Erwerbt Aperture von Apple

[Christiano]

Könnt Ihr Aperture von Apple übernehmen und weiterpflegen?

[coranda]

Gute Idee aber würde Apple zusammenarbeiten?  Ich denke nicht.

[Petar Petrenko]

Maybe it's better to ask Affinity if they plan to add Aperture/Lightroom capabilities to Photo?

[coranda]

True, Petar, but I think that's a long way down the track.  I also don't think Serif have the spare person-power to take on a project like Aperture nor the capital to pay the exorbitant price that I expect Apple would ask to hand over the technology.

 

To be honest, I don't think Apple would sell at any price because, even after a sale, future versions of Aperture would still have some association with the Apple brand in the market and I can't see Apple letting another company influence the perception of their brand.

[Petar Petrenko]

And what is so special in Aperture that Photo doesn't have?

[coranda]

Aperture is also a database that allows additional metadata to be added to images and for images to be selected and sorted on that metadata.  AP is a powerful photo editing system but it's image cataloguing capabilities are primitive at best.

 

There are also those (Guy Gowan for example) who argue that Aperture has perhaps the purest, cleanest RAW conversion.

[Habakuk]

Don't forget the possibility to have multiple versions, e.g. variations of RAW developments, non-destructive editing, IPTC-Data (like copyright data, which Apple in their mind blowing stupidity killed in Photo) and and and... Photo is a neat successor to iPhoto, but it cannot be compared to Aperture in any serious way. So, the dream to have a capable team like the Affinity Photo creators taking over what Apple mindlessly killed is making me melt. 

 

If I want to switch from Aperture & PS CS6 to AP, I do miss some of the most crucial things for my personally beloved way to handle many photos and manage them in a process that supports creative photography. Multiple versions held as stacks, tagging, project management, (really) smart folders, being able to edit layered PSD files and save them back as layered PSD files and and and...

[coranda]

All valid points Habakuk, but my, perhaps jaundiced, view is that Apple is not a technology seller.  It either develops it or it tries to kill it.  If Apple doesn't want to develop Aperture I can't see them letting someone else have it.  I may be wrong (I hope I am) but I think they see the future of photography as over-processed jpegs in the cloud and don't want to waste development time on software that can't run on an iPad.

 

Arguably, the current state of Logic Pro X and Final Cut X suggests otherwise, so perhaps I am wrong.  But. deep down, I believe Apple judges the value of its software by how much hardware it helps them sell.  I suspect their market research lead them to believe that very few people were ditching Windows for OS X because they wanted to use Aperture and so they judged Aperture to be a net financial loss.

 

If they let someone else have Aperture and they turned it into a success, causing the press to criticise Apple for abandoning it, (or even worse, develop it for Windows) then I don't think Apple management would be happy.

[JoJu]

I don't think anything like Aperture can be easily ported to Windows. The RAW camera update brings even after Aperture's dead the ability to handle RAW files to each app on a Mac - nothing like that on Windows side. Also, using smart folders: copied by Adobe (in Lightroom and a crappy little bit in Bridge) and a bit by Phase One, too, but it leaves me sobbering in grief what a mess they created. I am also a (workday) windows user, but asking some Windows Lightroom users if they use smart folders always leads to another question: "And for what should I do so? I thought very deep about my folder structures and I find each photo within a minute! Okay, within an hour! But no longer than a day, I promise..."  :blink: 

 

Those kind of management concepts haven't arrived on Windows, users are taught to think in folders. Even if it's only one file in it... To me, the asset management is nothing I want to do to get more work. It's something, what helps me finding my files. Also the ones I haven't had in mind when I tagged them.

 

Apple don't needs to sell Aperture and allow Affinity to use the name. The code would be enough and a new name with some long awaited improvements. Some of them I already see in Affinity, so I wonder if there's a need to start from scratch (because Aperture IS an old app) or to use an already existing project. I don't think I'm the only one missing Aperture. And Apple was awarding Affinity, remember? So, if anybody has a possible access to Aperture's code...

 

@Coranda: you said "If they let someone else have Aperture and they turned it into a success, causing the press to criticise Apple for abandoning it, (or even worse, develop it for Windows) then I don't think Apple management would be happy."

 

Actually I don't know if any people of Apple's management used Aperture regularly and I don't think, they care much about another bad headline. Did the one about workers suicide cost a lot sales?  ;) 

[JasperD]

Affinity Photo is positioned as competitor to Photoshop if I´m not mistaking too much, that´s very different.

I wouldn´t like to see it become an Aperture look alike: the library alone will make me stop using it. I have Aperture, stopped using it for the same reason - one week before Apple´s announcement of it not getting future enhancements and support anymore, so that had nothing to do with it.

[JoJu]

I don't want APh becoming Aperture - it's already fine the way it is. I just wanted to check the possibility wether Affinity Serif could make - why not - a "better Aperture". Some like the library - I'm pretty happy with it because I don't need to create one. Others hate them, alright, my request was not for those hating libraries ;)

[JasperD]

I am between the ´haters´ indeed. I wasn´t about two years ago though, in fact have been using Aperture since release 2 and even Lightroom in between because of an unsupported camera at the time. However, as far as Aperture is concerned, I´d rather have Affinity concentrate on their actual product efforts and not spread thin on something else. For photography that is Affinity Photo. So between all other things to wish for - some are real deal breakers already - I´d rather see them expanding AP with something like Bridge to keep in line with the shown intentions.

 

Who am I however? Whatever they do with it, I´ll have no say in it anyway. 

[csp]

imho i hope affinity stays away from a catalog/library based software.  i was a great supporter of aperture and a user from day one but i have promised  myself - never ever will i use such software again.   after evaluating my real needs  i found that a good organized folder structure and a fast  image browser is all what is necessary to set up a DAM workflow.  now i have an open system and can access, organize  and search my files with every software i want. as a benefit i have a workflow which is not only faster but free of any library file corruption issues i had seen with LR and aperture.   but i would love to see affinity come up with a tool like photomechanic for extreme fast browsing, importing, organizing, renaming and batch processing of raw files.

[billtils]

csp, I totally agree - in principle at any rate!   But - and it's a BIG "but" - replicating the structure of my large Aperture library elsewhere is nightmare inducing, and that's before I get to the task of what to do with originals and versions.  However, something based on your last suggestion would be very nice to have!

[JoJu]

I don't want to climb into the old discussion about closed libraries vs. open folder structures. And as you already pointed out, JasperD, who are we to make Affinity staff work?

 

For the people with the hang to their own holy folder structures, I understand the "advantage" of having a transparent structure and also the anxiety against a black box. I think, I made myself clear I don't want to get the Aperture functions into Affinity photo as it wouldn't improve speed. However, I don't feel Aperture the way of a black box - it takes care about all structures and helps me finding my pictures better than on the LAN drives in the office I'm working in. And there we use Bridge, which is absolutely horrible and diskspace consuming. Folder structures have the advantage of being stable and reliable. And the disadvantage there's nothing as inflexible to organize pictures in. So, for the folder structure guys there's an easy way not to bother with a database structured DAM: Just don't buy it.

 

Aperture took me a while to get used to after I bought it 5 years ago. I had to learn about what is what and what to do with it. There are lots of things which could be improved in Aperture - or, which could be done better with another start from scratch. I don't want necessarily a closed library, but I want a performing database, a fast browser and face detection. Keywords could be done better although I doubt I would love to sit hours for tagging pictures with keywords. I think there are better ways to categorize.

 

Affinity Photo already has a RAW converter which worked pretty well at some RAWs I tried. I'd find it pretty cool having a browser in which I can make easy edits in each organisation I'm in, be it "All photos", a project, an album, a smart album, a slide-show without starting an external module. And if I need more, I hand it over to Affinity photo. Also, I prefer non-destructive changes of my pictures. Affinity already separated Photo into 4 modules - normal editor, liquify, converter and exporter. There's also a media browser - most of Aperture is already there, most of the modules will become improved. I thought I like Aperture because it's one app for everything I normally do with my pictures. But I really like it because there are no seams between the different working regions.

 

Like billtils I do have huge libraries and I don't want to reorganize all of 'em. I'm not married to Aperture, it's just my best (known) way to organize my stuff. If I can transfer those structures to something else with no hassle and if this "something else" is as easy to use (meaning, no long days in front of YouTube tutorials), I'm in.

[JasperD]

Well, let me say just this: I don´t see Bridge taking huge disk space from just folder structures. I don´t even need it to create those folders. However, for what the Aperture libraries are concerned, it really is a big black box, one that might become useless sooner than we imagine - I think it´s just a matter of time before Aperture and iPhoto get fully dropped and possibly not be compliant with system requirements for OS X.

 

My Aperture library contains ´only´ about 25,000 images, all RAWs referenced, so it´s not a major concern for me: I already have the disk structures, just not all of the processing yet. I´m creating them now though, slowly.

 

Then again, if Affinity would like to take over Aperture, or take it into support, or make whatever copycat, I certainly will not even try to stop them. I just hope they will not spend any AP and AD development resources on it while there is still so much to do there; not even mentioning Publisher already in the pipeline for next year. 

[JoJu]

I fully agree, first things first. I host around 10 libs, the main one with 30.000 pictures. Certainly I don't think I would miss more than a couple hundred which I find really okay. So in a way, if I'd not be too lazy I could just delete 90%, but which to keep?

[patarok]

no, better not buy Aperture... Just reverse engineer Darktable or collaborate with those guys...

Maybe they could port Affinity Photo and Affinity Designer to Linux as a pay-for application just like Corel did with Aftershot.

 

forget about aperture and lightroom. Darktable is the real deal.... download it and use it.... mostly it works. but its a shame that sometimes.. yah. i dunno what to say... sometimes it gets buggy. But hey! it is for free... But the sheer load of functionality really impresses me a lot.

And if you get it up and running and it doesn't mess with your raw files because of some update in the raw file structure of your camera producer or some update of the app itself where something went wrong. Peeps, I tell ya. This is a mind-blowing killer application.

Honestly... i don't think that lightroom does offer the half that darktable does... There are so many options. Overlays, adjustment layers, masks on adjustments.... And and and... 

This program is a beast.... if you are on a mac you can try it without a hustle... Just install it from the dmg. And get it running.

(Maybe you have to play a bit around with the GUI in first so the fonts are not too small et cetera.)

If the wheels are turning and you are satisfied just don't update. Or try the updated version in a separate account and when you know it plays well with your SetUp than get it rocking. You may think... "Oh no, i already tried RAW-Therapee" and its the same for you as with Gimp, (that it just feels weird...) forget that. Just try "Darktable". IMHO this RAW-converter plays some leagues above all the others...

 

Affinity/Serif should just reverse-engineer Darktable that would be the Deal...

[JoJu]

Drugs?  :blink:

 

  :D

 

If darktable is already a beast, keep on using it. Pity, it's only RAW converter. That¨s whats in Affinity Photo already. I think one darktable is enough. And a beast that's "mostly works" sounds extremely attractive. Mostly. ;)

[PhotoPete]

Well, not an Aperture replacement and currently doesn't even have support for Affinity Photo, simply because Affinity Photo currently offers no way to store it's development parameters in a sidecar file.

But those few ongoing Aperture users in this thread might have a look at apHUB (www.aphub.de). I made it exactly for that reason, to stick with Aperture's DAM (as it is still the best IMO) but use whatever RAW processors / editor I want.

In case Affinity adds sidecar files to store edits, I'd add Affinity Photo support likely within a few days, as I own it as well and like it.

 

Pete

[Habakuk]

Aperture Library is in no way a black box, if you like folders. You can easily look into the folder structure, but you're not meant to mix shuffling pics in those folders and then go back using Aperture as a picture database manager. Aperture also can manage your photos in normal, easily accessible structures, but most people will mess up that so every database will have to break because things were moved manually.

 

My main point was about managing versions of RAW files. Differently developed versions, all neatly hold together in stacks, along with my final edits as PSD files. I would love to see that in AP. But to have a decent workflow, I would want to keep the raw files organized, have AP develop the RAWs, let me keep various versions of a photo (RAW, RAW development version A,B,C... and externally edited PSDs and TIFFs. I can do that manually. But then, I can also still code in assembler and write webages with a texteditor. It's just no longer the most efficient and powerful way. ;-)

 

Thanks for the hint about aphub. I'll have a look, Pete. Since Apple decided to kill Aperture and Photos will probably never be something similar in terms of serious version management etc., I'd love to see someone else as capable as the AP team to find clever ways to address the issues - through integration of AP in other management solutions or to provide nondestructive editing and version management along with some ways to organize pictures.

[JoJu]

Well, not an Aperture replacement and currently doesn't even have support for Affinity Photo, simply because Affinity Photo currently offers no way to store it's development parameters in a sidecar file.

But those few ongoing Aperture users in this thread might have a look at apHUB (www.aphub.de). I made it exactly for that reason, to stick with Aperture's DAM (as it is still the best IMO) but use whatever RAW processors / editor I want.

In case Affinity adds sidecar files to store edits, I'd add Affinity Photo support likely within a few days, as I own it as well and like it.

 

Pete

Pete, I had a look into apHUB. But it's relying on a working Aperture and since Apple decided to bury it, I don't see much of a future for Aperture based tools. My (and some others) concern is not to choose an RAW converter and manage files in Aperture - at some day all those structures and organizations and libraries of Aperture will become an infamous example of Apple's ignorance. But that doesn't help and they are still swallowing money and increasing their cash flow.

 

What I want is a DAM very close to Aperture's functions, with basic edit functions like Aperture (be it included or as AP workflow) and a non-destructive workflow. I like the way Aperture is organizing libraries and don't want to make my own structures of folders.

 

In another thread a member pointed out Lyn as a fast media browser. It's not what I had in mind, but it's the easiest way to browse existing Aperture Libraries. And I had no idea of it's existence :unsure:  But now I do and will buy it as well just to keep them going. I support nearly every attempt of making Aperture users happy again.  ^_^

[anon1]

i would love to see affinity come up with a tool like photomechanic for extreme fast browsing, importing, organizing, renaming and batch processing of raw files.

 

Yes that´s what I think is so true!

 

And IMO there could be library functionality added later on if they have some neat ideas for it.