JOHNBOLS  Guys this is funny.

I wanted to but Aperture there it fits well with my other apps.

I have 1 G4 1 G5 3 Imacs and 1 Macbookpro, I forget the Ipods and other snall things. Also I have for all the Macs Finalcut Pro licencie.

You would think that I am a pretty well customer for Apple.

BUT I can not buy Aperture, I called to the US got a cranky lady on the line. I wanted to buy the Serial number not the box or blabla.

BUT I LIVE IN BRAZIL and do you know what they don't sell to Brazil. I asked the lady why is that, she could not tell me. I aske is my credircard not good enough, no comment.

I did posted that on the Forum of Aperture and they banned me from that part of the forum.

Well, I am Dutch live in Brazil for work but give me a break here, why the heck you can't buy a serial number in Brazil.

So now I must call mt family in The Netherlands to buy it and ship it or I have to look at the torrent files for a free serial number.  
(Version 2.1.3)

HIHAGEN  I find Aperture very good. The only thing I really don not like is the message "updating information for sharing preview" every time I quit the application.   
(Version 2.1.3)

TOURNESOL  Damn, it did not fix the Exif Picture orientation bug.   
(Version 2.1.3)

IAMDORIAN  DGOMBAU wrote:

"Have been comparing Lightroom 2 with Aperture 2.

I do a lot of panos, and Lightroom has a simple integration with that Photo Merge feature in Photoshop. Aperture is a cumbersome, multi-step export operation."

-------

Yeah, but it is one ($150-200) Apple application, rather than 2 applications totaling more than $1000.00. If you already have PS, then what are you REALLY getting for your other $300.00? If you need a Pano program look in MU, there are some dedicated programs far more powerful than anything in LightRoom, with Aperture at $150.00 and your remaining $150.00, you can have your proverbial cake and eat it too. I think the decision is a no brainer.

Adobe needs to restructure its pricing in a big way. It is now high-priced bloatware. Yes, I own a couple of suites, but I wouldn't if I didn't have to. Apple's pricing policies are democratizing. I think we should think about the impact of an entire market sector supporting good programming at rock bottom prices. What might happen . . . if?  
(Version 2.1.3)

TOURNESOL  Great update. The rotate and thumbnail bugs were really annoying.  
(Version 2.1.3)

CH5719  After testing this and the latest Lightroom beta for a while, i settled on Aperture. Great stuff. Alone, and with some additional plugins (Nik etc), you don't even have to fire up Photoshop for post-processing most of the time.  
(Version 2.1.2)

DGOMBAU  Have been comparing Lightroom 2 with Aperture 2.

I do a lot of panos, and Lightroom has a simple integration with that Photo Merge feature in Photoshop. Aperture is a cumbersome, multi-step export operation.

Aperture has a much more usable touchup and healing capability, whereas Lightoom is pretty basic. And Aperture has integration with Apple Photo Books.

Still have not decided whether I like the gray palette of Aperture, or the black one of Lightroom.

Currently I shoot with a Nikon D200. But I used to own a Nikon CoolPix 5700, and Aperture will not recognize the 5700 file format, for the thousands of images I took with the 5700. Lightroom will.

Anyone have any comments to add to the above?  
(Version 2.1.2)

NORAA  Grr, Aperture MobileMe Web Galleries still not showing up in iWeb (MobileMe Web Galleries created in iPhoto showing up just fine). Already emailed Apple about this and told that it was currently unsupported, figured that they'd fix it eventually! Guess not *shakes head slowly*  
(Version 2.1.1)

HINES  Just as I suspected:

THIS update doesn't fix the "unsupported image," maroon colored box that many Aperture supporters have been getting.

In my case, this problem cost me a $5000 photography project. So, without any choice, I will discontinue to have this app on my drive and will fully utilize Lightroom 2beta. Aperture is no longer trustworthy for anyone's serious library of pics.

For anyone who values their photos and the time it took to process them, don't use Aperture.  
(Version 2.1.1)

HINES2KJ  Please, can anyone confirm that this update fixes the maroon/red screen trouble with unsupported images showing up on existing Libraries?

Thanks!  
(Version 2.1.1)

KBEAT  Absolutely superb update. Apple has taken feedback from their customers and immediately addressed most of the remaining issues with version 2. I was just working on a project and saying "I wish Aperture would ...." and the very next day Apple releases 2.1 which gave me the tools and fixes I wanted.

Aperture has become my primary application for photo management and touch up. Now, with the latest update I stay in Aperture 95% of the time. With the rumored HDR & tonemapping plug-in on the way, I'll be 100% Aperture if it works as well as Photomatrix.  
(Version 2.1)

TOURNESOL  Awsome update! Apple really listen to their costumers when it comes to adding new features in Aperture.  
(Version 2.1)

BEBDABHRHBRWEFG 3R§5Y5H4WTEDSFB  "...Post production photography solution..."

the answer to 'post production photography problem'!  
(Version 2.0.1)

HANGON  WOW ... it's true , this piece of code is DAMN FAST.

1.5.6 was unusable to me but that one is really fast.

some slow things remain but its fast (Do not straight or crop at the beginning of the retouching process because everything else after that will be WAY slower)

The keyword organization is really the best of all. No software can beat aperture with keyword managing

The only complaint is the absence of a selective approach : all areas of the image are treated equal by adjustments....I WOULD LOVE TO SEE A VECTORIAL DRAWING TOOL THAT WILL ALLOW THE USER TO DETERMINE WHICH PARTS OF THE IMAGE GETS INVOLVED WITH THE SELECTED ADJUSTMENT...........THE GOOD OLD MASKING TECHNIQUE   
(Version 2.0)

TOURNESOL  Does this fix the problem Aperture has with Time Machine?

http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=306853  
(Version 1.5.6)

BUMBLEB  Aperture... How I would like to love it... Being an Apple fanboy as I am... or used to be;-)

Anyway, Aperture... First, when it came out, I could not run it on either my iMac G5, or my MacBook. It would not install, because Apple deemed my machines to be too poor to run Aperture...

Then I found Lightroom. What a wonder. It runs well on both my iMac G5 and MacBook.

I still feel interested in Aperture, but even though it would now be able to run, although crawl, on my iMac and MacBook, I still can't use it because it does not support my two current cameras; Ricoh GR and Sigma SD14. What a bummer. Some may say - buy a Canon or Nikon, but isn't Apple all about "thinking different"? So should I not be able to use two wonderful, raw-capable cameras, that in my hands are the most wonderful tools I've shot with, apart from the Pentax 67? I should. At least if Apple wanna be taken seriously.

So for now, I use Lightroom, and RAW Developer, the latter being THE MOST kick-ass raw conversion app around, quality-wise. Such a visible difference. But I need the workflow features of Lightroom.

Apple, come on...  
(Version 1.5.4)

TOURNESOL  Dang! Even with this update you cannot use the new books introduced with iPhoto 08  
(Version 1.5.4)

TOURNESOL  Still only works so so with iWeb. The images is in random order in iWebs media browser and the quality of the thums and slideshow images in iWeb are inferior to the quality when iWeb is used in conjunction with iPhoto.  
(Version 1.5.3)

DAVID ROESSLI  Does Aperture support Ricoh GR Digital's RAW format now?  
(Version 1.5.3)

ULFHEDNAR  Wow! That really added some punch!

Runs much faster on my MacBook Pro (Core Duo).

I only have a gig of memory right now, and I'd been thinking about upgrading to 1.5, but I'm going to put that purchase on hold. Thanks, Apple!

I can clearly see now that Aperture 2.0 running on Leopard will be untouchable by Adobe (they must really be scrambling over there!). Maybe Aperture is the kick in the pants they needed to get cracking on those intel versions of their other products. hmmm.

As an aside, I ordered that new book on Aperture 1.5 through the Apple store. My New Year's resolution is to learn Aperture like the back of my hand.  
(Version 1.5.2)

JAN13  I HAVE APPLE-APERTURE SINCE FIRST VERSION. I HAVE IT ALWAYS ON FASTEST MAC AND POWERBOOK. IT IS FANTASTIC APPLICATION WITCH MAKE MY WORK LIKE A PARADISE !!! IT IS VERY SOPHISTICATED, FAST, INTUITIVE AND MOST IMPORTANT IT MAKE ME LOOK VERY GOOD ON FRONT OF MY CLIENTS EVEN THOSE MILES AWY, THANKS TO QUICK WEB PRESENTATION, APERTURE CAN PUT ON IN SECONDS ...

IT IS ABSOLUTELY INDISPENSABLE PIECE OF SOFTWARE, PROFESSIONAL PHOTOGRAPHER CAN NOT LEAVE HOME WITH OUT IT ...  
(Version 1.5.1)

DONGIORGIO  May be a nice app although the first thing I tried to do (apply a change in white balance to a group of images) left me frustrated. But it ... is ... so ... slow ... everything ... takes ... 5 ... seconds. I have a Dual 1.8 GHz PowerPC G5 with 1.25 GB RAM. *No other app* I have is slow on this box. Only Aperture. I can't recommend it. Not at $300. Maybe I'd by it for $99, but I'd only use it for things I can't do in iPhoto. Too Frustrating.  
(Version 1.5.1)

TOURNESOL  Still slow as hell :( There are so many similar features which iPhoto does blazing fast compared to Aperture 1.5. Why does Aperture has to be so demanding to the computer??? I love the idea of Aperture, but iPhoto 6 is just so much better - and yes I know iPhoto is not a pro app.  
(Version 1.5)

LOREM IPSUM  Overall a great concept and certainly comes in handy as an amateur photographer. The organization and editing is laid out well.

My only issue is that the performance is spotty. At times it runs smoothly, but occasionally studders and sometimes locks up or crashes on exit. This seems to be rating-related as it does it most often after I rate a photo and then move it to an album. (Computer hardware more than adequate, so not hardware related).  
(Version 1.1.2)

MADMACMAD  Nikon NEF from Coolpix E5000 are still not supportet :-((  
(Version 1.1.2)

NGUYENHM16  This is everything I needed iPhoto to be. Really good RAW handling, very useful implementation of non-destructive editing and versioning, painless roundtrip to Photoshop, works great with two monitors. Still beachballs in some places, and the hardware requirements are stiff (I had to go out and buy a X800XT, otherwise on my 64MB Radeon 9600 it was sluggish). Haven't printed from it yet.  
(Version 1.1.1)

PETER VITALE  Just started using it. i think it's a great program. it does lack some features but it is a good tool to have in your toolbox.  
(Version 1.1)

ABATES25  This update seems great, but I must ask - where is my intel support?! Apple had said it would be intel-enabled by the end of March...sigh...the price drop is nice though.  
(Version 1.1)

RPPHOTO  Actual price is now $299, not $499, and purchasers of the original version get a $200 rebate good for purchases at the Apple Store!  
(Version 1.1)

HUSSAIN  Platform and Price need to be updated  
(Version 1.1)

TYCHAY  It's a pity that the person writing the Ars Technica review doesn't know what the hell he is talking about, but instead parrots complaints by other photographers who don't know what the hell they are talking about.

For instance, he complains about the RAW processing in Aperture and then compares it to the "universally acclaimed" Adobe Camera RAW in Photoshop.

1) Does he know that the DEFAULT settings of Adobe Camera RAW apply post-processing that has nothing to do with RAW processing? For instance, it boosts contrast, reduces color noise, and sharpens the image, Obviously the idiot has no idea because all his complains about Aperture's RAW processing are reducable to one of those three post processing effects.

2) In what universe is ACR acclaimed? Oh yeah, in the Canon universe where the company is too lazy to make decent RAW processing software. Typical crap, if you want to see good RAW processing, compare it to DxO Optics Pro which blows both Aperture and ACR out of the water.

3) In reality, Aperture's Camera RAW is truer to the actual RAW image. For instance, I saw one example (Canon 5D fashion shot) where ACR processed out some chromatic abberations. Newsflash! Chromatic Abberations are lens defects, the "processing out" in ACR is due it's default increase in contrast and then removal of color noise which pushes the chromatic abberations to black!

Just take a look at any RAW photograph of skintones. You'll see that ACR by default oversharpens them.

Many of the rest of complains are along a similar vein in that they don't understand that Aperture's tools are not meant to replace Photoshop, they are meant to work on photos. Lack of posterization due to dithering? Let's see, are these PHOTOS were are talking about? I thought so.  
(Version 1.0.1)

TOOT  A true pro App ? With nothing to mesure color values, like in Photoshop or Capture one, for example ?

*Laugh* !  
(Version 1.0.1)

INDRAGURU  Aperture is the hottest photo app because it's a true Think Different product. It has all that a pro needs to work efficiently with RAWs. Sorting and filing pics is a joy. The cons are that it is too sluggish if you do not have a very fast G5 and preferably more than 2 gigs of RAM. And it is yet in its baby stage, with in some cases too poor RAW processing. Therefore the value doesn't get a high grade.  
(Version 1.0.1)

MARKOH  Here's a good review of Aperture and by the look of it Arperture still needs to evolve in order to stand up there next to Photoshop CS2

http://arstechnica.com/reviews/apps/aperture.ars/1  
(Version 1.0)

ROCCO  Does anyone criticising the software either

1. Knows what RAW is?

2. Acually used the software?

Thought not.  
(Version 1.0)

SPAM UNDER TOAST  >>...It's for professionals, deal with it and keep using iPhoto. This is not a Photoshop competitor  
(Version 1.0)

DISENCHANTED IN MAC LAND  To the original authors of these mostly baseless comments: Get a clue. Do you have any idea the file sizes of RAW images? or the system/memory requirements needed for real-time (or near real-time) editing? It's for professionals, deal with it and keep using iPhoto. This is not a Photoshop competitor. Apple is also apparently to wave it's magic wand to make this program better, because they won't recoup development costs with a bunch of pirates stealing the app.

Just a guess at your next request- "Hey I love Mac OS X but can you make it twice as fast, cost half as much, and run on my cellphone? Otherwise it'll never beat Windows PocketPC. Oh but I'll still use it if I can find it illegally"  
(Version 1.0)

ANONYMOUS  first of all all of apple's pro apps are crippled by their vram requirements so they wont run on say a mac mini, or an ibook, they want you using a powermac, or a power book to run them.. and they do this via, the VRAM. but other than that, it really doesnt need the 128 like say apple motion does.  
(Version 1.0)

ANONYMOUS  First: If you are leaving comments try to be lucid.

Second: This is a "Pro" application. If you are a pro the specs for this are not unresonable. I don't know anyone in the business that doesn't have their machine maxed out on ram. Check the minimum specs, it will run under lower standards, as well as non dual machines.

Third: I haven't used this and I doubt the folks that are flaming it have either. It may turn out to be a dog, but from the perspective of it's "possibilities" it looks very nice. I am anxious to compare it to CS2's bridge, that is to say the RAW processing and batching similarities or differences.

Fourth: There are vast differnces between pro users and posers with digital cameras and pirated software.  
(Version 1.0)

ANONYMOUS  Although it is nice seeing Apple doing what Adobe should have done five years ago, I think they need to spend some time on optimizing the code... G5 and 2GB for doing PHOTOGRAPHS is just plain ridiculous.

If they can size it down considerably, it might easily kill Photoshop. With these specs, however, it will never happen.

Where's the torrent? I am not paying for bloatware!  
(Version 1.0)

UMAROMC  It sounds like their gimmick here is that it runs fast with a lot of bells and whistles and probably handles a lot of functions a photographer (or rich people with money burning a hole in their pockets– or idiots that haven't learned their lessons about debt) with the overhead being that a lot of RAM is required to have all of the data (including as much cache as possible) and a very fast CPU to traffic-manage all of that data at a very consistent pace.  
(Version 1.0)

ANONYMOUS  Check the minimum specs on Apple's site.

It WILL run on a Powerbook G4 1.25ghz or faster, with 1GB ram and a 128MB videocard. Which still seems pretty steep.  
(Version 1.0)

DAZED AND CONFUSED  I love Macs, but the fockers are on drugs! what the hell are they thinkin? They have got to be joking?...

# Dual 2GHz Power Mac G5 or faster

# 2GB of RAM   
(Version 1.0)

ANONYMOUS  System requirements are ridiculous. Final Cut and Shake work fine on a Powerbook G4 and these one are big, pro softwares.  
(Version 1.0)

GABRIEL  I can't wait to see how it runs on my 1,5ghz Powerbook with 128MB Radeon 9700 and 1,5Gb RAM.

Hopefully they will make a demo. Otherwise I will not dare buy it if it runs as bad as iPhoto :)  
(Version 1.0)

ANONYMOUS  Make sure to check out the system requirements before buying. They're quite steep...  
(Version 1.0)

NONA  I can't verify this but I think this doesn't support the Kodak Pro 14n series?

Although Kodak has some very good DCR software (Photodesk...), this looks more like what I would prefer.

Anyone?  
(Version 1.0)