Is aperture better

I have 50k photos in iphoto and it is a mess and always has been. Always crashes when scroll fast etc etc. Faces does not even work. All I want to do is somehow organize my photos...is Aperture or the Adobe lightroom progams better....

What is wrong if its crashing? Just now another glitch returned to haunt me. The one where when you scroll you see a transparent grey box with the date on it. Only problem is, when I stop, it stays there, so I can't see the photos. Then I got annoyed and switched from Photos to events, and it was still there, and now events had its own grey box on top of it. Things like this and the crashing from scrolling have been going on every iphoto version I've had, and this is my 3rd and newest blazing computer. Figured I'd finally be safe..any suggestions (and yes, I've rebuilt is several times)-even tossed problematic photos. Could there be a corrupt photo hidden that is following me to each upgrade?
thanks

Similar Messages

Sincerity, will make Aperture better

I like to help apple do it better.. in order to do that apple dos't have to be mean to clients specially when I am in the middle of something important and they deleted my discussion, probably my writting english is not at is best, sorry I don't have the best writting in english, we can discuss this in spanish any time, in the mean time I like to finish what I started and I like to know if Aperture is really the program I wish it will be?
So I helped Apple and paste my discussion below, this was what apple deleted:
In order to process about 1000 pictures a day (this is my work flow) I need from programs speed and quality.. I don't need 3 or four programs to do the work of one.. I really like Aperture until it gets to your finish work I am not saying nothing against Aperture, actually I want to help do it better so we Pro-Photographers have an amazing tool to finish our pictures in a fast way before we deliver to our client.
And I know is not Photoshop. Photoshop makes filters and layers you can play around with your images and make a lot o design on them. aperture is not what Photoshop was created for.. But in my believes.. Is the best option to push the speed on our workflows as photographers?
When I work with Photoshop I can't process 1000 pictures a day is impossible, the lift and stamp tool in aperture is what I call a GREAT Feature on aperture, It gives us Pros speed on our work to speeds we though we will never have in our lifetimes...
The problem is after we get the necessary speed on our work and we can deliver those pictures the drawback is we can't deliver to our clients the full potential of the pictures.. Not the way clients see it... probably Photographers way.. But believe me when clients are involved is impossible to make them think 75dpi is better than 300dpi and if my client asks for 1200dpi I have to deliver those pictures on 1200 dpi.
Its simple the speed I get under Aperture (Amazing one) I lost it on the processing of my pictures to 1200 dpi?
You really think a pro photographer will finish their work under aperture if this is the whole point of working under aperture (speed), the solution is and I still see it that way.. Is work under CS2 color correct the images that way, and do it like in the past, there is no way aperture gives us that speed it was telling us in the web site of apple, at least not in pro photographers settings yes for amateurs and yes for web designers, and yes for post production, but for pro photography mmmm ?? I didn't think so
I see it like a dead end, everything is clear and fine and the minute you play under aperture everything is so fantastic until you get to the point of doing your masters from your versions, the ones you have thought you wanted printed on the magazine of your client in my case National Geographic Latin America.
So what happens I can’t give my client that picture of 72 dpi, I have to go back and make it under Photoshop CS2 color correct it and post produce it at 999dpi this is the maximum Photoshop gives from a single raw image.
Then you will ask how in the world I get 1200 dpi from a single raw image, well I say Canon and Nikon from the software they make of their cameras give us the tools so I download the pictures from my disc (CF) to my HD on my computer and open them to my canon or Nikon programs they ask me what I want to do with the pictures and I tell it what I need is a picture of 300 to 2000 dpi then after that process is finish I open them under CS2 and I color correct them, (now I am working under 2 programs) (really time consuming).
I believe Apple can do it better don’t you think?
I am a fan of apple work, I have always been and I hope aperture gives really the tools they sold us under their web page.
Thanks and sorry for the people that though I was offending them it was not my intention I just like to make the points clear

Adolfo, please read this:
http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=326563&tstart=0

How Is Aperture Better Then iPhoto At Organizing Photos?

I was just wondering what sets Aperture apart from iPhoto when it comes to organizing my photos?
I just purchased Aperture for this reason and was just wanting to know some of the key features for organizing in Aperture.
Thanks,
Sam
Please feel free to tell me anything you know about Aperture because I would love to know!

Asset management tools the key is to keep your images organised as your library of photos grows and grows. And Aperture is much more of a king than iPhoto in this regard.
In iphoto for example the search facility is fairly simple to use and yes you can use keywords to find an image, however as you library grows and your workflow becomes much more sophisticated, and it will, when you work as a photographer, you will want to have a much more powerful search facility such as to able to go into Aperture and search for images using more criteria. In smart albums in iPhoto there is a list of words of metadata fields to use for searching for images, but in aperture there is literally dozens of metadata fields you can choose from to powerfully find any image efficiently and quickly. And in Aperture it records every little detail of your cameras data that you can use in your search facility.
There is a few ways how to efficiently organize your images in Aperture what I have mentioned just above is really just a tip of the iceberg.

IPhoto gives me a headache, is Aperture better?

Im using iPhoto 11 on Snow Leopard, and I can't stand it. There is something about the interface that irritates the **** out of me. I feel like I walked into a college calculus class and the lecturer tells us to take out our crayons and make sure we have our blanky.
So is Aperture this dumbed down as well? There does not appear to be a trial version any more, and I'm a bit reluctant to spend $80 considering how little I think of iPhoto. I'm not doing anything really complicated, just messing around with RAW files.
Thanks for any advice.

Aperture is not dumbed down, it's more like an Adobe Lightroomish, some might prefer it over Lightroom. It's a good application and done so for amateurs and professionals alike.

Upgrading my computer to run Aperture better...Ram or GHz?

Hi everyone,
It's upgrade time and I'm looking at new machines. My 20" iMac (2 GHz and 1.5GB ram) is really struggling with my Aperture library (150,000 images). When upgrading, should I be going for a substantial increase in processor speed (i.e. 24" iMac 3.06GHz + 4GB ram = NZ$4800) or would a significant increase in ram be enough (i.e. 24" iMac 2.93GHz with 8GB ram = NZ$4000)?
Thanks,
Andrew

Hi Bruce,
I've had a sneaky suspicion that the problem is processor speed too. but never really had the knowledge to back that up. Consensus seems to be that a 4GB RAM iMac would be a very good place to start anyway, but I'm almost tempted to buy 2 x 20" iMac's, Xgrid them together (so I can use the "dormant" hard drive and processor on one machine) and use one for pallettes, one for full screen images etc....just like on'a TV's!. That might actually be the best value solution compared to a 24" full monty iMac which is near twice the price of the base model.

What is the best way to organize photos? iPhoto or Aperture?

I am a mom taking tons of photos of my young children. On my old PC I used to organize everything within "My Pictures" by Month & Year (May 2008). I am a very organized, linear person and don't like to change the way I do things midstream so I am having a hard time figuring out how to organize our family photos now that I have switched to a Mac with iPhoto and Aperture. In the future I hope to learn about Aperture's professional tools (which as a mom & not a professional photographer I currently do not use). I would love to take photography classes at a local community college someday...
My questions are as follows:
1) What is the better way for ME to store our photos? Should I be uploading to iPhoto or Aperture? I basically want all of my "master photo images" in the same location in an organized fashion. I am hoping to do this without clogging up my computer. At this point I am thinking at the end of each year I will burn the year's photos to a disk for save keeping. But until then...
2) Is the "library" the over-arching place where all photos are stored? In general, I am having a hard time following the hierarchy of where my photos are being stored, how to organize them and how to completely delete bad photos.
3) Can I do everything I can do in iPhoto in Aperture? Obviously I know I can do more but is it as easy to edit/fix up photos?
I have listened to/watched several tutorials on both programs and have read through many other folks' questions/answers but I am still not sure of what to do.
I really appreciate any help/advice anyone is willing to give!
Thanks!

I'm not a professional either, just a grandma with a love of digital photography who takes lots of photos. We used to live in a motorhome full time, so we had lots of opportunities to take many photos.
I personally like Aperture better than iPhoto because I like to use some of the NIK software/plugins where I can do the adjusting right in Aperture and don't always have to send the photos to PhotoShop. Also you have a bit more flexibility as to file set ups with Aperture. In iPhoto you don't have as many nesting capabilities. iPhoto is great, but pretty basic.
I had my photos set up as files on the PC, long before I got my first Mac. So I set them up the same way. I'll try to explain
In Finder:
Pictures (in side bar on left in Finder)
Folder - My Photos
2nd Folder - by year
In the year folder I have a folder by date ie: 20000722 (year,month,date) and the photos from that date in there.
Once I got to using Aperture, I have my years set up as "projects" and the dates set up as "Albums". When importing the whole set of photos into Aperture, it was easy. I highlighted the "library", then did a right mouse click and selected "import folders as projects". That imported the photos into Aperture the same way I have them in finder.
Once everything is in Aperture, and you have new photos to add, I make an album under the corresponding year and import.
I do all my photos as referenced and don't duplicate them again, as I have them backed up in a couple of other places.
IMHO you can't back up enough! Don't wait and do it only once a year! Hard drives have a way of crashing and you'll loose all your photos. Use DVD's, thumb drives, ext. hard drives or what ever works for you. But always back up.
When I take my photos off of the memory card, I immediately send a copy to the back up external HD. Once the photos are adjusted etc. I make sure I have a copy elsewhere too. Only then do I erase them off of the memory card. Might be a bit redundant, but I'm not about to loose any of my photos. When we lived in the motorhome we were always aware of the possibility of theft or fire. So I got in the habit of taking some time to reduce the size of the photos and keep them on a thumb drive that I kept out of the RV. If anyone broke in or we had a fire, I'd still have the photos. Maybe not the originals or the bigger size, but we wouldn't loose them either.
If you want more info on non professional filing, send me a PM and I can send you a photo of my file hierarchy . (suemach (at) mac (dot) com)
Allie

Re: Leone's post May 2014 about how to best use an external drive with Aperture

I am trying to find Leone who had a great post May 2014 to Diane. I posted tho same message as a 'Reply' to the Leone/Diane posts but then was worried it would not show up since that was some time ago so I decided I should post it as new. Apologies if it comes through twice. I am having trouble as indicated below:
I found this response to the question about Aperture and external hard drives from last May. I bought a WD My Book 4TB and need to back up photos I have in Aperture (many!) to free up space. I am a photographer and need to be able to plug the external drive in as needed, pull a photo out from the WD and back into Aperture to work on it if needed.
I read your directions to Diane and have the external drive formatted Mac OS Extended (Journaled). I read the two ways you suggest to move part or all of my library to an external drive and still be able to use it in Aperture with all the metadata saved, as I need to continue to work with the images. I am not completely clear about the advantage of the 'referenced' method but decided to go with the Split Library because it sounded like the Referenced method would still keep originals (and take space) in Aperture. I'm not sure about this, but that was what I chose.
I have backed up my computer, formatted the drive then went to Aperture to begin. I do the 'Export' and it shows the external drive it will go to but when I click 'OK', it says "EXPORT LIBRARY FAILED - Library could not be create because the file system of the destination volume is not supported." I doubled checked to be sure the drive was Journaled which it was. I did call WD and talk to them but they told me this was outside their area.
Also, in Aperture, I have my photos in Projects by yymmdd. Is it possible to transfer Projects into the ext. drive without having to break them out of the Projects?
Any direction anyone might give would be greatly appreciated, Sandy

Hi Sandy,
I suggest taking a week or two to get to know Aperture better before proceeding. Aperture can do many things, and can do what you want. It's important to be specific about what you want, however. From what you've said, it appears that you don't yet know.
bybeeler wrote:
[1] I found this response to the question about Aperture and external hard drives from last May. I bought a WD My Book 4TB and need to back up photos I have in Aperture (many!) to free up space.
[2] I am a photographer and need to be able to plug the external drive in as needed, pull a photo out from the WD and back into Aperture to work on it if needed.
[1] A back-up is a copy of digital files stores on a separate device. A back-up is recommended because drives fail, and humans make mistakes. A back-up is not used to free up storage space.
[2] Aperture can be set up in many equally-usable ways. The program files reside (almost always) on your system drive. The data files can be anywhere you want them, as long as they are on locally-mounted drive(s). The main data file is your Library. The best place for it is on the drive that has the fastest throughput to your logic board. This is, in nearly 100% of machines, the system drive. But Aperture functions well with Libraries of secondary drives — internal or external — with sufficient throughput. USB-3 and Thunderbolt I (& II) provide sufficient throughput for using an Aperture Library on a secondary drive.
Nearly all photographers will fill whatever storage space is available (making data is what photographers do). The question is: what do you do when your Library no longer fits on your system drive? (And remember, you should leave at least 10% (I recommend 20% for heavy users of Aperture) of your system drive free.) The answer depends, primarily, on whether your computer is portable or fixed in location.
If fixed, just buy a more-than-large-enough secondary drive of USB-3 or faster throughput, mount it permanently, and move (using Finder) your Library to it.
If your computer is portable (and you can't increase the on-board storage), you have to select the best from several confusing alternatives:
• Put your Library on an external drive with throughput at least as fast as USB-3
— Pros: Easy to maintain and back-up.
— Cons: Must have drive with you in order to use your Library.
• Leave your Library on your system drive, but relocate your Images' Originals to an external drive.
— Pros: You can work on your Library without having the external drive available.
— Cons: You can't export (except Previews), Print, or make adjustments until your external drive is mounted. Significantly more difficult to administer, especially importing and backing-up.
• Leave your Library and and _some_ of your Images' Originals on your system drive, and relocate most of your Image's Originals to an external drive.
— Pros: You can do any work on those Images whose Originals are stored in the Library regardless of where the external drive is.
— Cons: Yet another level more difficult to administer.
If you are comfortable with the administrative overhead, the third set-up will be the most rewarding. Keep all _current_ Images Originals inside your Library, and routinely relocate the Originals of Images no longer current to the external drive.
In no case is it recommended that you at any time remove from your Library an Image (not the Original — the Image in Aperture) that you expect to ever use again.
HTH,
—Kirby.

Organizing photos in aperture 4 vs iPhoto 09

Ok editing and all aside, for the sake of organizing is aperture better than iPhoto 09? I know it is expensive and iPhoto is free but I'd just like to know if it organizes or has more options for organizing than iPhoto, is the interface better? Thanks guys.

for the sake of organizing is aperture better than iPhoto 09?
Organising where? In the Application or in the Finder?
Averaged out of the cost of iLIfe, iPhoto is a $16 app. Aperture is somewhat more expensive. Of course it has extra options in just about every area of the workflow.
So what's "better"? Do you need the extra features?
One way to look at it:
Are you a home photographer? Shoot the kids birthday party holidays and vacations? shooting jpegs on a point and shoot or a DSLR on Auto setting? iPhoto is probably what you're looking for.
A pro? A serious hobbyist? Shooting Raw or high volumes of jpeg? Sounds more like someone who'll get value from Aperture to me.
But the best thing: download the trial and see.
Regards
TD

Iphoto vs aperture book quality

I realize that aperture gives much more flexibility, however, is it the same printing service? I use iphoto, but there was a write up on aperture in a photo magazine giving it high marks. How different from a printing service standpoint are the two applications? Anyone know?

Diana Phillips wrote:
Are books from aperture and iphoto printed using the same quality paper,printers,inks etc????
OR is aperture better. I am not referring to the layout options just print quality.
Sadly, it appears that there is a bug in Aperture 2.1, and images printed from books within Aperture, whether by Apple or on your own printer, have serious colour management issues. This only affects images printed +from books+ within Aperture.

From the Aperture wedding samples: Completely unacceptable output vs ACR

Besides the quirks, pauses, $400 to upgrade my video card(which ran fine with CS2/Bridge/ACR), oh and and twice a day crash, I reallly tried my best to make Aperture sing. However, the output is where the rubber meets the road. Only one word can describe the output from Aperture.
Atrocious.
To be fair, I took one of the D2X wedding sample NEFs from the Aperture install disk:
http://homepage.mac.com/john.rayl/.Pictures/CHW_7533.NEF
Took it into Aperture, only applied .5 sharpening(default) and exported it:
http://homepage.mac.com/john.rayl/.Pictures/wedding-sample-aperture.jpg
Took the same NEF into Bridge/ACR, here is the side car file of adjustments I made in a few keystrokes:
http://homepage.mac.com/john.rayl/.Pictures/CHW_7533.xmp
and the resulting image that not only save 4x faster than Aperture, but looks 4x better:
http://homepage.mac.com/john.rayl/.Pictures/wedding-sample-acr.jpg
I will stick with Aperture if anyone can get output from Aperture that looks as good or better than the one from Bridge/ACR.
Otherwise I have a Radeon X 800 XT to return and a software app to eBay.
Thanks for trying.
My time on the Aperture beta team is over.

I found a bit of time this afternoon, so here you go.
1024 pixel high version:
http://www.azurevision.co.uk/aperture/wedding-srgb-ijw-1024.jpg
Full size version:
http://www.azurevision.co.uk/aperture/wedding-srgb-ijw.jpg
Aperture settings used:
http://www.azurevision.co.uk/aperture/wedding-settings-ijw.jpg
What you won't like is that I used a workaround - exported as 16-bit to a hot folder which uses an Automator action to change them to JPEG, which automatically drops the bit-depth to 8-bit. Obviously this isn't going to help for books or web gallerys.
I was pleasantly surprised how little it added to the export time, about two seconds for the full size version.
Ian

So,,,is Aperture all that??

I got my first Mac two weeks ago, and I've got C1 Pro, DPP, Photoshop CS2 and Lightroom Beta. Other than the vault, do I NEED Aperture? Do you find it better than the programs I already have? It seems the sorting, selecting the 1st choice and other functions might be real sweet. As most of us do, I take hundreds of shots any day I'm out and just keep everything in focus, cuz it's hard to cull them all picking the best. Do you find that a significant plus?
Is the processing or printing or any other aspect a cut above? It would work well with my new 30", but I hate to be stuck with that vault thing. Thanks

Hi, Steve:
Congratulations on your first Macintosh purchase. Welcome!
I'm glad to see that you are using C1 Pro and PhotoShop CS2. They are good programs. I used C1 Pro for quite some time, and I have now completely switched to Aperture. Honestly, I like the work flow of Aperture better and I like the raw conversions that it produces.
However, one simply cannot compare Aperture to PhotoShop In fact, it isn't meant to compete with PhotoShop at all. You will find that the two programs work hand-in-hand, complimenting each other.
The vault is simply a backup of your image library and is quite a good, solid function, despite some users having difficulties with it.
The one thing that you would notice with Aperture over the other programs is that, since it is a universal applicaiton, it will run much faster on your new mac than the other programs that you have. This will be especially noticeable once Leaopard is released.
The only two programs that you will need are Aperture and PhotoShop. The others are redundant.
As for printing, Aperture produces nice, quality prints. But, this is no better I find than PhotoShop or other programs. It really depends on your knowledge and ability to produce high-quality output. Give Tiger woods a crappy set of clubs, he's still going to kick everyone's but on the course. Likewise with printing. It really comes down to the person making the prints.

G10 Aperture RAW conversion: what are your impressions?

the wait is over!
2.4 RAW Compatibility update includes Canon G10.
what are your impressions?
what Aperture settings yield best results?
how do they compare to Camera RAW and DPP?

When you compare photos that were photographed at ISO 100 they all do a good job. When you stat going up in the ISO is where I think Aperture does a great job. I've attached a screen capture of the same photos processed with 3 different applications. No adjustments were added to the photos. The default settings were used then the photo was passed on to photoshop as a Tiff. I think it's clear why I don't like ACR. Aperture and DPP are much closer. DPP has some noise reduction on by default so the photo looks like it has less noise then Aperture. I feel that the default noise reduction just makes the photo look a little soft and out of focus. If I turn off the default noise reduction in DPP the photo looks noisy. So I like Aperture better because of the way the noise looks, the sharpness and detail of the photo. Another area to look at is the neck and chest area. Aperture holds the most amount of detail before blowing out. I know that all 3 programs have adjustments that will help fix the problems in the photo. Even after doing that to the photo in all 3 programs I still felt that Aperture was clearly better. As the previous poster said it is subjective to each persons taste.
I've never used this way of posting a screen grab so if it doesn't work forgive me. Make sure to click on the photo to view the large file.

Genuine Fractals 6.0 Pro aperture plugin

Just noticed that the new GF 6.0 pro edition includes support for Aperture. Not sure how useful this is since you could just use the standalone version. But I guess it saves a step or two.
http://www.ononesoftware.com/detail.php?prodLine_id=7

FlatE,
I had a number of photos taken in candlelight in a project in Aperture, some of which resulted from panning from side to side. I chose two that were taken seconds apart, and sent them to Photoshop to be merged into a panorama. Since Photomerge in PS does not make either of the original images the resultant, I had to save the panorama as a new image (TIFF in this case), and Import it back into Aperture for further editing. The primary retouching I wanted to then do in Aperture was to use Noise Ninja, which I have only set up as a plugin in Aperture, even though I have the license to set it up as stand alone or as a plugin to PS. I simply chose to not do much editing to the original images, but rather to wait for the merged panorama.
I then chose Pages because I trusted both its resizing ability and ease to add text below the photo as a title when printed. I felt more confident to take a PDF to the outside printing service, than a pure photo format. Obviously I could have stayed in Photoshop if I had set Noise Ninja up to use there after the merge but I like the editing of shading in Aperture better than in Photoshop, these days. Btw, I exported the retouched panorama from Aperture before dragging it into Pages. This was not a workflow for a mass of images, but one special one.
Ernie

Printer Profiles and Onscreen proofing

Is there a way to adjust the options for Onscreen Proofing with ICC profiles in Aperture?
I downloaded and installed the Premium ICC printer profiles for the Epson Stylus Photo R2400 printer and have noticed an issue when I use Onscreen Proofing with these profiles, especially the matte ones. The screen display is muted as if the contrast is lowered and the colors compressed. I viewed the same image in Photoshop with Proof Colors and did not see this problem until I turned Simulate Paper Color on in the Customize Proof Condition dialog. Then the image took on the same appearance. Interestingly, the problem does not occur when I use the Epson profiles that are installed by default with the software that comes with the printer. The images print fine in Aperture (better than from Photoshop) using either the premium or default profile. I just can't use the premium profiles for onscreen proofing.
The bottom line is that the Epson Premium ICC printer profiles appear to be incorrectly built and do not simulate paper color accurately. In addition, Aperture appears to simulate paper color by default and I can't find a way to turn it off. This is unfortunate since the default Epson profiles, which are less accurate for printing, provide more accurate onscreen proofing.
Dual 2.3 GHz PowerPC G5 Mac OS X (10.4.6) 2.5 GB DDR2 SDRAM, NVIDIA 7800GT

I'm having the same issue and would love here a solution.
Tim

Photo editing software

Hi
I have a Mac which I purchased in July 2010 I’m sure it’s running snow leopard. Will I be better off upgrading to the latest OS or staying as I am? The reason I ask is, I am looking into getting some photo editing software either Aperture or Photoshop Lightroom (is Aperture better for Mac?) to move up from the next level of iPhoto. Now I have never had a problem with my Mac in the three and a half years since I have had it and don’t want to do anything that will slow it down or mess it up. Any suggestions would be most welcome. My Mac is: iMac, Intel Core i3, 3.06 GHz, 1 Processor, 1 Core, L2 Cache (per core) 256KB, L3 Cache 4MB, Memory 4GB, Mac OS X version 10.6.8

Aperture and Lightroom are made by Apple and Adobe, respectively. Both are higher end photo management apps for cataloging your photo library. As you note, both are quite a step up from iPhoto.
You can do some editing in both, but nothing like an actual image editor. Photoshop, as Klaus1 mentioned, is expensive. For around $70 online (like at Amazon.com), you can get Photoshop Elements. About 80% of what the full PS app can do for far less. PS Elements does remove CMYK color support.
Pixelmator does a lot for not a whole lot of bucks. GIMP is an open source editor that does much of what Photoshop does, and it's free. Like PS, GIMP has a large learning curve.

Is aperture better

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for