Future features in Aperture

What would you like to see in Aperture in the future?
Some things i'd definately like to see:
- The ability to control the camera from Aperture. Very useful in a studio environment
- Some simple kind of masking
- Adjustable levels
- Better dual screen support, my main monitor is a 30" ACD and my secondary one is a 19" eizo so it would be nice to get thumbnails on the secondary one and the main image on main one.
- More RAW adjusments including lens correction (distortion, vignetting..)
- More advanced Noise reduction settings
- Color adjustments
I just switched from Lightroom beta 3 to Aperture 1.1.2 and it's really awesome. If Apple keep updating it with the current pace it might become a big name in the photo industry.

My number one priority is for them to get rid of the library format, or at least give me the option (as Lightroom does) of storing my files where I want to store them. This isn't a feature request so much as a bugfix, so hopefully it will come in 1.2 or 1.3 or whatever the next free update is.
From there, I want a way to archive to optical/removable media, and to distribute my files anywhere I choose to store them. Apple can/should take a look at iView for tips on how to do this well (take a look soon, before MS destroys the app) - it is critical to me that I be able to view my catalog even if images are stored offline.
Improving the speed at which images are loaded would be nice too - it's still glacially slow (several seconds) to load D2x nefs.
Those are must-have.
Then -
1. Make the book tool useful by:
a) Allow me to set the page size/aspect ratio
b) Allow me to export page layouts to jpg for my lab
c) Allow me to export page layouts to layered psd/tiff for further editing
d) Borders/dropshadows on photo boxes
e) Masks for photo boxes
f) Allow me to make my own themes/templates/etc (have a look at Portraits and Prints for a great template designer)
2. Improve sharpening tool
3. Improve noise reduction tool (have a look at what Bibble has done by integrating NN)
4. Make print tool useful by:
a) Allow package printing (2 5x7 on one 7x10 page, ferinstance)
b) Better UI for the print tool
c) Allow for positioning on-page when borderless
5. WB Presets
6. Curves
7. Incremental zoom
8. Proper dual-monitor support
9. Burn projects across multiple dvds

Similar Messages

Your "suggestions for future features" is broken??!!

I really just wanted to leave you a suggestion for future features. Your system took me to a page that said i needed to be on the most recent version but alas I am! You even tell me so when I go to firefox.com! Hmmmm...... a little problem there.
Regardless, here is the feature suggestion i wish to make:
You've done a fine job of cleaning up the top bar in 4.0 to make the most of new widescreen displays so that we have more space for the page content vs. the browser stuff. The deal is, virtually all sites still use only about a third of the page width leaving tons of wasted space on a full screen view. Why don't you offer a way to move all the browser navigation, tabs, and tools wherever i prefer - like running vertically down the left or right side of the massively empty pages i see on my 24" monitor and even my little 11" laptop monitor?

You can leave your feedback/suggestion at this link: Apple Product Feedback

CS Review Future Features List

Hi -
Is there an area to see future feature improvements for CS Review?
Will there be an option for automatic notification i.e. email or RSS?
Thanks,
Ben

I couldn't agree more! Every other tool of this type sends notifications to subscribed users when a change is made to a review. I particularly find it troublesome that if a comment, I am not notified and if I upload a new page (perhaps as a reaction to comments) the reviewers are not notified in any way that I can see.
Seems like a major omission that every other tool has. How can a reviewer know that I have uploaded a new version if they get no notification?

Questions about divulging information about future features

Good morning,
I'm making my way through this thread for the first time.
As someone who has passed the California Bar and who has been a stockbroker in the past, I would like to comment on the statement of Steve Forde, who was the Senior Product Manager for Visual Effects for Adobe for portions of 2011.
Steve said,
"Unfortunately - we get stuck in a legal pinch about commenting on ANYTHING that may or may not be in future products, off the record or otherwise."
I'm asking that you consult your internal SENIOR legal counsel again regarding this statement that you assert prohibits you from giving any details whatsoever about what the Adobe Team may or may not aspire to having in future versions of After Effects.
I'm asking this of you for a couple of reasons.
Firstly, no attorney denies that the law changes over time and recent court decisions have made shareholder derivative lawsuits much less popular as a way for the plaintiff's bar to make a quick buck by extorting money from companies who may have made aspirational statements to shareholders or others in conference calls or elsewhere.
As I understand the current trends in Delaware Law, (which, as the situs for quite a few corporations governs large swaths of their conduct) as long as appropriate disclaimers are clearly communicated at the time of the aspirational statement, such language is now permissible.
Such standard disclaimers could include language such as
"we cannot guarantee whether any feature discussed will appear within one year or within five years or whether it will ever appear at all. It is currently a goal of the design team to reintroduce this feature, but we reserve the right, in our exclusive discretion to change that decision for any reason whatsoever, without consequence.
Additionally, you are vested with no rights to rely on any assertion or representation made based on any such aspirational statement and we insist and demand you consult an attorney before embarking on any course of conduct, such as purchasing stock or altering any current or projected business plan, based in any manner upon what we say here.
However, given the above caveats, it is the current goal of the Adobe design team to reintroduce this feature within the next three releases of AE again, subject to change at our sole and exclusive direction in any manner, time or mode of our choosing, without prior notice of any kind."
If you had a standard disclaimer such as the above that you attached to any and all such statements (by having it appear within the signature block of any Adobe employee posting to this forum), it could take conversations such as this to a more rewarding level for both Adobe staff (who could share their very profound dreams and aspirations with us) and the Adobe community at large, which provides inspiration and helpful feedback to Adobe employees seeking to assist us.
Then the focus could shift to whether or not you were divulging trade secrets. But it would still permit you to be more informative in a general way.
So I ask that you run this by your SENIOR legal counsel again. Remember, just as there can be different ways to tackle the same 3D graphics animation challenge, each with rewarding results, attorneys similarly can vary from attorney to attorney and new and bright ideas on how to approach such issues do occur from time to time, especially in light of the massive favorable swings in case law supporting the rights of massive global corporations such as Adobe viz a viz the rights of the little guy.
Sincerely, Matt Dubuque
Here is Steve's quote in its entirety, from May 26, 2011:
Unfortunately - we get stuck in a legal pinch about commenting on ANYTHING that may or may not be in future products, off the record or otherwise.
That being said, as Michael explained in a previous post, Vector Paint got stuck in the conversion of AE to 64 bit. It's something we hear quite a bit from our users that Vector Paint is important. Again - wish I could give you more than that, but we are bound by very strict rules.
Therefore - it is important to us, and the more we hear via this form the more likely it is to get resources behind it in a future release. Again I realize it is impersonal, but the results of this form are sent via email to a real human every time someone hits submit; then that person brings the results of submission to a weekly meeting on the AE team where we discuss features and scheduling.
Steve
Sr. Product Manager - Visual Effects
Adobe Systems Inc.

Attaching an appropriate disclaimer may be fine for an attorney to dot all the i's and cross all the t's, but there is one thing it will NOT do: it won't stop people from misinterpreting what they read.
Most people go by what they PERCEIVE to be true and not the ACTUAL truth, a fact that people in marketing like me deal with all the time.
Steve Forde might write the following totally hypothetical and totally fictional line in a blog:
"We're thinking about a feature for a future version. Right now we call it the Clean Plate Generator. You would be able to shoot a single clip, panning and tilting the camera as desired, and After Effects would automatically create an image whose total size matches the totality of the image shot in the clip. It would even remove selected foreground subjects such as a stray person who inadvertantly walks into the shot."
Sounds great, yes? And with your proposed disclaimer, all would be good; Adobe would have covered its corporate pink posterior. Or would it?
Do you wish to speculate how many people would read that as a statement of a definitely-going-to-be-there feature in the next AE version?
Can you imagine the can of worms that would open when this fictional feature isn't in the next version?
Would it really be worth the massive and expensive fence-mending campaign Adobe would have to undertake among angry users who were erroneously looking forward to this fictional feature?
All of which could have been avoided simply by not saying a word?
I can see where attorneys may like a hypothetical situation as the one above: they could charge more billable hours! I doubt Adobe would like it, however.
Legalese is one thing, maintaining happy customers is another, and there is no amount of legalese that can overcome people's nasty tendancy to perceive what they read as what they WANT to read instead of what is actually written.
If people would read what was actually written, there would be far fewer posts in this forum that say in essence, "Hey, how come it takes two weeks to render ray tracing on the brand-new HP student laptop I just got from Wal-Mart?"

Neat feature in Aperture

Did you know that command clicking on a project/album will open it in a new tab. Option click (a project or album) to open a new pane inside the current window.
p.s. there is a "Pro Application Support 4.0" update which makes small changes to the apps GUI (separation lines is the first one I noticed).

Yes. I have already picked that up and more. I listen to the OReilly "Inside Aperture" podcasts, where Derrick Story talks to people inside the Aperture dev. team, as well as users to find out more about the application. I have learned a lot from listening to Joe Schorr and the other members of his team about using Aperture.
Two tips that I have found really useful is the ability to rotate the workspace (shift+W) and to show highlights in the pictures (altshiftH).
Anyone else want to share their favorite feature?
Kjell Are
Norway

Future additions to Aperture?

Kinda like a features request...didn't know where to post it really...
Motion has similar attributes as Aperture does I suspect, Not a tech guy but I would think it was coded similarly-using core image and the GPU for rendering it's effects. What I'm wondering is....if this is the case wouldn't it be cool to have more additions in terms of adding Motions 2d effects to the "adjustments" of what Aperture already has? As well as it's masking tools and text tools?
I love Aperture so far I'm just wondering if this would be possible. Sure not many photographers will use most of Motions 2d effects but they might want to. For instance adding glow would be cool depending on the subject.
Aswell as having Motions abilities in the slideshow features not to mention a better fading effect like the darks fading out first and then the lights. I've seen this effect and it's MUCH better than the average fade.
I guess one can always export the images from Aperture and THEN use Motion etc...but It would be cool to stay in one app to do it.:)
I was also the first to use Motion v.1 and it was rendered unusable at that time. In no way to be used in production...v2 has since changed that and it's a great app for what it does. I hope Apple spend the same resources to make Aperture a little better optimized to be snapier. Amongst other things other people have mentioned to be added/changed, won't repeat it here.

here is the best place top post feature requests http://www.apple.com/feedback/aperture.html
DAVE

MacBookPro features in Aperture

Don't toast me as i know MBP users are waiting for 1.1, but i have been wondering what sort of integration the MBP might offer Aperture in two areas:
1. Say one is using Aperture's slideshow feature, will the MBP's remote control work to pause/skip the slideshow feature ? Its useful when doing a show'n'tell demo. If i imported raws into iphoto then the remote will work, but will it extend to control Aperture ?
2. Anyone using Canon's Wireless transmitter WFT-E1 to shoot untethered and have them import into a MBP folder ? As 1.1 was advertised, there will be Automator scripts to import into Aperture any images that land into a specified folder.

i think the remote should work with the slide shows. right now the remote works with quick time and other apple apps i dont see why it would not work with the slide show...

Will the new iCloud feature sync Aperture libraries between different computers?

If there was a Cloud section in the forums i would post this there but there isn't so here it is. Syncing my Aperture libraries between my laptop and imac is a big problem for me right now. Does anyone know if the new Cloud air synching feature coming this fall will sync photos between aperture libraries on multiple computers?

There is now an iCloud community iCloud
But I believe the answer to this question is no, iCloud is not meant to do this type of syncing.

Can the find feature in Aperture do this?

I have a list of 200 image numbers (same as Version Name)from a wedding client.
This list is a Word doc.
I will be using these choices to design a book.
Can I copy and paste this Word doc. list into Aperture so it can gather those specific photos. I have been trying to do this with no luck.
Any Ideas?
Thanks

Assuming all your Version names in Aperture are unique, have a look at this post from a few weeks ago:
http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=7025064&#7025064
Ian

Future purchase of Aperture

Undecided still after reading all the disappointing cutomer reviews about Aperture on the App Store, Is it worth me making a purchase?

If the OS was installed 10 months ago and you havenot done any updates you will not have 10.7.4,
Open the App Store app, look under purchased you should see OS X Lion select download.
Before doing any update you shoud have an up-to-date backup of your system.
regards

Does anybody else see real obvious bugginess with the Faces feature of Aperture?

I'm not looking for miracles, I don't think. I don't expect faces to automagically recognize every face I've previously identified. I just want the various views of faces to agree. I'll go through pictures from a party painstakingly identifying all the attendees in the Split View. Then I'll click Faces for the album and mouse around over some of the faces and see that it's confused. Instead of showing only pictures of Bob when I mouse around over Bob, there'll occasionally be a picture of Joe. Go back to the pictures in Split View and it appears as though Bob is always labeled correctly.

Faces can take several hours to fully update from any new information you input. Also, if you force-quit Aperture (or it crashes) after inputting information into Faces, it is possible to lose that information.
In effect (and this is just a guess from my experience), it can take Faces an hour or so to write everything back to disk (I suspect it is re-processing before saving).
If you allow Faces to settle down after using it, are you still seeing errors?
Another glitch -- probably for similar reasons -- is that there is a slight delay between applying a name and Faces accepting that name. Several times in my experience Faces has, when I press {Enter} to apply a name I just typed in the Name field, instead of accepting the name given, asked, "Is this 'Bob' " where "Bob" is Faces's ID suggestion that it finally pulled from it's look-up list. This can, of course, result in mis-indentified and un-identified faces where I had gone through the actions to properly identify them.

Adobe Bridge / Aperture organization feature only comparison

I am curious what others' thoughts are about comparing Adobe Bridge / Version Cue to Aperture's pre-editing organizational features (meaning the ability to organize prior to doing any RAW conversion and editing). What do people see as the most important features that Aperture adds above and beyond Bridge?
Remember, these are pre-editing features only, which is basically organization. Do not include editing and/or finishing options in comments. If anyone is interested why I am asking this, Its for two reasons:
1) I'm considering a new workflow option of using Bridge and ACR, and only importing into Aperture after all conversions are complete. This basically eliminates Aperture functionality for the initial image evaluation phase, and importing only converted PSDs. Yes, that eliminates a huge part of the value Aperture offers, but perhaps it saves the ability to use it.
2) I want to know other than aesthetics what I am really losing by not just using Bridge/Version Cue exclusively over Aperture (up to now, I use Bridge, but not Version Cue). I already have my own thoughts on this, but I'd like to tap others' knowledge and advice.
Brad

Frankly I think you'd be throwing out all of the good parts of aperture.
I really, really like the way it imports from cards. I really like the auto-stacking, the side-by-side compare, the easy ratings (Bridge is just as good for rating) and it's fast for this - I love how it displays a preview on the second monitor.
Really, if Aperture didn't have the library, and were just an organizational/evaluation tool, I think I would be in love with it - it falls apart at the editing and archiving phases.

HT3805 why is the face and names feature grayed out in my aperture program?

why is my faces aand names feature in aperture 3.2 grayed out?

Are they greyed out in the toolbar or in the preferences? If the former, then enable them in preferences ;-)

Extremely nasty Image Capture bug deletes video with import to Aperture

Image Capture allows one to specify Aperture as a target.
Nice feature, but Aperture can't handle video.
So what happens when the images you choose to import contain a video, and you've set IC to delete after import?
The videos are deleted, but not imported. If you were to import directly to Aperture they would be saved to the desktop by Aperture, but with this route they are deleted.
Lethal bug.

Terence Devlin wrote:
The moral of the story:
Never let your computer delete data before you know that the transfer has worked. Ever.
Don't let Image Capture, Aperture (oh, and btw, Aperture 3 does support video) or iPhoto delete pics. Ever.
After you have transferred the material to your Mac you can simply reformat the card with your camera - once you've verified the transfer. Reformatting the card with your camera is much faster - takes seconds - and has the added advantage of refreshing the directory structure on the card and so helping to avoid problems in the future.
And finally, given that both iPhoto and Aperture can import directly from your camera, why are you using Image Capture?
Regards
TD
After losing some images on my first attempts with iPhoto I quit using it. The whole program made no sense to me. I've been transferring images to the desktop with Image Capture, editing with Gimp, and storing in an image folder. I was hoping to give iPhoto another try and lost a couple of images... now trying to figure out where these things go. I'll try to import directly from the camera now that you've made me aware of the possibility. Any idea about this cache in the meantime? Maybe I'll find all the images I lost.

Aperture exports jpeg files larger than original RAW files

Can anyone tell me why a RAW file (10.6mb), when exported as a jpeg (10.8mb) from Aperture ends up larger than the original RAW file. The same RAW file when opened and then saved as a jpeg (6.4mb) in Photoshop is a lot smaller. The photo dimensions and resolution are the same in both saved files (34.5mb open file 300dpi 4256 x 2831 pix). I have tried this on several photos, all with similar results. For information I am saving the photos in both Photoshop and Aperture at 300dpi, original size and at a quality setting of 12. In these examples/tests I have done no work to the photos, obviously the file sizes increase after work has been carried out on the photos (in both Ps & Aperture)
Almost doubling the size of saved jpegs has a massive implication on my library and may be one reason to consider Adobe Lightroom as this gives similar jpeg file sizes as Photoshop, i.e. almost half the size of the original RAW file
Reducing the quality setting on saved jpegs is an obvious way to reduce file size, but not answering the question of the considerable discrepancy when saving to the same quality in different software
Is this a feature of Aperture and nothing can be done about it ? I would prefer to use Aperture but cannot cope with the large jpeg sizes !
Any comments would be much appreciated - thank you
Nick

Think you might be right Allen - The 12 quality saved jpegs seem to be pretty high quality, closer to the original than maybe the files saved in Ps at quality 12. I have just run an identical set of processing actions on all the files in Photoshop and the jpegs previously saved in Aperture at 12, 11 and even 8 quality settings seem to be better than the same files saved at 12 in Ps
Bizarrely the file size drops from 10.6mb at quality setting 12 in Aperture, to 3.2mb when saved just one notch down at quality setting 11 in Aperture. That is a massive drop, esp considering the next one down, saving at quality 10 results in a 2.8mb file
rw just ran some checks and tests on the file export settings and file sizes in Aperture, on a file I sent him, and we get the same results. So at least my version of Aperture is not up the wall !!
Would be useful to have the explanations from Apple as to the vast variance in settings and file sizes, but I guess we will just have to keep guessing - and buying more and more hard drives for all the large files
I am considering keeping the RAW originals in future, and I suppose in this case I need only save smaller jpegs, and issue at whatever size they are needed at the time - just needs a bit of planning to look after an ever increasing collection, which is about to have two sets of images added at a time now. Added to the already amassed 80 000 images at last count !)
Thanks
Nick

Future features in Aperture

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for