if at all, and filesystem / Photoshop / PSD file integration becomes paramount.
    I know what Aperture does, what features it provides, etc. But I can't help but realize that its not really that clear (or I just don't understand yet) what the full scope of Aperture now and in the future is intended to be, and the forum topics are pretty decent documentation of the fact that the user base at this point is fairly cloudy on that too.
    I can't help thinking that in the midst of the Apple pro line of tools, where we have tools that edit: video, audio, DVD creation, text effects, and now digital photography workflow, that there's one glaring hole: static image editing, i.e. a direct Photoshop competitor. I went through the Aperture video demos before Aperture shipped, and watched these photo pros talk incessantly about how "now there's an app that addresses how I work -- Aperture". That's great, but Apple has to know the role that Photoshop plays in present photography workflow -- for those pros too. So I'm sitting here thinking to myself, why would Apple roll out such a product with some clear workflow hurdles to common Photoshop usage.
    Ok, here's the punchline: does anyone else here have a sneaking suspicion that Apple is not to far off from releasing their own image editing application that's a direct Photoshop competitor? I mean come on, Final Cut Pro, Motion, Sountrack, and by extension of the CEO to Pixar, Renderman. How can you not have a static image adjustment application entering the scene at some point?
    I'm curious what others think. I'm just trying to make sense of how to fit the neat stuff I see in Aperture into a workflow that doesn't play very nicely with Aperture at some points (because I'm using Photoshop).
    Brad
    Powerbook G4-1.33GHz-17" / Powermac G4-1.4GHz   Mac OS X (10.4.2)   PB: 1GB RAM, Radeon 9600-64MB / PM: 1.25GB RAM, Radeon 9000Pro-128MB

    So Apple adds curves adjustments,
    we'll need noise reduction, greater sharpening
    capability, etc., etc., and then when we have all
    those features, surely we'll need masking and select
    capability to perform those adjustments selectively,
    etc. Where does it end?
    Actually that could be a good cut-off point - add a few more/better 'global' adjustments but leave all mask, selection and layer based tasks to external editors. Personally, I used to swear by curves, but haven't really touched them in PS for a year since shooting more RAW and learning how to use the shadow/highlight adjustment properly. Sometimes for overall colour for JPEGs, but that bit can be done just as well in levels.
    My workflow isn't particularly typical, but here goes.
    Type of photography - stitched panoramas as a professional, plus general snapshots/nature/landscape as hobby. Single user with no network storage.
    Currently I use a very organised folder structure in the Finder, along with aliases in DragThing docks for easy access to final stitched files, all with their own unique ID. RAW conversions are done in ACR/PSCS2, or Bibble if I'm in a hurry on the laptop. About 40% of the panos are shot in RAW, 40% are bracketed JPEG and the remaining 20% are 'single' JPEG. The panoramas go through quite a lot of post-processing in PS using a whole series of actions and AppleScripts.
    I'm expecting my workflow to look something like this:
    1) Download directly into Aperture, possibly with added help from Automator/Applescript when it comes to proper date-based names.
    2) Divide download into a new album for each panorama.
    2a) If it is a people pano there will be quite a lot of duplicate shots for each panohead position - make a stack for each position and choose picks - this bit will speed things up enormously by itself. Reorder stacks to fit correct order of images going around the scene.
    3) Export to TIFF (sometimes JPEG) and stitch using PTMac (sometimes Realviz Stitcher). Oh, and any people who think Aperture is limited, buggy and bad value should go and look at Stitcher - it costs the same, has a far more limited feature set, is on version 5 and by comparison makes Aperture look bug-free.
    4) Bring stitched panorama into Photoshop to adjust seams through layers if needed, flatten, final tone adjustments (usually using shadow/highlight), possibly some colour tweaks, sharpen. For bracketed shots I will blend together the three exposures at this point using a custom action - this kind of thing is unlikely ever to make it to Aperture.
    5) Bring final print-ready file into Aperture for cataloguing/backup.
    5a) If file is too big for Aperture, make a smaller version for cataloguing and store original file in Finder. This gives me a good file for 90% of purposes, with the huge file available with a bit more work.
    Too big? I've found that Aperture gets sluggish with files over 18-20,000 pixels wide, and chokes totally somewhere between 25,000 and 32,000 pixels wide - 'image format unsupported'.
    To summarise - organise and convert in Aperture, stitch in specialist software, do PS-specific stuff then bring final image back in to join the source images.
    Ian

  • Aperture 2 and Lightroom 2

    Hello everyone.
    I know this question has been asked before, and I have read some previous threads about these two products. However, I was hoping to have a few things clarified for me that I was not to sure about.
    I just recently started to really become involved with Digital Photograph. Purchased my first SLR (Nikon D80) and love it. I really found a hobby I enjoy.
    With all the pictures I am taking and will be taking, I obviously need to find post processing software that suits my needs. Here is where Aperture 2 and Lightroom (and to a degree, CS3) come into play.
    Let me ask some obvious questions first.
    1.) Lightroom 2 is a organizing piece as well as editing software piece correct? lets you get into the photo, make adjustments. Pretty good editing from what I can tell.
    Can it be said that LR2 and A2 do the same thing, just differently? A2 lets you organize your photos and edit them as well. They just do it differently correct? For example, A2 lets you edit in full mode.
    I guess that is one of my main questions.
    2.) Fundamentally, what are the main differences between L2 and A2?
    Down the road, I am planning on using CS3 (or CS4) to take advantage of layers and do the really cool fun stuff. But that is down the road when I am more experienced.
    I downloaded both LR2 and A2 and installed the trials and plan to use them over the next 30 days to 'test them out.'
    A2 seems to 'plugin' better to the iMac, which I expected.
    With LR2, from what I can see, I could use LR2 instead of iPhoto for my organizing/cataloging, and if I wanted to move photos from LR2 to iPhoto (to make books, calenders, etc. etc.), I would need to export it out of LR2 and import it into iphoto. That correct? Where as Aperture 'co-exists' easier with iPhoto?
    Is there really anything that stands out and separates the two?
    The other thing I need to consider is when I bring in CS3 down the road. What is the easier way to integrate everything.
    Appreciate the help.
    Cheers,
    Jason

    Hi,
    I migrated to the iMac from PC around a month ago and was evaluating my photo options both before and after the migration. The difference with me is, I guess, that I haven't previously been much of a user or any version of Photoshop, so had no Adobe-centric preconceptions to colour my own evaluation of Lightroom and Aperture.
    I guess I qualify as an enthusiastic amateur who finally migrated from film to digital 5 years ago, after 25 years of film. On the PC, my photo management comprised folders on the hard disk plus Picasa to provide some basic abstraction layer and album facility. Editing was very basic and relied on The Gimp if no addressed by Picaca's built-in adjustments. Then I started taking photos in RAW rather than jpeg, and it all went to custard as they say.
    Picasa didn't cut it any more, RAW opened up a lot more options and my collection was becoming unmanageable. Tried ViewNX - limited manageability. Tried Lightroom 2 on the PC - wow, this is more like it. Didn't like ACDSee, iview. Migrated to Mac, and started comparing all over again.
    Lightroom - given my previous try-out I was expecting Good Things, so left the start of this trial until after using Aperture for 2 weeks. Suddenly Lightroom felt clunky - very modal and constraining.
    Aperture - didn't really know what to expect. Imported all of my photos as referenced and found my folder structure replicated by albums. Kind of disconcerting initially as I couldn't work out where the Masters were, nor the true behaviour of albums, projects and folders in Aperture. Then it clicked - great version control and cataloguing, non-destructive edits etc etc, logical collections of photos. It worked more like my thought processes, rather than my thought processes having to adjust to how the software worked.
    For my uses, Lightroom's closer integration with Photoshop is a bit of a non-event as I don't chop up photos - just develop them. Anyhow, Photoshop Elements is there if I REALLY need it (so far not at all after a month).
    I can see how previous experience with Photoshop or Lightroom would create a preference for continuing with Lightroom. For me, there's no business reason, emotional attachment or previous experience to consider, so Aperture won. Lightroom was uninstalled after 2 weeks.
    Regards,
    Calx
    PS - I think from an interface design perspective, Aperture is an amazing piece of software, leaving aside other comparison aspects.
    Message was edited by: CalxOddity

  • Aperture 3 and HDV Camcorder

    I've been messing around with Aperture 3 for a while now and decided it was time to try playing with the new HD video support.
    On Apple's Aperture "New Features" page http://www.apple.com/aperture/features/#video it states:
    "Video Support
    Import, browse, and play back video clips — including HD video — from digital SLR cameras, point-and-shoot cameras, and +digital camcorders+."
    Well, I plugged in my Sony HDV camcorder with it's Firewire cable and expected it to open right up in import. Nope, nada. Couldn't find any way for the camcorder to show up in Aperture. (This same camera and MacBook Pro work fine to import with Final Cut Pro.)
    Then I tried to import the .MOV video files into Aperture that I used Final Cut to capture. This sort of worked. Aperture did recognize and import them, but two things were seriously messed up. When Final Cut captures video from an HDV camcorder, it leaves it in the interlaced 1440x1080 amorphous pixel aspect ratio how it comes off the camera. When those clips are played back in Final Cut (or in Quicktime X) it somehow deinterlaces and displays the video in normal 1920x1080 so it looks good on the screen. Aperture 3 doesn't seem to do this. Once imported, the clips looked like crap when played back in Aperture.
    I found on this page http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4025 a very short list of DSLR cameras that Apple says Aperture supports, none of which are digital camcorders. How does Apple get away with claiming Aperture 3 supports HD video from "digital camcorders" when it doesn't have one listed on their supported list and Aperture doesn't even do a very good job of working with HD video files captured from another application?
    I've Googled around on this forum, the Aperture manual, and Apple's site and haven't found any other mention of Aperture working with HDV camcorders.
    Does anyone here have any better experiences?

    A quick look at the contents pages in the Aperture 3 PDF manual seems not to mention camcorders.
    Page 145 of the manual states-
    Aperture supports most image, audio, and video file formats captured by digital cameras. An example of the file types and formats that can be imported into your Aperture library are:
    • GIF • JPEG • JPEG2000 • PNG • PSD(8-and16-bit) • DNG • RAW files from a variety of supported digitalcameras • TIFF (8- and 16-bit) • AIF • WAV • MOV
    So digital camcorders recording in ACVHD are not stated as compatible with Aperture so need to have their movies converted to the supported formats first.

  • Migrating iPhoto to Aperture 3 and the case of missing photos

    I love the new Aperture 3 and am so excited to migrate from iPhoto. I have used the Aperture feature of importing an entire iPhoto library directly into a new Aperture library. This doesn't produce any errors (except for a handful of missing photos which aren't too important), but when I look at the resultant Aperture library (8 hours later), I am missing a LOT of photos. My iPhoto library has about 24,000 photos and my Aperture library only has about 16,000. Because of the differences in the way Aperture and iPhoto keep track of edits, my Aperture library should have considerably more photos than iPhoto and not less. Please help!

    In new iLife 09 (or iPhoto 09), some pics are now black in the Event, simply an outline of dotted lines. Yet, when I cursor fast, they appear, so I know there are still there.
    That doesn't mean that they are "still there". It means that a cached version of the image exists.
    I recall, when migrating photos it noted that the photos in iPhoto (old system) needed to be formatted to new iPhoto, so I allowed. Makes me wonder if something in a pic title or such is the issue.
    That's a standard procedure when you upgraded to the later version of iPhoto. Happens every time to up a version, and to everyone.
    With regard to Portrait. When I import from iPhoto to Aperture, any Portrait picture has a 2nd verson next to it, but in the Horizontal. All Horizontal pics, there is only the one version of the pic.
    Your camera has an Auto-Rotate feature. However, the camera does not actually rotate any pixels in the file, but instead flags it with an instruction: "Display me this way". iPhoto, seeing the flag, reads the intention and creates a modified version. Hence the second version of the Portrait pics and no second version of the Landscape ones. The landscape ones don't have an auto-rotate tag.
    For the dotted line problem, try rebuild your iPhoto Library: Back Up and try rebuild the library: hold down the command and option (or alt) keys while launching iPhoto. Use the resulting dialogue to rebuild.
    Regards
    TD

  • Aperture 3 and spinning wheel

    Hi all,
    just to add this strange behavior to the list of the new A3:
    - new library with just one project of 80 imported photos
    - created a new book
    - terminated the book, about 35 pages
    - now when I open Aperture, it open in the book view, but the first thing it's happening is that the colored spinning wheel appear for many seconds (about 20) before let me do anything. This repeat many times also I try to access any command/menu in Aperture. The wait is always about 20/30 seconds.
    Just to see if anyone is experiencing this problem...
    Bye,
    - Marco.

    It may be related to some issues I've noticed with Aperture 2 and the Magic Mouse-- all it takes is a slight mis-placed finger on the Magic Mouse and it jumps lots of images when you never intended it to. It will make changes to sliders if you forget to click-off the slider and then touch the Magic Mouse. And the list goes on. I really want a way to disable the scroll feature of the Magic Mouse while in Aperture and Photoshop to prevent unintentional adjustments or wild jumps around the library. Apple may have gotten feedback about this and decided to disable the scroll features in certain situations. Remember- the Magic Mouse is the mouse that ships with their computers.

  • Aperture 3 and Capture NX 2

    I'm evaluating both trial versions of Aperture 3 and Nikon's Capture NX 2. I shoot with a Nikon D90, and I'm trying to develop a consistent workflow which might use the best features of both Aperture 3 and Capture NX 2. I also tend to shoot a lot of RAW pictures which are stored as NEF files. While my trial version of Capture NX 2 can display pictures in my iPhoto library, in it's browser, the program doesn't see the Aperture Library and therefore doesn't display any of the pictures in the Aperture Library. Has anyone else seen this? I'm still trying to decide the best workflow and would be interested if others have successfully integrated Aperture 3 and Capture NX 2 into their workflows.
    Thanks!

    That's exactly what you would expect to see when you try open the Aperture Library with Capture EX 2.
    (BTW you know this is the iPhoto 08 forum, right?)
    Aperture is a database. If you want to process Raws with NX then you'll need to either process them before importing to Aperture or use an app like Catapult ( http://www.macupdate.com/app/mac/31765/catapult/) to use it in association with Aperture.
    Regards
    TD

  • Aperture 3 and GPS logs

    According to the manual, Aperture 3 can place photos on a map based on camera GPS data, or else manually by clicking on a map.
    I have a camera that doesn't support GPS and was hoping I could find a solution where Aperture can add GPS EXIF data based on importing from a GPS log (from a dedicated GPS device) and comparing timestamps.
    Do any such plugins exist for Aperture 3?
    (BTW, I've read people's iPhone-related solutions, and that is not going to work for me since I will be roaming in places where the iPhone's accuracy will be called into question...not to mention I'd have to remember to snap an iPhone photo at every waypoint along the way.)

    1. GPS Track file: I use "GPS Tracker" (free, app store) on my iPhone to store the GPS track logs on instamapper.com (free). Define the trip and download the track file (in .gpx format).
    2. I took about 200 pictures over 3 days on my Nikon D100 onto a CF card.
    3. I opened Aperture 3 and imported the images into a new project. I clicked on (Places) button. Used the [GPS] drop down and selected "Import GPS track" (this drew the track nicely!). Selected all images. And dragged the selected images to the track. Aperture asked to assign locations based on time. I selected (Assign Locations). None of the images were assigned the correct locations I removed the images from Aperture.
    Marc Vose wrote:
    Just wondering which program you're using to actually bring the images off the camera in this scenario.
    4. I placed the CF card into the usb CF reader and copied the images to a folder using the finder.
    5. I installed exiftool (link: http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/) and issued the terminal command:
    $ exiftool -geotag=/Users/kent/Downloads/Vacation-2010-02-AZ.gpx .
    This tagged all the images in the directory using the track file Vacation-2010-02-AZ.gpx
    6. I imported the images into Aperture, clicked on the [Places] button. And all the images have been correctly placed.
    7. I burn the raw images to dvd before formatting the CF card (send off-site for backup .
    The GPS track support still needs some work in Aperture - but is it nice to be able to work with location information on the images.

  • Aperture 3 and Lumix LX5

    I have recently upgraded my Aperture 2.0 software and pictures library to Aperture 3.0 and I bought a Lumix LX5. I have the following questions:
    1. It is supposed that in Aperture 3.x you can import also the videos. My videos are not imported. Lumix LX5 is recording AVCHD 720p movies. Anything I need to check?
    2. When will Apple support importing Lumix LX5 RAW files? Is there any third party plugin I can use in Aperture? I only want to use Aperture for my photos and not the bundled software which comes with the camera (which can read the movies and the RAW files, of course).
    Thanks,
    Codrut

    1. It is supposed that in Aperture 3.x you can import also the videos. My videos are not imported. Lumix LX5 is recording AVCHD 720p movies. Anything I need to check?
    Not all formats of video are supported. for AVCHD you'll need to use iMovie.
    2. When will Apple support importing Lumix LX5 RAW files? I
    Nobody outside of Apple knows when - or if - your camera will be supported for Raw. Aperture menu -> Provide Aperture Feedback and them know you want it.
    Is there any third party plugin I can use in Aperture?
    Have you tied converting them to DNGs and using those?
    Regards
    TD

  • Aperture 3 and Flickr sync problems

    Hi!
    I started using Aperture 3 recently and made the mistake of authorizing Aperture to sync with Flickr.  I hate it!  Now I want to deauthorize it somehow but don't know where or how?  I've read horror stories that all of my Flickr photos will be deleted from Flickr if I deauthorize, but none of my Flickr photos were uploaded from Aperture, they were already in Flickr and were automatically synced to Aperture once I authorized it.  Now that I realize I've made a mistake I want to get out, but how?
    TIA!
    Debbie

    I have been using the sync feature between my Aperture library and Facebook and Flickr for 6 months and I finally gave up on it yesterday.
    As an example of what I usually go through, I uploaded 159 photos to my flickr account this past weekend, then added some captions/descriptions/tags etc. on flickr (was that a mistake?). Then Aperture promptly undid some my work at the next synchonization... I don't want photos on my stream named DSC_6788.jpg, etc.  Thing is, Aperture undoes some of what I do on Flickr but not all.  There's no rhyme, reason, or pattern to it.  If I use Aperture to add tags (by entering keywords in the right field), even those partially disappear after the next sync.
    Another maddening thing is that it makes the filename the caption on Facebook albums.  I/e/. if, on Facebook, I added a desctiptive caption on a picture such as "Mommy and Daddy making out under the Eiffel Tower" (totally a made up example), then next time a synch happens, the caption would be "DSC_8646.jpg."  Gee, thanks for the help, Aperture.
    For 6 months I have lived in fear of opening up Aperture.  Will the sync mess up what I've published online?
    There should be option to not have Aperture override what you do on flickr (and Facebook).  I am a strong believer in the "Publish and Forget" model for places like Flickr and Facebook, not the sync model.
    For now, it's back to export to a folder and upload via the uploader.

  • Aperture 3 and processor configurations

    My MBP  c2d developed the "Black Screen of Death" and is out of warranty and also that extra warranty for the extra defective Nvidia chips, so I need to upgrade.
    Since my only application which even remotely taxed the MBP was Aperture 3(and combining giant RAW images in DOUBLETAKE), and since I'm not made of money, I need to find the best bang for the buck, which eliminates such exotic things as $500 SSD drives.
    ITS A GIVEN need to max out the RAM to probably 12 gigs, and having at least a 500 gig 7200 HD is necessary.  And there are such software things as modifying the prefs, keeping the program current, and removing the caches to keep the speed up.
    BUT....  I have not been able to determine whether Aperture 3
    1.  ....actually uses the four cores in a quad core, or
    2.  ....does better with the multi-threading. 
    3.  ....is more processor intensive than core intensive---meaning  a 3.06 ghz i3(dual core)  vs a 2.5 ghz  i5(quad core) .  I'm quite aware of the bench marks that put it substantially faster but none of the bench marks I've seen use APERTURE 3
    4.  ....is how specifically impactive using a  ATI Radeon HD 4670 vs a AMD Radeon HD 6750M is to speed(in a 21.5 screen)
    I shoot almost entirely in RAW, and I have a bunch of plugins that do such things a portraiture, HDR, and Panamoramic combinations using RAW originals.

    More answers from various sources to my original questions:
    1.  ....actually uses the four cores in a quad core, or
    John answered that well.  But additionally,  the 3.0 duo core probably just coasts at 3.0 with one core.  The Sandy Bridge 2.5 ghz if only uising one core will get over clocked to a 3.4 ghz.  So its probalby a wash and by processor power alone the 2.5 is probably running faster due to the turbo boost.
    2.  ....does better with the multi-threading.  
    No one know if Aperture uses the multi threads.
    3.  ....is more processor intensive than core intensive---meaning  a 3.06 ghz i3(dual core)  vs a 2.5 ghz  i5(quad core) .  I'm quite aware of the bench marks that put it substantially faster but none of the bench marks I've seen use APERTURE 3.
    This was answered by number one
    4.  The video card is way way faster, and apparently, the turbo will also over clock the video card to get more done.
    So the reality is that the 2.5 ghz, should be substantially faster on Aperture 3 than the nominally faster 3.0 from last year.
    I'll let you all know since I ordered one.  Of course I'll only be able to compare it to a 2.2 ghz core 2duo macbook pro running a slow Nvidia 8600GT

  • Aperture 3 and Places - pins disappear

    I've been scanning slides to TIFF, importing them into Aperture 3, and assigning places. I've found that with many of my files, when I quit Aperture and later relaunch, the pins are gone. Moreover, I have actually watched pins disappear when I deselect a file in places view.
    This happens even when I've written IPTC data to master. It has been inconsistent about which files drop their pins - one file might lose its pin one time, and retain it another.
    This is extremely frustrating - has anyone else experienced it? If so, have you figured out how to stop it?
    Thanks!
    Alex

    When you say your "pins disappear", are you saying that the Latitude and Longitude fields in your Metadata are being wiped out? (Select the GPS pulldown preset on your Metadata tab to see them, if you haven't added these to a custom Metadata View yet).
    And are you sure that you don't have some sort of filter on that is making the "pins disappear"? I found that Aperture would often turn on a Places filter after an action. I am still trying to get used to how Places works, after adding GPS info from an AMOD logger to about 7000 images shot in Argentina. Sometimes I thought Aperture was broken, only to find that I was not using the new (but poorly documented) feature correctly.

Maybe you are looking for