by Volker Weber

Isn't it amazing at which speed Apple is releasing new products lately?

I think both the new iMac and the 15" PowerBook are quite tempting. Aperture sure looks nice but does not fit my bill. If Apple would fix iPhoto, I'd be fine.


It is amazing, and all of it well designed and very easy to use.

Compare and contrast with Microsoft - who seem to be stuck in a "non-delivery" mode and internally tied up with red tape.

Perhaps Balmer should spend some of his Billions poaching the Apple management team, as they're doing exactly what he cannot - getting good product out the door.

---* Bill

Bill Buchan, 2005-10-20

From the first looks at the web site - Aperture has this magic "I want this..." effect that you'll find in so many things from Apple... (besides the price tag)


Markus Heyl, 2005-10-20

Just wish more of the ISVs (yep that means you IBM) would shift to proper support, neh exploitation, of the Mac environment.

One of the ironies of the world as I see it is that MS actually exploits the Mac more than most other vendors do - the Mac version of Office and in particular Entourage shows that they see the benefit in rebuilding the application code for a Mac version, rather than just an inferior port of Windoze code (mmm could that be Notes?)...

Aperture looks beautiful, could be hard to convince the missus to spend that 500 bucks though...

Stu Mac, 2005-10-20

Careful. Going to Aperture means shooting RAW, which also means larger files, more camera storage, more HD storage, a more powerful machine. It isn't the 500 that should bother you. It is the 5000 of trailing purchases.

Volker Weber, 2005-10-20

RAW is the only way you SHOULD shoot in my opinion. It gives a tremendous amount of flexibility and a way to non-destructively work on your images. If you only shoot in JPEG, every time you save you are destroying more of the file.

I've been shooting RAW exclusively now for a couple of years, and it makes Aperture look REALLY tempting.

Besides, if you are going to spend $500 USD for a photo management program, you probably are already in the DSLR world and shooting RAW mainly anyway.

I did an article for ConnectedPhotographer on the benefits of RAW that you can find here.

Anyway...I agree, Apple keeps looking better and better. When I can get a powerbook that can triple boot between OSX, Linux and Windows, I'll be in heaven!


John Roling, 2005-10-20

You don't *have* to go to RAW -- Aperture understands TIFF, JPG and PSD, too. The audience Aperture is aimed at probably uses RAW, though.

Thom Rosario, 2005-10-20

@John: "If you only shoot in JPEG, every time you save you are destroying more of the file." - That's why you don't work with the original JPG file but with working copies instead, do you? RAW can be great, but using both JPG and RAW myself, I wouldn't say that RAW is generally superior to JPG. Honestly, I even think that many people just use it "because that's what the pros do" while underestimating the advantages of JPG shooting. Largely a matter of personal preferences, I guess.

Haiko Hebig, 2005-10-20

There are two distinct advantages to shooting (and post-processing) in RAW. The first is that it's much easier to get a correct white balance, and it generally gives you up to two stops of exposure leeway.

Once a file is in JPEG, white balance correction and being able to adjust exposure simply are no where near as good, it is destructive to the photo.

Also, having the RAW file is equivalent of having a digital negative, you can go back to that negative and develop it time and again, any way you want or need to.

As for JPEG, you CAN work with a copy of the file, but why? RAW in uncompressed, whereas a JPEG that comes out of a camera already has JPEG compression, so the first time you work with it it already has less info in it than a RAW file.

JPEG really only has two advantages...size and speed. Size is moot anymore in my opinion as hard drives and RAM continues to fall in price. I have a 2GB card in my Canon 20D and have yet to fill it before I can transfer to a computer.

Speed is simply if you want a shot ready to distribute out of the camera. It's already been processed from the RAW image (or developed if you will) by the camera itself.

So, what do you think does a better job of that development, a small chip in your camera, or an entire computer dedicated to the task? Also, you are trusting the camera to develop it correctly and have much less recourse if it comes out badly.

With the RAW file, you can develop it as close to perfect as you can, and then further tweak in Photoshop. Hell, you could even develop it into a 16bit TIFF to really have the most flexibility in PS. You've already had a generation of compression out of the camera with a JPEG, then to convert it to TIFF for more processing would add another generation of degradation.

Granted, most people won't notice it that much unless they are really looking.

Trust me though, if you start developing everything in RAW, you will absolutely never go back.

That said, you have to find a product that works well for your workflow style. I recommend Adobe Bridge with it's RAW converter, or RawShooter Essentials...

Anyway, if you haven't tried RAW, I suggest giving it a shot. It really can produce much better shots with more flexibility.


John Roling, 2005-10-20

And if they could deliver any of these products it would be even better. I e.g. ordered my iPod nano 4 weeks ago. No show until today.

Oliver Stör, 2005-10-21

Old archive pages

I explain difficult concepts in simple ways. For free, and for money. Clue procurement and bullshit detection.


Paypal vowe