Aperture 2.0 released!

[Martin_Doudoroff]

Big sigh of relief! Apple has abruptly sprung Aperture 2.0, and while it's far too early to determine to what extent they have assuaged their critics, it's clearly an attempt to broadly refine the product.

What's new overview
New features laundry list

The upgrade costs $99. The list price has been reduced to $199.

My brief read is that they are actually repositioning Aperture slightly as the "iPhoto Pro" everyone expected it to be in the first place.

Repeat after me: Competition is good. Competition is good. ...

[Jerry Skrocki]

Apple's recent update of OSX (10.5.2) added RAW support for the newer line of digital cameras. This support also ported over to iPhoto but the current version of Aperture 1.5.6 was left out in the cold.

It seems Apple is forcing current Aperture users wanting the latest RAW support to upgrade to Aperture 2.0.

Jerry

[AndrewRodney]

Reading the new features, a LOT sound like they are describing Lightroom 1.3!

"New tools include Recovery, used for pulling back "blown" highlights, Vibrancy, for boosting saturation selectively without messing up skin tones...Definition, which lets you add clarity to images using local contrast"

$99 upgrade? Way too much. At least until I see a demo version, I'm not sold

[Martin_Doudoroff]

Originally Posted by AndrewRodney

Reading the new features, a LOT sound like they are describing Lightroom 1.3!

$99 upgrade? Way too much. At least until I see a demo version, I'm not sold

You want a demo version? You're in luck! Here it is!

(Understand, Mr. Rodney, that I am in no way, shape, or form, endorsing or recommending this product, nor seeking to convince you or anyone else here of its value. In actuality, Aperture 2.0 may stink. I dunno. I am, however, very happy that the product exists and that it is trying to move forward.)

[Martin_Doudoroff]

Originally Posted by Jerry Skrocki

It seems Apple is forcing current Aperture users wanting the latest RAW support to upgrade to Aperture 2.0.

... and to upgrade to OS X 10.5, if they haven't already.

I haven't yet found a coherent explanation why users of Aperture 1.5 under Leopard don't automatically enjoy RAW support for the new cameras, since that support is supposedly available outside of Aperture 1.5 (e.g., the Finder) in OS X 10.5.2. There's an implication that Aperture 2.0 contains its own special sauce above and beyond the OS's RAW rendering service. Some allege that it's all just a conspiracy to squeeze more dollars from the poor customer.

Even if Apple could provide support for the newest cameras in Aperture 1.5, is it really wrong for them to tie the new support to Aperture 2.0? Adobe does this to an extent with Photoshop, don't they?

[Jerry Skrocki]

Originally Posted by Martin_Doudoroff

... and to upgrade to OS X 10.5, if they haven't already.

I haven't yet found a coherent explanation why users of Aperture 1.5 under Leopard don't automatically enjoy RAW support for the new cameras, since that support is supposedly available outside of Aperture 1.5 (e.g., the Finder) in OS X 10.5.2. There's an implication that Aperture 2.0 contains its own special sauce above and beyond the OS's RAW rendering service. Some allege that it's all just a conspiracy to squeeze more dollars from the poor customer.

Even if Apple could provide support for the newest cameras in Aperture 1.5, is it really wrong for them to tie the new support to Aperture 2.0? Adobe does this to an extent with Photoshop, don't they?

True about Adobe, but with the update of the OS to support RAW and porting this ability over to iPhoto and not Aperture makes you wonder.

After I did the initial 10.5.2 update, I successfully imported ten .CR2 images from my Canon G9 into Aperture 1.5.6. I was able to view these images. Today I checked for more Apple updates and two updates appeared. One was a graphic update and another I believe for iLife 08 application support. One of these updates seemed to disable the Aperture G9 RAW support that I was enjoying. When I opened Aperture I could no longer view the files. The same files that appeared with thumbnails and .CR2 now showed no image and unsupported image format.

Is this an attempt by Apple to force you to upgrade for the same support?

[Martin_Doudoroff]

Two part discussion of Aperture 2.0 at ApertureProfessional.com; discusses changes to the app and their implications.

Part 1
Part 2

Another nice write-up on how Aperture 2 has evolved is this one from Rob Galbraith.

I've been playing around with Aperture 2.0 off and on over the last 24 hours, and I'm most struck with by the better organization and presentation of the interface. In addition to lifting a couple features from Lightroom for image adjustment, the interface itself now exhibits more characteristics of both Lightroom and iPhoto '08. Less space is sacrificed to "administrative debris" (although there's still plenty room for improvement) and with three keys you can cycle through all the really important view configurations. Overall, the user interface is certainly more comfortable for me than past versions. The only area that seems a step backwards is the web gallery features: it seems Apple decided to throw out what they had going and drop in what is basically iPhoto '08s web gallery features that depend on .mac service.

[Pro Photo Store]

Visit the B&H Pro Photo Store for the best Gear Prices and regular specials!

Brilliant Color for any Digital SLR
White Balance Cap
The Pros Agree on ColorRight
What People Are Saying