Aperture makes a comeback...

Well, maybe. Some people who like Aperture are speaking up on the forum. Everyone seems to agree the overall workflow is an improvemnt over previous programs. So, the two remaining big questions for me are quality of the conversions and speed of working with the images. I plan to take typical raw files that I shoot to an Apple store and process them on a machine there. Then bring the files home and compare them to conversions done with ACR (Adobe Camera Raw). Also, using one of the latest machines at the Apple store will give me a true idea of how quickly the program can work with images. I already know my older computer cannot handle Aperture.
I encourage others who have not purchased the program yet to do the same and see what you think.

I have done some similar tests at home, not in an apple store, using a dual 2 gHz G5 (first generation) with 1.5 gig RAM and a calibrated apple cinema display with a new Epson Stylus Photo R 1800 printer.
Using ColorSync color management based on the printer profile & kind of paper with the calibrated monitor profile I have been able to easily achieve accurate color matches in my test prints. More color accurate than I could achieve via photoshop. This surprised me, but made me quite happy.
I am not a huge fan of curves, I usually work with levels, exposure adjustments and contrast for making adjustments. That said, however, I did find that I was able to get a nice adjustment easier in PS with curves on a test Raw file (NEF) of a stunning sunrise using PS curves that I found difficult to achieve in Aperture....
That is until I started using the quad levels adjustments in Aperture. Then I could achieve nearly the same results, but with slightly more accurate color.
For me the most important benchmark is the finished product... The Print.
I hope this helps.
-Sol

Similar Messages

  • Can Aperture make JPEG dupes of imported RAW automatically based on camera?

    I have a specific DSLR which I shoot with. I guess most photographers might also have 2 or more DSLRs they shoot with as well. Usually one older than the other as a second body or back up.
    When I import RAW images to Aperture 2.x, I would like Aperture (either automatically or triggered by me) to process the importing/imported images to a default JPEG duplicate copy of the RAW. In other words, rather than shooting JPEG+RAW, I would rather just shoot all RAW and when those RAWs enter Aperture, I would like it to make JPEG duplicates. I realize I may loose JPEG quality but this is not essential as if an image selected for use, I will custom process that image and convert to JPEG.
    Obviously, I would like those dupes to not be strait dupes of the RAW but, on a basic level, when the conversion happens, also adjust them based on a basic set of color corrections, etc. like the camera might do when making a JPEG in camera. So the conversion is more specific to the RAW coming from the specific camera model.
    Can Aperture do this? and how do I set this up? It seems like this ability should be built in or a plug in. It would be camera specific though. A setting for a Nikon D300 would do this "make JPEG dupes of RAW imports" different from a setting for a Sony A700 "make JPEG dupes of RAW imports".
    I envision a plug in or free list of default import settings you can save for specific cameras. Something akin to color palettes for design programs based on specific printers. For Epson XYZ printer I can download the Pantone color palettes for that printer and install them in InDesign, etc. Plug in conversion settings for specific DSLR bodies.

    I'm not aware of any way to have Aperture generate hi-quality jpegs automatically from the raw file. Maybe there is someway to script it, but I'm not that much of an expert to advise you on that. It will generate a jpeg as the other poster indicated, but it's not a hi-quality file. The jpegs rendered from the embedded raw file are only about 500k, so obviously they are not of the highest quality.
    Regarding the metadata, everything is there; camera model, res, aperture, shutter, and a myriad of other things. What's not there is the Nikon specialized stuff like custom picture controls, custom white balance, d-lighting and some others. If you use these features and like the raw converter in NX, you will find it necessary to use either the hi-quality jpegs from the camera (assuming you create them when you shoot) or have NX or View render and save jpegs or Tiffs from the Nikon NEF's. I've decided to shoot Raw+JPEG, import to Aperture using referenced libraries, make a new master from the JPEG and this separates the JPEG from the NEF in Aperture allowing you to see and use either. If the JPEGS are satisfactory, use them. If not, you have options; tweak the NEF in Aperture, show the NEF in finder, and drop into NX and tweak the raw with Nikon's proprietary camera controls and raw features then save out as Tiff or JPEG and drop back into Aperture. If you like Aperture's raw renderer enough to forego Nikon's picture controls, custom white balance, d-lighting etc..., you can skip the whole Nikon thing and just import the raw files. Come up with some custom settings and stamp the lot. Batch export the project to jpeg and drop them back into Aperture when finished. I think it's best to just let the camera create the RAW-JPEG. If you get good files or just need minor tweak, fix-lift and stamp and you're done. If not you have lots of options. JMO

  • Why does Aperture make D7000 RAW files Dark????????

    Okay, i've been through a million different ways - files look GREAT, then you load them into Aperture and they look like sh*t.
    And i finally figured out a way to PROVE that Aperture is screwing up my files! Here's what I did:
    Transfered original RAW files from my Nikon D7000 to a folder on a hard drive.
    1. Photo Mechanic: Loaded a RAW file into photo mechanic, it looked nice - exactly like it looked on my camera screen, did absolute nothing to it, exported it as a JPG. It came out looking NICE! Nice soft colors, lots of subtleties, beautiful. Could be a little sharper, but I wanted to make absolutely NO adjustments - since the test was for overall color and image quality.
    2. Aperture: Loaded the exact same original RAW file into Aperture and it looked like crap! DARK, muddy, all the subtletiy is lost. I did Nothing to adjust it, exported it as a high quality JPG - it came out DARK and muddy. Ugly!
    ***????? So annoying!!! This happens over and over and over again.
    It's YOU Aperture! Not me!! Not my files! Not my camera - which i've brought back to get checked countless times to see if something was wrong with the camera.
    It's really annoying. You have to fix it! There are countless comments online about this same problem. FIX IT!!!!!!!
    If you email me i'll attach the two sample files. I did NOTHING to adjust either of them in either program. This is just the crappy dark garbage that Aperture generates from perfectly beautiful RAW files from Nikon D7000 cameras.
    - please respond.

    What happens if, as an experiment, you use Adobe DNG Converter to convert one of the D7000's NEFs into a DNG? Same result?

  • Does Aperture make copies when you edit--like iPhoto?

    Sorry to take up time with such a simple question.
    But, my wife is the family photo editor--and she hates iPhoto's non-intuitive way of making duplicates whenever she edits a photo. Inevitably, whenever she tries to get back to the edited version of the photo, she can't find it--or finds the "wrong" one and ends up sending it to the grandparents, etc...
    My question is this: Does Aperture have the ability to simply save the edited photo and permanently trash the original? If so, is the program set up that way as a default setting? Apart from the confusion that iPhoto causes, it really starts to take up valuable drive space with several versions of the same photo...
    Thanks in advance for your help.

    it does not make dups ... especially not in the way you are thinking ...
    unless you tell it to make a new version when editing - but that is not a full copy, just an instruction to make a second version ...
    aperture uses versions to make changes and holds the instructions in small little files ...
    i can make 80 different versions of one master file and never equal double the size of the original (ok 80 may be overstating but you get my point) ...
    it uses non-destructive editing, your original is never touched ... if you need a copy of a version, simply export it out ... you will never trash the original, unless you export a version, delete the master and then reimpor the version as a master ...
    hope this helps ...
    Message was edited by: tidysteve
    oh, the only time it will create a new physical file is if you decide to open the master in say photoshop, then it will create (based on your prefs) a new tiff or psd and add that to your library ...

  • Aperture makes desktop backgrounds and iphone backgrounds blurry.

    So, I don't know when exactly this started happening, possibly after 2.1, but here is the issue.
    I organize my desktop and iphone backgrounds in aperture with one project for each, with smart albums dividing it up so that I can have different categories. Each photo just has one or two keywords to keep it organized. Then to change my desktop I go into system preferences and choose it from the drop down there. Before this specific time that I can't remember, the desktop would change and it would be perfectly clear and sharp, like the picture. Now when I change it to a background added after that time, it is blurry and pixelated. Also, the same thing occurs with my iPhone. The backgrounds are exactly the size of the iPhone's screen, but pictures added after that time come out blurry on the iPhone.
    I've reinstalled OS X a few times and Aperture from scratch a few times but have kept the same library throughout. What could be the issue? I hate not being able to have new backgrounds, for about a few months now.

    Success!  Well sort of.  I went into Mission Control Preference Pane (in System Preferences) and fiddled about with a few ticks. The one that seemed to make the difference was the one called Show Dashboard As A Space.  Make sure it's ticked.  This is a bit of a bummer if you want multiple desktops with different personalised photo backgrounds but you don't want the dashboard as a space.  It's still a fault Apple! So if someone finds this solved their issues then please don't mark the post as "this solved my problem", maybe just "this helped". 
    Because the issue is not resolved for those who don't want the dashboard as a space - those people can only have Apple's own backgrounds on their desktops!  And it is worth point out that without the Show Desktop As Space box ticked, even with Mission Control set to just one background, the Aperture photo would not be reatained through log out and restart etc. AND the actual Desktop/Screen Saver preference dialogue box didn't work properly, taking ages to select a picture and the picture not changing on the background itself until the user threatens to exit the box.  As I say though it all went swimmingly with the Show desktop as space box ticked.
    Dear oh dear Apple, with every step "forward" you take there's always the odd lurch backwards into the murky days of Windows 1.0!

  • Aperture makes eye purple with Red Eye Correction tool. Why? Bug?

    http://www.hvmediasolutions.com/images/picture1.png
    As you can see with the above picture, Aperture does not do red eye well. iPhoto gets it right, actually as well as Photoshop CS4.
    Any suggestions? Or is this a bug?
    And yes I could use Photoshop every time, but I am trying to do as much as I can in Aperture.
    Thanks,
    Ed

    I have an old camera, Nikon Cool Pix 3100 and save my photos to .jpg. Yes I know, time to upgrade.
    I capture straight into Aperture.
    The thing that bugs me, iPhoto 08 gets it right, better than Photoshop. Aperture, since version 1, has always given me purple red eye cast on both Intel and Power PC Mac Book Pro's. Since iPhoto can get it right, Aperture should be able to.
    Currently I use Pixelmator and desaturate with the brush tool for the best results.
    By the way Lightroom 2 desaturates the eye to a light grey with it's red eye tool.
    Different results with 4 different applications. I would love to just use one.
    Ed

  • Aperture make photos look bad!

    Hello,
    I use the import and i have all photos in a library,
    I click on a picture in the film strip the photo looks great for a few seconds. and it has a loading icon at the top of the preview picture then after its done the photo looks muddy crappy ect...
    It does this for all pic in the film strip.
    I was hoping uninstalling the program anf reinstalling it would help but it does not.
    I also used anouther mac pro with apature on it and it DID not do a thing to the photos, and the photos look just like what i took.
    Thanks Ralph

    Ralph, have you imported "Raw" images? What you are describing is very typical for Aperture creating new thumbnails and previews from the raw images, when it is loading the image for editing. Unitil you try to edit the image file, Aperture may be using the camera generated preview, that is showing all processing done by the camera, but the raw will not include any camera processing.
    Have a look at this thread for a discussion of the differences between camera generated previews and Aperture's previews.
    Re: Fine tuning Aperture RAW color import adjustments???

  • Quark and Corel make a comeback

    Having purchased and used Adobe products in our creative agencies for almost 20 years, I cannot emphasize how incensed the CC only model makes me. Yes, I know that CS6 is still available, but I guarantee that once the storm over CC has settled that too will go the way of the dinosaur - call me cynical but I have a feeling it has only been retained temporarily to provide the forum staff something to quote in an attempt to appease the rightly infuriated masses.
    The creative cloud software and delivery system is buggy and glitchy - just check the other Adobe forums - we cannot have 'downtime' where our software does not or will not function due to logins / incessant updates / accessibility.
    The cost for 'leasing' access to the Adobe software is considerably higher in the long run - $X per month forever and never own anything, rather than $X as a one time cost of ownership and a reduced cost upgrade path.
    You can guarantee that the price will increase once 'box' versions are no longer available / updated / supported and the masses have been forced to convert. Especially as the longest 'pre-pay' term is currently only 12 months.
    Many people do not need all access to all of Adobe's software applications, which is why they offered various versions of the Creative Suite in the first place.
    We do not need cloud services, we work with massive files, have multiple backups - and have remote file access where necessary - the last thing we need is CC monopolizing our available bandwidth.
    In other words, we will not go the way of the cloud.
    Adobe have always made great software, but the CC business model may yet bite back.  At one point in time QuarkXpress was No.1 and all but unassailable - and then due to reknowned poor service and an overwhelmingly arrogant attitude to its customers they suffered huge market share losses to InDesign.
    History repeating?

    Ive been using adobe for 10 years. Im a few months from my BFA in graphic design. I have never owned adobe but always used at the school. With their student licensing I was going to get all I need in a few months which you can use for commercial use but...then when I came back to school a few months ago they had CC (crazy cloud) on some computers. I was thinking wait, didnt they just make cs 6 like, counting my fingers less than a year ago... YEP. CC at best should be cs 6.5! In the chaos ive been asking every professional and teacher I know about what they think of cc. The news is not good. Turns out students dont want to pay per month even when at student prices.
    The last few weeks ive been looking for any alternatives to adobe. The first few things I heard of cc sounded nice, but that was a sugar coating. When I blew that off I went from worried, to horrified to wanting to start a strike. I had such high hopes for adobe but as my economics classes tought me they have become a lazy monopolist. They start charring more, producing less, being less efficient and charging more to convince the public with add its just fine. So I looked long and hard for an adobe replacement. As you all know there is no one replacement to adobe, they are top in 2d, 3d, video, audio and web development. I took hard looks at 2 companies that offer solutions to some of adobes programs.
    Did i mention you can buy them as cds with perpetual licencing. I looked at several top 10 alterantives to graphic design programs. I saw 2 componies come up again and again and again. Serif and Corel. Many of adobe competators are doing massive discounts and pushing their products own faster since cc.
    Serif is a Euro company. It has versions of illustrator, photo shop, muse, indesign, and a few other but those are what im interested in. They have several things going for them besides cds and licencing. Unlike most you can free download with out a credit card a lite version of their previous versions. I downloaded and tested vs adobe cs 6 and cs 2. They were very similar to cs2 but its free with no trial time, you keep it for ever. The full version is probably closer to cs 3 or 4. Not bad considering most their programs are 70-100$. So for the price of just dreamweaver I can get programs that fill the bare needs. Overall decent but id consider them high end hobby or low end profesional.
    Corel is canadian and doing well. They are like the borg but on a smaller budget than microsoft. They absorb many small->medium good companies like winzip. I was blown away when i saw that. Im not a corel user but studied enough about them I have a good idea. They have an awsome business model now. You have the 3 options you need. Buy cd + license for a flat fee and free cloud, or same + premium cloud for 100/year, or just subscription cloud based for 200/year. Yes I said 200$/year and that is for the whole corel draw suite! Ok let me break that down more. Their standard buisiness model still exists and they say they are not changing that in the forseeable future but you get a small free cloud for a few more free features, no big deal. The standard + premium cloud is 100/year and you automatically get the newest edition update by update and when it comes out and have more fonts and a few other things. The thing is they generally put out new versions every 2 years so thats 100x2=200$ which is the exact same cost as upgradeing version to version. So inessence you pay exactly the same but have "cc" benefits and no down sides. The last option of just cloud subsctiption is much like adobe cc. You pay 200/year and get the upgrades and bonus stuff but no large single payment but no licensing. I think they are testing the waters to see what customers really want. So here is an examples, say you are with corel for 4 years right after their newest version. I will break down the different ways to pay.
    Say you just want the newest version ever 2 editions like with adobe. Pay 500 for drawsuite x6 and then 500 again for drawsuite x8 =1000
    Say you want to get every edition. Pay 500 for x6 then 200 (40%) for x7 and 200 (40%) for x8 =900
    Say you want to get every edition and premium cloud. Pay 500 for x6 and 100/year X 6 =600 so 500+600=1100
    Say you want just subscription. Pay 200/year X 6= 1200
    So which you do depends on will you stay with corel for 3 editions or not. If less do the subsciption and if more do the standard + premium cloud. They gave you options and flexability, corel wins. The only thing they dont have is rent to own.
    Coreldraw vs illustrator. For the most part they both get the same things done. They both have some nice unique features but as some stated adobe got more into flashy than making you work faster. Overal the few things corel does not do are not needed. Corel is simpler, more intuitive, user friendly and more customizable.
    Photoshop vs paint-shop. Photoshop has no equivilent in photo editing. Corels is inbetween photoshop and photoshop elements. May just have to live with a 70% photoshop with corel.
    Web creator vs muse. They do just about the same thing but I have more trust in corel.
    Overall the more I read about corel the more im likeing it. Im giving adobe 6 months to change from forcing CC and if not my new home will be corel. Sorry adobe you did the same thing as xbox one or forcing us online and not letting us have cd and corel is doing samething as playstation and picking up the pieces of that catastrophe.

  • Debaser makes a comeback and scoops up the High Five!

    It's a Monday and we all have things on the go but one very special Plug-In Legend decided to take time out of his busy morning to drop on by and make a very helpful observation! 
    A big old Plug-In High Five going out to you !! 
    Have a great week everyone!
     

    Want to know more about ? Check out Deserted on an island with Debaser17 

  • Shuffle by albums did not make a comeback in iOS 5.0

    It's still on iTunes but sadly absent from iOS.

    Ok
    Working from the office today, so remoted in (thanks TeamViewer!)  ran the test, exited the remote session (as to not skew the results) and then logged back in to get my results:
    ADSL Line Status
    Connection Information
    Line state:
    Connected
    Connection time:
    0 days, 04:34:02
    Downstream:
    7.49 Mbps
    Upstream:
    1.03 Mbps
    ADSL Settings
    VPI/VCI:
    0/38
    Type:
    PPPoA
    Modulation:
    G.992.5 Annex A
    Latency type:
    Interleaved
    Noise margin (Down/Up):
    6.7 dB / 6.1 dB
    Line attenuation (Down/Up):
    34.9 dB / 19.8 dB
    Output power (Down/Up):
    19.4 dBm / 12.3 dBm
    FEC Events (Down/Up):
    259826776 / 273
    CRC Events (Down/Up):
    99 / 3
    Loss of Framing (Local/Remote):
    0 / 0
    Loss of Signal (Local/Remote):
    0 / 0
    Loss of Power (Local/Remote):
    0 / 0
    HEC Events (Down/Up):
    675 / 0
    Error Seconds (Local/Remote):
    76913 / 80
     IP Profile for your line is - 6765 Kbps
     Download speedachieved during the test was - 1365 Kbps
     For your connection, the acceptable range of speeds is 2000-7150 Kbps.
     Additional Information:
     Your DSL Connection Rate :7669 Kbps(DOWN-STREAM), 1054 Kbps(UP-STREAM)
    Looks as if some things are happening on the line which is good, and my download speed is now 1.3kbps but still a long way off from where i want to be (i'd be haappy around the 6mb rate)
    Thanks!

  • Will Photocast from iPhoto '06 make a comeback in iPhoto '11

        PhotoStream works great on my iPhone and my iMac.
       But it only works with my personal photos on my
      personal devices.
      Photocast was a feature from iPhoto '06 that allowed others to
       subscribe to folders on your iMac and recieve
       automatic updates just like PhotoStream.
       Now would be a great time to bring back
       PhotoCast to iPhoto '11 and include it in iOS 6!

        Thanks for the tip. I hope the iPhoto team brings it back.
      The only Apple way to share photos are
      iMessage, email and Photojournals.
      Photojournal are cool, but are only viewable
      through the browser when sharing.
                                 KH

  • I recently switched to Aperture. When I opened an image I imported from iPhoto, I don't have an option to edit it. Top of "Adjustments" tab says "image offline". How can I adjust Aperture so I can make adjustment to my iPhoto images?

    I recently switched to Aperture. When I opened an image I imported from iPhoto, I don't have an option to edit it. Top of "Adjustments" tab says "image offline". How can I adjust Aperture so I can make adjustment to my iPhoto images?

    I never tried importing from the iPhoto library as referenced images. I wonder if Aperture can access images stored in an iPhoto library package?  Even if it would work, it sounds like a bad thing to do.
    You might consider starting over and this time have Aperture manage the images.  That will copy them to the Aperture library, leaving the iPhoto library untouched. This assumes you have sufficient space to make a complete copy of all the images in your iPhoto library plus another copy of each image that Aperture makes as the preview image. You can then back up your iPhoto library (two backup copies, just to be sure) then remove it from your hard drive when you start getting too low on space.  As I write this I don't know where your iPhoto or Aperture libraries are/will be located so I'm assuming you have them on your HD.

  • Can you move the aperture library without losing images?

    my library is defaulted to imac..
    but can you house it on external drive..I know, yes, as a referenced library.
    but I already have some [lots] images in library.
    can I move the library and maintain contents?
    also..
    once you import into library, is the original image in folder it was in before? or it's deleted?
    just trying to see what will work best for my needs?
    as I sometimes travel/live in 2nd home and just carry external drive
    thanks for input/suggestion

    Menu>File>Vault
    Creating what Ap[erture calls a 'Vault' seems like the easiest way to do it.
    Here is the complete Help section on backing up your library.
    QUOTE:
    As you begin working with Aperture, it’s important to perform regular backups of your photos. Using the Aperture backup system, you can create backups and update them whenever you wish. Aperture tracks your backups and indicates how up to date your most recent backup is. In the rare event of equipment failure or an unforeseen catastrophe such as a fire or weather-related damage, you can easily restore the entire Aperture library onto your computer or a new computer.
    You set Aperture to back up a copy of the library to a designated storage area called a vault. For safety and redundancy, use external hard disks to hold your vaults. You can create as many vaults as you deem necessary.
    When you back up your photos, Aperture makes a complete copy of the library in its current state. If you remove items from the library, those items are removed from the backup when it is next updated.
    All originals for managed images, all versions, and all metadata, previews, and adjustment information associated with your photos are backed up. The versions, previews, and metadata associated with referenced images are also backed up in the vault.
    Important:  Referenced images’ originals are not backed up in the vault with the library. Because the originals for referenced images are stored outside of the library, you must manage the backup and archiving of them yourself.
    A typical backup system used with Aperture might look like the following:
    This system backs up the Aperture library to two vaults stored on external hard disks. You routinely back up the library on one external hard disk. You use the second hard disk as a backup that you keep offsite. You can then rotate your onsite external hard disk with the offsite hard disk to keep all your vaults updated.
    To set up your Aperture backup system, you need to do the following:
    Determine the number of vaults you need. For example, do you need one for routine backups, one for weekly backups, and one for offsite storage?
    Determine the number of hard disks you need for routine backups.
    Determine the number of hard disks you’ll use for storing backups offsite.
    Connect your hard disk drives to your computer.
    Open Aperture and create the vaults you need, assigning a hard disk to each vault.
    Update the new, empty vaults with copies of the Aperture library.
    Disconnect one of the vault hard disks and take it to an offsite location for safekeeping.
    When planning the amount of storage space you’ll need, estimate the amount of disk space needed to hold your existing digital images (photos you plan to import into Aperture) and the amount of space you might need for new projects. For example, RAW images typically require 8 to 25 or more megabytes (MB) of disk space per file. Estimating the number of photos in a typical project and the number of projects you usually create in a year, you can make a rough estimate of what might represent a year’s storage space.

  • How can I export ALL photos to a new external HD if I have Aperture "Managing" my library (hundreds of projects,1.6TB of photos)?

    I Originally setup Aperture years ago to "Manage" my huge amount of photos to save space and be more convenient. I have bought a new external HD and want to export my entire original files from all the different projects and sub projects from the one "Organized Managed" file to individual original photo files on the new HD. I know how to export a project or even a few at a time but what about 1.5TB of photos in RAW/NEF format? Thanks for the help my fellow Apple lovers.

    Aperture makes it easy to move any Image's Originals from inside the Library to outside the Library, and from any directly-connected location outside the Library to another directly-connected location, and to move any Image's Original from outside the Library to inside the Library, at any time, singly or in batch.
    Select the Photos container near the top of the Library Inspector.  In the Browser, select all Images.  Use "File ▹ Relocate Original", and select a destination and a Finder folder scheme.  Moving 1.5 TB of files will take some time.  Let it run.

  • Does anyone have any experience of using an Aperture library on a Drobo or Promise Pegasus? If so any problems or tips?

    My intention is to place my Aperture library a Thunderbolt Raid device and access via my Macbook Pro SSD Retina. The thinking is that I would have the capability of having a large library and wouldn't run out of space for some time - I understand that the library would also need to be backed up.
    If anyone could share their experience positive or negative I'd be very grateful.

    I have Aperture installed on a three month old Drobo 5D ( containing five WD 3 TB RED NAS hard drives) attached via Thunderbolt to my Macbook Pro with Retina Display, and Aperture is beautifully responsive with this setup.  I do have a 60 GB mSATA card installed in the Drobo 5D, but I find it makes a real difference only when you are trying to acess a lot of small files, e.g. Aperture thumbnails.  The Drobo 5D and Aperture make a good combination.
    With a folder containning a mix of large and small size files, I find that it often looks like it is going to take a long time to copy the files with the Drobo 5D, and then after a short period of time the Drobo 5D really takes off and copies files at a very high rate of speed.  In other words, don't form too hasty an opinion of how fast a group of files is going to be copied.  Also, measured speeds with the Drobo 5D are not as impressive as you might expect, but the real-world performance is quite remarkable and fully in line with my expectations. 
    Tom

Maybe you are looking for