Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 5th Dec 2005 21:02 UTC
"It saddens me to say that Aperture's innovations are only skin deep. If it could deliver on the promise of being both fast and produce flawless results, it would be the dream package. At this point it is an expensive and questionable alternative to Camera Raw, a free extension to Photoshop, and Adobe's Bridge which can batch produce better quality images in arguably less time. For $500 [EUR 425] (Photoshop itself retails for $750 [EUR 636]), there is no excuse not to be aware of professional needs like a high-quality sharpen tool, DNG exporting or more basic things like curves, a sampler tool for RGB pixel readings, or retention of EXIF data on output."
Thread beginning with comment 69199
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-06
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2005-11-14
He mentions it in passing but he was comparing an Adobe product that has been out since the stone age and has been patched to death to a 1.0 first iteration product. Of course it isn't going to be perfect. If you look at every major Apple software release, the 1.0 versions always have less features and are more buggy than later revisions. Apple will release a set of patches I am sure shortly and then if history tells us anything version 2.0 will come out sometime next year and be a major revision/upgrade that introduces a slew of new features and bug fixes. It will only get better from there. He has a point though in that this is not cheap software, but come on you got to compare Apples to Apples.