It would be nice to receive some input from shooters using both Aperture and Photoshop for their RAW still files?

I like Aperture but I have been using it for years.

Don't forget Lightroom from adobe as well:
photo management software | Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 3 (http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshoplightroom/?promoid=DJDWV)

I think you can download demos of both programs. They are very similar, it is really a question of what you get used to.

The thing about both these programs are that they really are aimed at the Photographer. They are very good at archiving and sorting. Also at least Aperture is way faster than Photoshop as you are working on proxies just the screen size and then nothing you do is destructive, it is very easy to save many different versions of a photo w/o actually having duplicates, it just stores your settings. It is really easy to view many photos at once and organize them on a virtual light table, creating stacks etc. It is like working with a bunch of transparencies on a light table.

You will still want to use PSD as well for comps etc. But these programs are great for photographers in my mind anyway. They are made for grading, retouching and archiving and also very good for doing presentations.

Aperture is very fast and easy for me. Lets me make the basic adjustments very quickly. It's also great at exporting various versions for clients.

Ben Ruffell (http://www.ruff.co.nz)

Thanks Olof,

Aperture looks nice and so does Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 3. I already own Adobe Creative Suite 3 Production Premium. So I think I will work with that for now, unless there is a very good reason to switch to Aperture. I will check if Photoshop Lightroom 3 can be added easily to PS?

Edit:
Looks like PS Lightroom 3 is a different program all together. Is this worth it or should I spend the time to work with RAW Canon 5D MKII stills in PS?

Lightroom rocks, and it also plays nice with Photoshop.

Hi Paul,

Like I said above, they really are different programs than PSD.

If you don't do a lot of volume of stills, they may not be worth it. But keeping stuff organized is important.

I also prefer the CC/grading in Aperture, but this is really a personal thing because I am used to it I think.

Aperture works great with PSD as well. It rountrips pretty seamlessly.

Thanks Bill, Olof,

There is a special now that has Lightroom 3 and PS 5 upgrade. Aperture is the same price as Lightroom.

Bill, my buddies who shoot stills for a living both use Lightroom and PS and swear by it. But as Olof says it is what you are use too using. They are both new to me so which ever I choose, I will be spending a bit of time on Lynda.com.

Olof I will be doing a lot of stills. Sorry I just missed your call. The sky just lit up at sunset so we went out to shoot a few stills to work with tomorrow.

Wow the new version II EF L 2.8 16-35 is amazing lens on the 5D.

With a few hours of research this morning I am leaning toward Aperture 3. It looks well thought out and easy to learn. Also the ability to make a timeline with my stills for time-lapse seems straight forward, plus loads of other features. I just like Mac based software it seems easier to use. I know Lightroom 3 works on a Mac but I find Adobe software not that easy to use.

Any other thoughts?

It's all what you get used to.
I use Aperture 3 and PS-cs5 as they have different strengths. For processing Raw, Aperture is really easy to use. I tend to pull out PS when there's detail work to do though.
My buddy uses LR and raves about it too. He also uses PS when serious editing is needed.

For organizing and batch processing large amounts of photos, I don't think you can go wrong with either Aperture or LR. Either way you will want PS though.

As for the Adobe learning curve, i think it's inherent in all their software. I was scared to dig into AE but finally did it and realized that once you get past a few UI things, you realize how powerful the software is and why the complex interfaces are needed. Found the same in AI, and several other parts of the suite I own.

Aperture was a breeze to learn. Can't speak for LR.

Thanks Robert the input is appreciated.

I do own PhotoShop 3 and will upgrade to 5.

Makes sense what you are use to is the way to go. I am leaning to Aperture 3.

Hi Paul,

I have both Aperture 3 and Lightroom, but prefer Aperture 3 and now use it exclusively.

To get started the Lynda.com "Aperture 3 Essential Training" by Derrick Story is excellent. Aperture 3 Tutorials | Essential Training (http://www.lynda.com/home/DisplayCourse.aspx?lpk2=59221)


cheers

Morton

Thanks Morton,

Appreciate one more vote for Aperture 3, and from some one who uses both.

I went through a few of the videos by Derrick Story this morning and liked what I was seeing. It has paid of for the last few years buying a yearly subscription to Lynda.com, a fantastic tool.

Just about to order Aperture and I have read a few reviews that say it is unstable. Most of those are Feb - Sept 2010.
Has the software been updated since then?
Is it now stable?
Can it go on the same machine as my FCS and not cause harm to my editing?

The latest version is 3.1 posted Oct. 20.

I haven't had any problems with it and have been using it every other day and I use it on the same machine as FCS .
Aperture 3.1 (http://support.apple.com/kb/DL1315)

cheers

Morton

Thanks Morton,

I thought there was an update that solved this problem, just wanted to make sure.

Paul, over the lifetime of Aperture there have been a few problems, with updaters and printing. Just as PSD, and others have had lots of problems.

I have not personally had any problems with Aperture for over a year. Like any Pro program, I am never the first to upgrade the OS or App, when things are stable.

Currently I run the latest Mac OS and Aperture, FCP, M100, Bitvice, CS5 in my three suites, as well as bunch of others like Toast and Squeeze (this is still on 5, works fine). Every thing is running perfectly with my ATTO Raids etc.

In my experience I wait to update anything for a few months unless a program requires the new OS. Then I test it on one system, usually on a new system drive that is a clone of the current system. If that works well I migrate the other suites as well. If not it is easy to go back.

Thanks Olof,

I am running Mac OS 10.5.8 and FCS 6.0.6. I have not felt a need to upgrade from these two and this is the main use for my Mac Pro. I will have to check and make sure Aperture 3.1 will run on this system with out a problem. Or I could do upgrades since I am between major edits.

Thanks everyone for the help. I purchased Aperture 3.0 today. Then did the Prokit 5.1 update to bring me to 3.1 for OS 10.5.8.

Tomorrow the learning curve starts with Lynda.com and importing a few RAW files.

Appreciate all the help here from; Olof, Morton, Robert, and Bill. I completed the Lynda.com 8 hr tutorial on Aperture 3.1 and I am very pleased with my purchase. I now only shoot full size RAW since it is sooo easy to work with the files. The results from the 5D MKII at full RAW are amazing and the results will soon be posted on my site with an the expanded part of my business with picture galleries.

Next to add the HDR plug-in on the apple site.

Any thoughts on plug-ins to speed up time-lapse into FC?

Look into Adobe Lightroom 3 - available in 64 bit. Excellent, and has excellent work flow features. Photoshop (I have CS4) is great for heavy manipulation of specific images, but not great for work flow. I use Lightroom 3 for the majority of RAW image work, and use Photoshop CS4 very infrequently. Lightroom 3 and CS4, both from Adobe, work well together.

Another great feature of Lightroom 3 is it is not destructive (your RAW files stay intact while Lightroom 3 keeps track of your manipulations, and you can export versions to TIFF and JPEG).

Look at it before deciding.

George I looked into Lightroom 3 and Aperture does everything I need that Lightroom does.

"Another great feature of Lightroom 3 is it is not destructive (your RAW files stay intact while Lightroom 3 keeps track of your manipulations, and you can export versions to TIFF and JPEG)."
Aperture 3.1 does all of this with ease. I see no advantage of Lightroom over Aperture, I thought I made it clear in my post I decided on Aperture over Lightroom for a lot of different reasons.

And Aperture works in 64bit with easy. You can go back to 32bit or only work in 64bit, it is the users choice.

My deep apologies..... I somehow missed the first page of comments.

My first name is Richard...........

Richard sorry about the name mix up. Appreciate you diving in to help.

I have added Photomatix software plug in and full versions for HDR and batch processing with time-lapse. Works great and highly recommended it for both. Go to www.HDRguru.com for a 15% discount and check out the details at Photomatix site here. HDR photo software & plugin for Lightroom, Aperture & Photoshop - Tone Mapping, Exposure Fusion & High Dynamic Range Imaging for photography (http://www.hdrsoft.com/)

Paul, I'd also give Capture One a try. It's the raw convertor I used for years as a stills photographer, and there's a free trial version on the net.

Thanks Luc,

I will check it out always nice to know what is on the market. The 5D MKII really is an amazing still camera.

I mention it especially because it is one of the best convertors on the market. It is designed by the same people who make the digital backs for Hasselblad, Phase one. And yes, that 5D mkII is a little marvel. Just finished correcting some 800 shots I made yesterday night during a concert, all at 1600 ISO. No noise whatsoever...

Luc it looks like good software and Phase One seems on their game.

1600 ISO and no noise? Wow that is nice to know I can push the camera that hard at night and have great pictures. So far the highest I have shot is 800 ISO.

Do you use Canon EF L glass?

As our main business is concert photography, with available light only, I always use 1600 ISO and it's perfect. My two best lenses for this kind of work are the 24-105 and the 70-200, both EF-L glass.

Only in the case of severe underexposure, where I have to crank up the pic to salvage it, noise comes up. I then use Noiseware Pro to get rid of it. But in 90% of the cases, I can do without any noise reduction software. Attached is a pic of the wonderful Grace Jone, taken with the 5D mkII during her performance in 'The night of the Proms' in Antwerp.

Nice shot Luc,

Just look at the detail in her hair. I have never see Grace Jone, (is it JONES?) live, was it a good show? Must be fun going to all the live shows. We go to as many local live shows as possible, both being musicians. I also do sound for a local group.

Great to know I can use 1600 ISO I will not hesitate. Must be tough at times if you need to crank up the shutter while at 1600 ISO? Do you have a custom setting that keeps you in the range? All I use is the three custom settings at full RAW.

I do not have the 24-105 but am looking at the 24-70 EF L. Currently I have the EF16-35L f/2.8 II, and EF70-200L f/2.8 IS II and love both of them. The 24-70 would fill the gap nicely. Also have on order the new 2x adapter III. This will be great on the 70-200 while outside when I need the reach.

Aperture over photoshop at the moment for one very simple reason. Unless you keep paying the Adobe tax and updating Photoshop it won't be long before you buy a new camera that Photoshop won't open. I'm still on CS3 and it won't open any of the current camera raw files without going via a DNG converter. Aperture opens them all, although you do usually wait a couple of weeks longer for Apple to support new cameras than Adobe - assuming you have the latest Adobe revs.

Also, Aperture will work as your library and provide searchable results - Photoshop won't.

Having said all that - I still use Photoshop for manipulation and post-processing.

Dave, why would you use Photoshop to manipulate and post process RAW when you have Aperture 3.1.1. It works fantastic and I only bring in full size RAW from the 5D MKII.

Of course it's JONES. Typo! She's quite funny and still in perfect shape for her age. John Fogerty was in the same show (see attachment).

I always shoot in AV-mode (aperture priority), with full open aperture and accept whatever shutter time that gives me. I can still get sharp results down to 1/15th of a second. If the subject doesn't move too fast, that is :-)

I also have the 17-40, the older 28-70, two 70-200's (one IS and one without IS, which is the sharper one of the two) and a 300 mm f2,8 (the sharpest photolens Canon ever made). Plus some macro-lenses. But the 24-105 is still my favourite lens, by far. It's only f4, but the IS on it accounts for two stops.

I also have both convertors: 1,4 and 2x. I can advise the 1,4x convertor, but I find the 2x too lossy as far as sharpness is concerned. But perhaps the new type is much better. I hope so.

I have heard Nora is great on stage. Great shot of John Fogerty, had the chance to see him years ago.

Makes sense in AV mode to control the DOF, as long as you have enough shutter speed. And it looks like you have a nice steady hand to help that along. Must seem easy compared to a moving deck.

I have heard the newer 28-70 is nice and sharp. The new version II of the 70-200 is excellent. And the new 2x converter III is designed really for the new 70-200 so I will go for the 2x once it is out.

... I'm still on CS3 and it won't open any of the current camera raw files without going via a DNG converter...

I don't see any problem in using any of the earlier Adobe Photoshop CS on the 5D files, right up to the very latest CS5 version. In fact I prefer using the older CS2 for stills. I simply open the images in Canon Zoom Browzer EX to quickly check at 100 % ratio for sharpness throughout the frame, then click "Save as" on all the very best images to Tiff files.
Photoshop works nicely with Tiff files (Tagged Image Format) and is a very quick and efficient workflow that does not affect or degrade the original image with each different adjustment and 'save' to file. If lower resolution Jpegs are needed, I save them directly from from the pre-adjusted Tiff files.