Has Anyone Here Switched From Aperture?
I'm curious as to your findings about how easy the transition was and if you've found any key missing features.
Are you as happy (or happier) with C1 Pro as you were with Aperture?
Bob
Are you as happy (or happier) with C1 Pro as you were with Aperture?
Bob
0
-
To me Aperture and CO7 are different type of products.
CO7 to me a RAW converter only, need to take the TIFF output into some other editor to do any kind of work, then re-import the TIFF if you want to keep everything together. CO7, will not read PSD files, or even TIFFs with layers. (I had a Tiff I had left a extra channel in the TIFF, took forever to figure out why CO7 would not see it and let me re-import it.) CO7 does not support an old Leaf 22Wi back raw format, so I need to convert to DNG first, while Aperture does support the file format.
Aperture is more feature complete, it handles everything, from doing the RAW conversion, using Aperture Effects, to handling plug-ins and round trips to PS. (It will handle PSD files, and TIFFs) My only complaint is that it does not handle Sigma cameras, but neither does CO7.
I don't shoot tethered so can not speak of the ability of either on this feature.
I started looking at CO6, and did not like the sessions, gave up on CO6 really quick. (Sorry been using Catalogs, for years and did not like how sessions worked.)
Looked at C07, (7.0 crashed so much, hated it. 7.0.1 fixed most of the crashes and started to use it more, 7.0.2 a little better. CO7.1 now is going backwards and is sometimes hanging or crashing on exit.)
I am now using 7.1, but starting to think of going back to Aperture, the amount of things that you can do in Aperture is far superior to CO7. I do think that CO7 has a better RAW converter, and a few extra nice features. But with only 10 layers for adjustments and not everything can be used on a layer (i.e only Exposure, Color Editor, Sharpening, moire and Clarity). I never understand why Levels or Curves cannot be used on a layer. While Aperture allows most Adjustments to be used up to 6 times). Have not hit the limit but someone on the forum said that the spot/dust removal tool had a limit of 100 spots. Add Keywords to 1 picture then do a copy to a bunch of others, Filter display only shows that you added to the first image, you have to quit and restart for it to see them on the others.
Importing images is SOOOOOOO slow on CO7, a directory with say 500 pictures takes what seems like forever (5 to 10 min) to even get to the point where you can say import all. Aperture will do the same directory in 20 or so seconds. And if you have previously imported files from that directory only show new items, CO7 shows you everything. (I am told that if you say import all it will not import duplicates, but I have never taken the chance, I go through and just select the new ones)
So final verdict: If you want to replace Camera-Raw in Photoshop use CO7. If want to do much more than that I would stay with Aperture.
I hope others will shed some better light on CO7, I do like it but it does have some really bad limitations.
Robert0 -
Thanks for the detailed answer.
My interest in C1 vs Aperture is that at version 7, C1 has added DAM features to bring it more in line with Aperture's workflow. Also, C1 has lens corrections and better noise reduction - both important features Aperture lacks.
Aperture appears to be the more mature product. But C1 may be the up-and-commer here, so I want to keep track of it's development and how others are finding it. Especially those who have used Aperture in the past.
Many are leaving Aperture due to uncertainty about its future, lack of RAW format support (particularly for digital back and Fuji X-Trans), and missing features (such as lens correction).0 -
[quote="BobRockefeller" wrote:
... Aperture appears to be the more mature product. ...
The question always is: more mature in what?
If you mean the cataloging side, then you're correct, CO7 is in its infancy. If you mean RAW converter and tethered capture program, then it's certainly out of infancy, actually considered really mature by many. I think this is also what PhaseoneUser55657 means (but i can't speak for him/her).0 -
[quote="HCS" wrote:
[quote="BobRockefeller" wrote:
... Aperture appears to be the more mature product. ...
The question always is: more mature in what?
If you mean the cataloging side, then you're correct, CO7 is in its infancy. If you mean RAW converter and tethered capture program, then it's certainly out of infancy, actually considered really mature by many. I think this is also what PhaseoneUser55657 means (but i can't speak for him/her).
Yes. C1's RAW capabilities are very mature and strong. It's the little things, the polish, that Apple does so well and that C1 needs to grow towards.
Things like some dialogs are black, some are Apple standard. You can't create custom metadata or custom metadata views.
But I don't intend, or want, to be negative at all. C1 is very, very good and if they add Olympus glass profiles before Aperture even adds lens profiles at all, I will probably make the switch. And that's the root of my post. I want to learn from any others who have already made that switch.0 -
You're certainly most welcome to do that, learn. I'm still learning as well. I am using Media Pro for asset management though, it carries more DAM tools.
Strangely enough, i like the separation better. I was coming from Bibble Pro (now Aftershot), which had integrated the dam and raw processing and did this very well. I liked it very much, even though also it was (still is) in its infancy dam wise.
But, while CO7 is my main raw processor, i use many others depending on the task or state of the raw file (Photo Ninja, Photivo, etc.)
It wasn't my intention to come across harsh in my earlier reply.0 -
Bob
I can't say that I have switched to C1 from Aperture, but I am definitely using both at the moment.
As a Raw convertor C1 is better IMHO than Aperture 3. If I carry out a blind test of prints of the same image developed in both the C1 image is invariably preferred. I also find it a bit faster on a lagging edge MacBook compared to Aperture.
As a DAM, there is no comparison: Aperture is a lot more mature and easy to use. However, there are some nice things about C1 catalogues (having more than one open at a time is one, being able to carry out some image edits on off line images is another). I have flirted with Media Pro as a DAM as it integrates better with C1 than Aperture does, but although there are lots of things that are good (the drag and drop addition of hierarchical metadata is a big time saver), it is - for me - still unreliable and slow. Aperture is a lot faster.
The ideal answer would seem to be to use A3 as a DAM and convertor of non-critical images. One way round I have tried - it works, but is a bit clunky - is to adapt an automator action in this post: . One advantage of this is that you can output top quality jpegs rather than tiffs, with the consequent saving in disk space.
Another option would be to look at PhotoNinja, which has an explicit way of integrating with Aperture. For me, however, the colours in C1 are just better.
Andrew0
Post is closed for comments.
Comments
6 comments