
Aperture does not, nor did Apple advertise it to, be a replacement for Photoshop! Photoshop is the Emporor God of Pixel-oriented image editors (with a bit of object-oriented graphics thrown in). Giving the program a negative review for it not replacing Photoshop makes about as much sense as giving it a negative review for it not being a sports car! That being said, as a photographer, I end up opening all of my Canon Mark II ds 17 megabyte files in Photoshop to do minor tweeks and adjustments. You have to look at the whole, full resolution file in order to pick your good shots. So when deciding whether this is a good product (or for understanding the rather bizarre negative reviews that really miss the point) try opening 250 files from a photoshoot to do your first or second pass review using Photoshop and Adobe Camera Raw . . . Not only does it take many hours, it takes hours of hands-on time. There is not a way to do this as batch processing because you have to make some minor decisions on how to open the files and it leaves 250 45 megabyte (or so) Photoshop files open at once. (Opening into Photoshop roughly triples the file size or so.)
I have a Dual Processor G5 with a new graphics card (more on this later) and 6 (yes 6!) gigs of memory. No way . . . the program will always crash with that many files open of that size, and there really is not way to do the kind of comparisons you want to do in order to decide which images you want to go ahead and print (or get ready for on-line resizing and optiminzation (an Image Read/Photoshop job for sure), composite, or any number of other things.
In addition, on a per file comparison, Aperture imports a single one of my large Canon Mark II files about 10 times faster than Adobe's camera raw. I don't know where the reviewers suggesting Aperture is slow are coming from, they cannot be comparing the import to Adobe's Camera Raw. And Camera Raw (like Aperture's Import function) is just plain wonderful! For example, it just about eliminates any White Balance issues . . . it just almost always "nails" a neutral whitebalance (or easily lets you leave it as is or warm it up, or cool it down as you open the file. Has saved me much time fussing with skin tones.
Aperture makes makes opening and comparing 250 large files in an hour doable. Rather than thinking of it as iPhoto on steroids, it is closer to say it is CS 2's Adobe Brdige on steroids, plus a bunch of extras . . . The interface is related to Apple's other pro applications like Soundtrack or Final Cut. iPhoto is an application for consumer level digital photography. Adobe has another program (Light Table) in late stage beta testing that looks like it will go toe to toe with Aperture. Aperture is also not a full digital asset management program, but if you are only working in photography, with some tweaks to your work flow and archiving system, you probably won't need one. Bridge--for photography--also is not needed.
About the file structure . . . The Aperture Library is the correlary to old-school negatives. This is one reason the file structure fixed and any adjustments are not made to the imported files. If you screw up your edits, you still have the original files. When I have a really good image (I am principally an art photographer), I may end up with five or six different Photoshop versions for different print sizes, printers, compositing and the like. Aperture (when I really get it integrated into my workflow) should greatly reduce the number of versions of files that I have, and imposes a structure helpful in keeping track and searching through files. When I have "lost" a file from a couple of years back, I have usually been able to find it with a couple of quick Boolean searches, without resorting to increasingly lengthy and bizarre file naming and path (folder) structures. Aperture really lived up to Apple's claims in this regards. Much better than Adobe's Bridge on this. Much, much, much better.
Aperture not allowing changes to the raw image files is similar to using an "Adjustment Layer" you toggle on and off on a Photoshop file. Limiting the types of file structure in the Aperture Library allowed the programmer magicians to make the thing work. Frankly, when looking at the advertisements Apple had, I wondered how much of this was hype . . . by forcing a specifc file sturcture in the library (aka database of raw images) the Apple guys were able to come up with a way to rapidly push around lots of pixels in and out of memory and on to and around the screen, with incredible speeds. If you are not working with lots of big files (if for example, you can use iPhoto without the program crashing), Aperture is not for you, it would be a waste of your time to learn the program (not trivial) and money.
About the system requirements: The program is hardware dependent. I did not imagine my one year old G5 dual processor tower with lots of memory, would have a problem running the program. However, I had to buy a new $300 graphics card, something I figured I didn't really need since I don't play lots of real time animated computer games. Or at least I thought I would be able to check the program out before I decided if it was worth it to buy a new graphics card. Forget it, you need one of the new graphics cards listed: the program will not even start up with an card that is two years old. Apple does not sell (or at least not many) graphics cards, except for the ones that come as original equipment with a Mac, so they have no vested interest in artificially pushing folks to buy new cards (from other manufacturers). Aperture apparently pushes lots and lots of tasks on to the graphics card in order to make all the magic work. Photoshop does not do this, so in that sense (in terms of managing your image files by inspecting them), Aperture makes much more efficient use of the latest and greatest equipment (than Adobe Bridge).
I also have a Powerbook 17" G4 that is about six months old. Yes it runs Aperture, but not really well. Sometimes it freezes on the Powerbook. I imagine that won't happen on the new Macbook Pro's with the dual core processors, but I haven't checked that out yet (and won't be in the near future . . .). Aperture also makes good use of my dual display set-up. I have a 23 inch Cinema Display (the older ADC ones) with a second 19" digital Nec flat panel. I keep the images on the Cinema Display (has better color calibration), and the other stuff and program windows (so I can surf while waiting for the library to load) on the NEC panel. Same (like lots of folks) when running Photoshop--Image on the large good Cinema Display, Palets and Dock on the Nec.)
Those are the good things, here are the things that are not quite there yet:
1) The Camera Raw importing function does not process quite as nicely as the Adobe Camera Raw. A really noisy low light image may not come out quite as nicely, so you might have to fix it a bit more using Photoshop. (It is only on the odd shots where this shows up, and they tend to be the kinds of shots where you almost always need to go use Photoshop anyway to clean up the noise or other oddities);
2) The basic set of Curves functions are pretty standard these days, Aperture should have 'em.
3) Photoshop's Camera Raw has a couple of additional importing function that Aperture does not have. There is only one I ever use though is the vignetting sliders. It is a quick way to "burn the corners" of your photographs and you can preview the effect before applying it. Burning the corners is often such an easy and good adjustment, this would be nice to have; and
4) Aperture should get with the standard for meta data. You might want to look at a file 20 years from now, with whatever program is around, so it will need to read the standard meta data (data about the image (time taken, date, size, photographer, equipment, etc. etc.) appropriately.
5) The integration with Photoshop (or some other standard editor) could be/should be, one key stroke.
A minor comment about the interface. Yep, I agree, I am kind of tired of the titanum-esque colors and current fonts on all of the pro applications. The functionality is elegant and powerful though. That it is standard across Apple Pro applications is a basic Apple design requirement, and has been since the LISA. Some of you whipersnappers don't remember the old days where every single program had a different interface for everything (like saving or printing). Apple upped the ante and by controlling the basic hardware and software, forced design standards on third parties that allow everyone (now) to open just about any program on any computer or operating system, and be able to find your way around. With the Pro applications, Apple has another level of standardization on the interface that speeds up the learning curve. What it is not is a Photoshop interface. At first I was disappointed in this since I've spent so many years learning Photoshop, but Aperture interface works better for what Aperture does (than trying to make it look on the surface like Photoshop).
Overall: I think this program will be stupendous for pros (or photo students) to work along with Photoshop, once a few fairly minor things are corrected. It is a professional program aimed at people who make their living with photography (or part of it), and is priced as such, not as a consumer product. (It is fun though, so I imagine many consumers will want to pay in learning curve time and money for it, but this will be the exception rather than the rule.) It will save me lots of time once I have fully integrated it into my work flow. It does have a significant learning curve. I only gave it four stars because of the minor issues I (and others) have identified; which I hope Apple will fix in the next major release (perhaps Aperture 1.5).Get more detail about
Apple Aperture 1.0 (Mac DVD) [Old Version].