Apple: Aperture not a Photoshop competitor

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Michelle Steiner, Oct 20, 2005.

  1. Apple: Aperture not a Photoshop competitor
    By Jim Dalrymple

    Apple on Wednesday entered into a new market segment with the
    announcement of its first professional-level photography application:
    Aperture. Once the sole domain of Adobe Systems¹ Photoshop, Aperture
    appeals to photographers by simplifying the workflow issues many
    professionals have encountered over the years.

    ³I was blown away,² renowned sports photography Heinz Kluetmeier, told
    MacCentral after Apple¹s event in New York. ³I think it¹s going to
    revolutionize photography because it is going to let photographers do
    what they do best ‹ take pictures.²

    Even though Aperture seems to be squaring off with Adobe¹s market
    leading Photoshop, Apple executives said the application is not meant to
    compete with Adobe.

    ³We are positioning this as an all-in-one solution,² said Rob Schoeben,
    Apple¹s vice president of Applications Marketing. ³We know photographers
    use Photoshop, so we integrated support into Aperture.²

    Schoeben explained that Aperture supports Photoshop¹s PSD files.
    Specifically, Aperture can open and manipulate the files, but it cannot
    work with individual layers.

    Adobe representatives were not immediately available to comment.
    ³Photoshop is a versatile application and there is some overlap with
    Aperture,² said NPD analyst Ross Rubin. ³However, Aperture is really
    about workflow, while Photoshop is used for things like compositing.
    Certainly this is addressing issues for a significant amount of the
    Photoshop user base. If I were Adobe, I would consider this a shot
    across my bow.²

    Apple said that Aperture opens up a whole new category for photo
    applications. The company set out to eliminate many of the issues that
    pros have been facing over the years as they move from their familiar
    print workflow to the digital workspace.

    ³This is a one of a kind application,² said Schoeben. ³This is really an
    entire new category. We take making a new application very seriously ‹
    we look at how it should work, not how it has evolved in the market over
    the years.²

    Schoeben said during his presentation announcing Aperture that people
    will look back on today as the day that things really changed for
    photographers.

    Among its many features, Aperture works with RAW images natively
    throughout the application. There is no intermediate conversion process
    and the application uses a nondestructive image-processing engine, which
    leaves the original image untouched.

    ³People have been bragging about RAW for too long ‹ we felt it was time
    to deliver,² said Schoeben.

    In addition to its backend power, Aperture has a well thought out
    interface that allows photographers to view and manipulate images in
    full-screen mode. Tools appear using the keyboard or your mouse and have
    the familiar Apple transitions when working with images.

    ³We are Apple ‹ we put a lot of work into the finishing touches; a lot
    of companies just don¹t get that,² said Schoeben.

    Aperture was not the only product announcement on Wednesday. Among other
    hardware, Apple introduced dual core Power Mac G5s. The new Power Macs
    come eight months before Apple is expected to release its first
    Intel-based Macintosh, next June.

    Depending on the application being tested, Apple said the new high-end
    Power Mac G5 ³Quad² system, which features two dual-core PowerPC
    processors, could see speed increases of 43 percent to 60 percent or
    higher. Even with the Intel Macs so close Apple said they were not going
    to sit back and not update their current line of computers.

    ³We are going to innovate on the PowerPC and we will bring great value
    to our customers,² said David Moody, Apple¹s vice president of worldwide
    Mac product marketing.

    --
    Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.
    Michelle Steiner, Oct 20, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Michelle Steiner

    Hunt Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    >
    >Apple: Aperture not a Photoshop competitor
    >By Jim Dalrymple
    >
    >Apple on Wednesday entered into a new market segment with the
    >announcement of its first professional-level photography application:
    >Aperture. Once the sole domain of Adobe Systems¹ Photoshop, Aperture
    >appeals to photographers by simplifying the workflow issues many
    >professionals have encountered over the years.

    [SNIP]

    Gad, it appears that the MAC'ophiles are out in full force. It seems that
    everyone who owns Apple stock is hyping (some have suggested "pimping") this
    product. I hope that it works well, and sells like hotcakes. However, as an
    advertising photographer on the PC platform, I doubt that I'll ever use it.

    I do, however, think that one X-posted "news release" would be enough, until
    folk begin buying and using the sw, and then can critique it.

    Hunt

    Please note the X-Posting has been snipped, so replies to the MAC dens are
    kept to a minimum.
    Hunt, Oct 20, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. I agree. It's more like Bibble or Capture One -- workflow tool, media
    organizer, and RAW converter. I'm sure it integrates well with
    Photoshop.

    --
    Jerry Kindall, Seattle, WA <http://www.jerrykindall.com/>

    Send only plain text messages under 32K to the Reply-To address.
    This mailbox is filtered aggressively to thwart spam and viruses.
    Jerry Kindall, Oct 20, 2005
    #3
  4. Michelle Steiner

    Conrad Guest

    Hi,

    For those of you who haven't seen a preview of the Aperture program -
    you might want to take a few minutes and check it out at:

    http://www.apple.com/aperture/

    Probably, six months or a year from now would be a better time to
    evaluate its' use among photographers and any impact with Adobe's
    Photoshop program.

    Best,

    Conrad
    Camp Sherman, Oregon
    Conrad, Oct 20, 2005
    #4
  5. Michelle Steiner

    Randy Howard Guest

    Jerry Kindall wrote
    (in article <191020052040410004%>):

    > I agree. It's more like Bibble or Capture One -- workflow tool, media
    > organizer, and RAW converter. I'm sure it integrates well with
    > Photoshop.


    What is the point of having a RAW converter, especially for pro
    photographers that use Photoshop? CS2 already has the best RAW
    handling available, and it is outstanding. That, plus Bridge,
    make for excellent photo editing and management, without some
    brain-damaged "database" pretend crap ala iPhoto. I have not
    tried out Aperture yet, but I sincerely hope that it doesn't
    bury photos in its own directory structure like iPhoto does, or
    suffer from the 'crash of the hour' syndrome. iPhoto is the
    absolute worst piece of software on the OS X platform, apart
    from the obvious exception of Finder.


    --
    Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
    Randy Howard, Oct 20, 2005
    #5
  6. In article <>, Randy
    Howard <> wrote:

    > Jerry Kindall wrote
    > (in article <191020052040410004%>):
    >
    > > I agree. It's more like Bibble or Capture One -- workflow tool, media
    > > organizer, and RAW converter. I'm sure it integrates well with
    > > Photoshop.

    >
    > What is the point of having a RAW converter, especially for pro
    > photographers that use Photoshop? CS2 already has the best RAW
    > handling available, and it is outstanding.


    I guess that's why there are no fewer than three other Mac RAW
    converters, all with their vocal adeherents. Because CS2 is better.

    > That, plus Bridge,
    > make for excellent photo editing and management, without some
    > brain-damaged "database" pretend crap ala iPhoto.


    Funny, all I hear is complaints about how slow Bridge is. Also, Bridge
    is more a directory browser than a photo organizer. I mean, how 1990s.

    > I have not
    > tried out Aperture yet, but I sincerely hope that it doesn't
    > bury photos in its own directory structure like iPhoto does, or
    > suffer from the 'crash of the hour' syndrome. iPhoto is the
    > absolute worst piece of software on the OS X platform, apart
    > from the obvious exception of Finder.


    iPhoto the worst? Heh. You don't try a lot of software, do you?

    iPhoto gets slow when it's got a lot of photos in it, and I switched to
    something else because of that, but I can't say I ever found it
    crash-prone.

    As to "burying photos in its own directory structure," well, they've
    got to be copied SOMEWHERE from your camera, might as well let iPhoto
    manage them -- it does a better job than you can.

    Aperture is pricey, but I'll give it a spin at the local Apple store as
    soon as it's available.

    --
    Jerry Kindall, Seattle, WA <http://www.jerrykindall.com/>

    Send only plain text messages under 32K to the Reply-To address.
    This mailbox is filtered aggressively to thwart spam and viruses.
    Jerry Kindall, Oct 20, 2005
    #6
  7. Michelle Steiner

    C Wright Guest

    On 10/20/05 9:37 AM, in article
    , "Randy Howard"
    <> wrote:

    > Jerry Kindall wrote
    > (in article <191020052040410004%>):
    >
    >> I agree. It's more like Bibble or Capture One -- workflow tool, media
    >> organizer, and RAW converter. I'm sure it integrates well with
    >> Photoshop.

    >
    > What is the point of having a RAW converter, especially for pro
    > photographers that use Photoshop? CS2 already has the best RAW
    > handling available, and it is outstanding. That, plus Bridge,
    > make for excellent photo editing and management, without some
    > brain-damaged "database" pretend crap ala iPhoto. I have not
    > tried out Aperture yet, but I sincerely hope that it doesn't
    > bury photos in its own directory structure like iPhoto does, or
    > suffer from the 'crash of the hour' syndrome. iPhoto is the
    > absolute worst piece of software on the OS X platform, apart
    > from the obvious exception of Finder.
    >


    I too use CS2 and Bridge for my editing and image organizing. I also use
    Adobe's camera raw to convert my raw images - although calling it the best
    raw handling available is a bit extreme. Like you, I also dislike iPhoto
    forcing me to use its system of organization rather than mine!
    Having said all of that I think that you are missing the point of Aperture.
    For a busy pro photographer who comes back from a shoot with hundreds of
    images it would appear to make comparing, raw editing, and organizing those
    images a breeze. Its automatic backup to an external drive would also take
    a lot of the pain out of archiving images. Some of the third party raw
    converters like Capture One and image organizers like iView are going to
    have to take serious notice.
    C Wright, Oct 20, 2005
    #7
  8. Randy Howard <> wrote:

    > What is the point of having a RAW converter, especially for pro
    > photographers that use Photoshop? CS2 already has the best RAW
    > handling available, and it is outstanding. That, plus Bridge,
    > make for excellent photo editing and management, without some
    > brain-damaged "database" pretend crap ala iPhoto. I have not
    > tried out Aperture yet, but I sincerely hope that it doesn't
    > bury photos in its own directory structure like iPhoto does, or
    > suffer from the 'crash of the hour' syndrome. iPhoto is the
    > absolute worst piece of software on the OS X platform, apart
    > from the obvious exception of Finder.


    I use CaptureOne Pro, even though I also have and use Photoshop CS2. I
    disagree that ACR has the best RAW converter. And Bridge is a nice (but
    slow) browser, but totally inadequate for serious photo management.


    --
    Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl
    Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/
    Johan W. Elzenga, Oct 20, 2005
    #8
  9. Michelle Steiner

    Randy Howard Guest

    Jerry Kindall wrote
    (in article <201020050857304786%>):

    > In article <>, Randy
    > Howard <> wrote:
    >
    >> Jerry Kindall wrote
    >> (in article <191020052040410004%>):
    >>
    >>> I agree. It's more like Bibble or Capture One -- workflow tool, media
    >>> organizer, and RAW converter. I'm sure it integrates well with
    >>> Photoshop.

    >>
    >> What is the point of having a RAW converter, especially for pro
    >> photographers that use Photoshop? CS2 already has the best RAW
    >> handling available, and it is outstanding.

    >
    > I guess that's why there are no fewer than three other Mac RAW
    > converters, all with their vocal adeherents.


    I guess you dropped that logic course early in the semester.
    :)

    Think price might have something to do with the number of
    products out there?

    > Because CS2 is better.


    Correct.

    >> That, plus Bridge,
    >> make for excellent photo editing and management, without some
    >> brain-damaged "database" pretend crap ala iPhoto.

    >
    > Funny, all I hear is complaints about how slow Bridge is.


    Probably depends upon the hardware, video card and memory. Just
    like everything else doing image management does. I use a dual
    powermac with 2.5GB of RAM, and it flies. YMMV.

    > Also, Bridge
    > is more a directory browser than a photo organizer. I mean, how 1990s.


    Nothing worked that easily in 1990, or 2000. The only thing
    close was firehand ember for Windows, which was close to Bridge,
    but without the support for RAW and PS integration.

    It may turn out that Aperture makes for a better front end to
    Photoshop (until Adobe ups the bar again). I'm not sure I'm
    willing to spend $500 to find out, only to see Adobe leapfrog
    them next rev cycle.

    >> I have not
    >> tried out Aperture yet, but I sincerely hope that it doesn't
    >> bury photos in its own directory structure like iPhoto does, or
    >> suffer from the 'crash of the hour' syndrome. iPhoto is the
    >> absolute worst piece of software on the OS X platform, apart
    >> from the obvious exception of Finder.

    >
    > iPhoto the worst? Heh. You don't try a lot of software, do you?


    Actually I do. I shouldn't have left out the "Apple" in front
    of software above. Of the delivered add-on applications from
    Apple themeselves, iPhoto is the absolute bottom of the barrel.
    It behaves as if it was written by some other company and out of
    place with the rest of iLife. Of course finder is the all-time
    champion POS code, but it comes bundled with the OS.

    > iPhoto gets slow when it's got a lot of photos in it, and I switched to
    > something else because of that, but I can't say I ever found it
    > crash-prone.


    You were lucky. Lots of patches were put out shortly after
    Tiger shipped as a result of crashes other people were having.
    A weekly columnist for Network World spent a month bitching
    about iPhoto. This is not news to most people that actually use
    it regularly.

    > As to "burying photos in its own directory structure," well, they've
    > got to be copied SOMEWHERE from your camera, might as well let iPhoto
    > manage them -- it does a better job than you can.


    I disagree. More importantly, it makes multiple copies (without
    asking you), making it very difficult to keep track of which
    version has your edits in it, and very difficult to get photos
    back out of it once you give up on it.

    > Aperture is pricey, but I'll give it a spin at the local Apple store as
    > soon as it's available.


    If I had a store conveniently close I would also. I'd prefer to
    see them have an eval version out, like they did with Shake to
    let you try it out.

    --
    Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
    Randy Howard, Oct 20, 2005
    #9
  10. Michelle Steiner

    Randy Howard Guest

    C Wright wrote
    (in article <BF7D2F63.42534%wright9_nojunk@nojunk_mac.com>):

    > I too use CS2 and Bridge for my editing and image organizing. I also use
    > Adobe's camera raw to convert my raw images - although calling it the best
    > raw handling available is a bit extreme.


    Sorry if I was too extreme. :)

    > Like you, I also dislike iPhoto
    > forcing me to use its system of organization rather than mine!


    Join the club, it's large, so don't expect a low membership id
    number.

    > Having said all of that I think that you are missing the point of Aperture.


    That's entirely possible, since I have seen only the Apple
    website content about it so far. I did like the comment about
    bulk application of photo edits to a series of images shot
    together in their demo. That is nice, and will probably show up
    elsewhere RSN.

    > For a busy pro photographer who comes back from a shoot with hundreds of
    > images it would appear to make comparing, raw editing, and organizing those
    > images a breeze.


    Probably. I had heard rumors in the past that Apple was
    developing their own "photoshop clone", just in case Adobe ever
    dropped support for the Mac. I wonder if this was really that
    product, or if that is still hiding somewhere. Either way, I
    would have rather seen Photoshop gain the additional
    functionality in CS3 or something, rather than have to buy and
    use multiple products, but I suppose the marketing folks at
    Apple are looking for reasons to bring people onto the platform,
    so it makes sense. If they really wanted to do that though, the
    initial pricing for version 1.0 would be $99 instead of $499.

    > Its automatic backup to an external drive would also take
    > a lot of the pain out of archiving images.


    Sorry, but backing up images to external media is a cake-walk.
    I don't need an $$$ app to do that for me.

    > Some of the third party raw
    > converters like Capture One and image organizers like iView are going to
    > have to take serious notice.


    You're the second person to mention Capture One, the price tag
    before kept me from digging very deeply. Looking again I see
    they have an eval version of it available, so I'll check it out.
    --
    Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
    Randy Howard, Oct 20, 2005
    #10
  11. Michelle Steiner

    srm Guest

    Randy Howard wrote:
    > What is the point of having a RAW converter, especially for pro
    > photographers that use Photoshop? CS2 already has the best RAW
    > handling available, and it is outstanding.


    I think the point is that it's not a RAW converter. With CS2/Bridge, you
    can't do all that much with the file until you convert it from RAW to
    another format. With Aperture, Apple has designed the entire workflow
    around the RAW file - so it never actually gets converted until you have
    to output it or send it somewhere. As all the changes are
    non-destructive, you can go back and tweak any changes you've made based
    on the original raw data. It looks an interesting idea, however...

    Like many photographers (I presume) I've made considerable effort to
    create an effective workflow built around Photoshop. In my case it also
    employs PhotoMechanic, Bridge and iView. I have PS actions, saved curves
    etc, all of which *work*. The thought of starting again and
    learning/configuring a new workflow are daunting. Although my workflow
    involves four packages, that's not nearly as clumsy as it might sound,
    especially as PS is at the centre of the whole thing and can be launched
    from any of those apps. The integrated workflow that Aperture offers is
    very nice on paper, but not really enough to encourage me to switch.

    What's more, it sounds that, for any but the most basic work on images,
    you're going to need to switch into Photoshop anyway. The one thing that
    might entice me is if the keywording is good, because that has to be the
    single most tedious job...
    srm, Oct 20, 2005
    #11
  12. Michelle Steiner

    Eric Lindsay Guest

    In article <201020050857304786%>,
    Jerry Kindall <> wrote:

    > iPhoto gets slow when it's got a lot of photos in it, and I switched to
    > something else because of that, but I can't say I ever found it
    > crash-prone.


    iPhoto 5 changed file handling structures from those used in iPhoto 4.
    Instead of having four files per photo (the photo, the thumbnail, and
    two numbered files, one with an .attr extension), iPhoto 5 incorporated
    all of the last two files in a single Library.iPhoto file (probably for
    faster handling). Unfortunately the .attr files formerly contained all
    the exif data from your photo. So iPhoto 5 works fine with a few tens
    of thousands of photos if the exif data is small.

    Unfortunately a number of cameras from some manufacturers (Casio, Konica
    Milolta, Kyocera, Nikon, Pentax) include in their exif a large (30-60kb)
    MakerNote. If you have 10,000 such photos, Library.iPhoto bloats to
    200MB to 500MB, and iPhoto can't cope when opening and closing.

    Although removing the MakerNote data from the photos is possible without
    otherwise changing the exif data, I don't as yet know if a general
    method will work while retaining the additional iPhoto metadata you may
    have added.

    > As to "burying photos in its own directory structure," well, they've
    > got to be copied SOMEWHERE from your camera, might as well let iPhoto
    > manage them -- it does a better job than you can.


    As someone who only got back into taking photographs at all when digital
    cameras got popular and cheap, I love the organisation of iPhoto.
    Storing by date is just as easy for me as anything else I can think of,
    and it keys nicely to my trip notes of the time and date I was in which
    location (I just wish I could add GPS readings easily). Plus with
    Spotlight, my iPhoto keywords can be used to make Smart Folders of
    photos. For that matter, Spotlight lets me pull out only photos taken
    with a particular camera, photos taken with various camera settings and
    all sorts of stuff like that I'd never imagined being able to get at
    previously.

    For an amateur, iPhoto has been a boon, despite it sometimes acting as
    if it is written by someone from another planet.

    --
    http://www.ericlindsay.com
    Eric Lindsay, Oct 20, 2005
    #12
  13. In article <>, Randy
    Howard <> wrote:

    > > As to "burying photos in its own directory structure," well, they've
    > > got to be copied SOMEWHERE from your camera, might as well let iPhoto
    > > manage them -- it does a better job than you can.

    >
    > I disagree. More importantly, it makes multiple copies (without
    > asking you), making it very difficult to keep track of which
    > version has your edits in it, and very difficult to get photos
    > back out of it once you give up on it.


    It's easy to keep track of which version has your edits in it -- it's
    the one that opens when you double-click it in iPhoto.

    Getting the files out is fairly painless, just select all and drag to
    whatever folder you want them in (by album if you like).

    --
    Jerry Kindall, Seattle, WA <http://www.jerrykindall.com/>

    Send only plain text messages under 32K to the Reply-To address.
    This mailbox is filtered aggressively to thwart spam and viruses.
    Jerry Kindall, Oct 21, 2005
    #13
  14. Michelle Steiner

    Guest

    srm wrote:
    [snip]
    > I think the point is that it's not a RAW converter. With CS2/Bridge, you
    > can't do all that much with the file until you convert it from RAW to
    > another format. With Aperture, Apple has designed the entire workflow
    > around the RAW file - so it never actually gets converted until you have
    > to output it or send it somewhere. As all the changes are
    > non-destructive, you can go back and tweak any changes you've made based
    > on the original raw data. It looks an interesting idea, however...

    [snip]

    I disagree that with CS2/Bridge you can't do all that much the file
    until you convert it. (I accept that Aperture has some good things I
    would like to see in Bridge+ACR).

    Look down the right hand side of:
    http://www.apple.com/aperture/process/

    Yes, I would like red-eye, spot, and patch. But I appear to have just
    about all the rest in ACR 3.2. Plus curves, lens aberation correction,
    and camera calibration. (All non-destructive). Nowadays, I typically do
    my first A4 test print without doing any per-image work in Photoshop.
    If only I can find a way of printing straight from Bridge+ACR...
    (Perhaps I can?)

    Aperture, and perhaps lightcrafts' LightZone, are good pointers to
    future non-destructive raw editing. But I really like the ability to
    keep all my extra metadata, and the ACR settings, in my DNG files
    instead of elsewhere.

    I would like a superset of Bridge+ACR and Aperture - running on
    Windows!

    --
    Barry Pearson
    http://www.barry.pearson.name/photography/
    http://www.birdsandanimals.info/
    , Oct 21, 2005
    #14
  15. Michelle Steiner

    Annika1980 Guest

    I think the point is that it's not a RAW converter. With CS2/Bridge,
    you
    can't do all that much with the file until you convert it from RAW to
    another format. With Aperture, Apple has designed the entire workflow
    around the RAW file - so it never actually gets converted until you
    have
    to output it or send it somewhere. As all the changes are
    non-destructive, you can go back and tweak any changes you've made
    based
    on the original raw data. It looks an interesting idea, however...
    ====================

    I believe you can do the same thing in Nikon Capture by saving the NEF
    file. Also, I believe the latest ACR can save the adjustments into the
    original file. Both of these are non-destructive since the picture
    data isn't being changed, only the feature set that accompanies it.
    Kind of like changing the Table of Contents or the Index without
    changing the book itself.

    Also, just about any editing can be done in Photoshop
    non-destructively. It's called "layers."

    But I'm glad for Apple's latest release, even though I'll never use it.
    Anything that will make Photoshop and the other RAW converters take
    notice can only be a good thing. Competition is cool.
    Annika1980, Oct 21, 2005
    #15
  16. Michelle Steiner

    srm Guest

    Annika1980 wrote:

    > Also, just about any editing can be done in Photoshop
    > non-destructively. It's called "layers."


    Not on RAW images. That said, if you want to go beyond Aperture's basic
    set of image manipulation features, you're going to have to convert to
    something like PSD or Tiff anyway, to do that work in PS.
    srm, Oct 21, 2005
    #16
  17. Annika1980 wrote:
    [snip]
    > I believe you can do the same thing in Nikon Capture by saving the NEF
    > file. Also, I believe the latest ACR can save the adjustments into the
    > original file. Both of these are non-destructive since the picture
    > data isn't being changed, only the feature set that accompanies it.
    > Kind of like changing the Table of Contents or the Index without
    > changing the book itself.

    [snip]

    True, except for a detail:

    Yes, Nikon Capture can save settings to a NEF. Yes, ACR can save
    settings - *but only to a DNG*. It wouldn't update a NEF, etc.

    These raw converters are building up metadata that describes the
    settings being made (plus other things like copyright, etc, in the case
    of ACR). If they understand the format of the raw file sufficiently,
    they may provide the option of saving the settings to the raw file.
    Otherwise they save it elsewhere. Nikon understands NEF, and Adobe
    understands DNG. In principle, Apple & Aperture (or anyone else) could
    write back to DNGs where that is the raw format, because the format is
    documented. (DNG for the file, XMP for the metadata) They appear to
    have chosen not to.

    --
    Barry Pearson
    http://www.barry.pearson.name/photography/
    http://www.birdsandanimals.info/
    Barry Pearson, Oct 22, 2005
    #17
  18. In comp.sys.mac.system Annika1980 <> wrote:
    >
    > Also, just about any editing can be done in Photoshop
    > non-destructively. It's called "layers."


    Well even Photoshop doesn't do what I would really like, which would be
    to have a kind of object-based editing model. So you could have a range
    of objects and parameters applied to them, non-destructively of course.
    Filters shouldn't alter the original, but just provide different lenses
    for it. This would be much more versatile than simple layering.

    Photoshop has added some functionality like this, but it's not there yet.

    --
    / http://www.fishpool.com/~setok/
    Kristoffer Lawson, Oct 22, 2005
    #18
  19. Michelle Steiner

    David Field Guest

    Hunt <> wrote:

    <Much selective snippage>

    > MAC'ophile
    > hyping
    > pimping
    > MAC dens


    I sense much dislike of Apple and any announcement that comes out from
    the company. What happened? Did Steve Jobs rape your kitten or
    something?
    David Field, Oct 23, 2005
    #19
  20. Kristoffer Lawson wrote:
    [snip]
    > Well even Photoshop doesn't do what I would really like, which would be
    > to have a kind of object-based editing model. So you could have a range
    > of objects and parameters applied to them, non-destructively of course.
    > Filters shouldn't alter the original, but just provide different lenses
    > for it. This would be much more versatile than simple layering.

    [snip]

    You are right, of course! I've just addressed this elsewhere. I'll
    repeat some of what I said:

    Here are two "paradigms" for holding photo-edits here. One is to hold
    "instructions", the other is to hold "results".
    [snip]
    Once it is the instructions that are saved, there are some super
    possibilities. Think about the way that lots of HTML web pages can all
    use a single CSS file as their style sheet. Change that CSS, and all of
    those pages change their rendition without changing their data. Imagine
    lots of image all refering to a single instance (not multiple copies)
    of metadata. Edit one of those images, that metadata changes, and all
    of the images change simultaneously. This is the sort of thing that is
    becoming necessary when handling 100s of raw images at a time. With
    ACR, and probably with Aperture at the moment, you have to apply the
    change to every image, perhaps by some sort of copying operation. But,
    in future, by sharing metadata, changing one bit of data would change
    them all. All the computer science concepts of OO, type hierarchies,
    and inheritance, could be used to make the workflow easier.

    --
    Barry Pearson
    http://www.barry.pearson.name/photography/
    http://www.birdsandanimals.info/
    Barry Pearson, Oct 23, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Ramon F Herrera

    The latest Cisco competitor

    Ramon F Herrera, Jun 16, 2004, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    2,789
    Josh T
    Jun 17, 2004
  2. Beer Goggles
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,247
    Beer Goggles
    Jul 29, 2003
  3. Sidknee

    Vonage or competitor

    Sidknee, Feb 13, 2006, in forum: UK VOIP
    Replies:
    35
    Views:
    1,494
    Niko Patera
    Feb 17, 2006
  4. NonDisputandum.com

    AdAware includes its competitor in it's database

    NonDisputandum.com, Jun 1, 2004, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    582
    NonDisputandum.com
    Jun 8, 2004
  5. Karen Hill

    Apple releases Photoshop killer: Aperture. Where's GIMP?

    Karen Hill, Oct 19, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    59
    Views:
    1,307
    CRCoupons.com
    Nov 3, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page