1. Welcome to Mu-43.com—a friendly Micro 4/3 camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

Should I buy Aperture?

Discussion in 'Image Processing' started by manju69, Mar 16, 2012.

  1. manju69

    manju69 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Jul 1, 2011
    Stroud, UK
    Hi - I have been using iphoto for years and whilst it has some great features, it is limited in a number of ways. I hate the way you have to duplicate to edit and the editing features are slim. I tried a trial of Aperture 3 and liked it (love the loupe!) but I have 2 reservations.

    1. Many of the reviews on the Mac app store say it is really slow. Is this what you have found? I have a macbook with 2GB RAM and will probably only work with jpgs for now. RAW in the future maybe? The trial worked fine but I am cautious.

    2. I hear importing the library from iphoto is a pain - any user experiences that you could share on this. I doubt i will import everything...

  2. GaryAyala

    GaryAyala Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 2, 2011

    Older versions of Aperture are slow. Apple has cured this ailment in 3. While more memory is always good, your setup should work. I import folders as projects and try to limit the files per folder to 400 or so.

  3. Empireme

    Empireme Mu-43 Regular

    Aug 25, 2011
    LA, CA
    I'm unfamiliar with their MacBooks, but on my iMac adding additional ram was extremely simple and very cheap. I purchased some from Amazon for under $100 and upgraded to 16GB.

    I do a lot of photo and video editing for work and I often have multiple programs running with no issues. However, I use LightRoom3.
  4. shnitz

    shnitz Mu-43 All-Pro

    I would upgrade straight to the top. I am working on an older plastic Macbook (Core 2 Duo), and I upgraded the RAM to 4GB. Should have gone to 8GB. Overall, I definitely think that you should consider a more serious photo editor. Aperture at $80 is very reasonable. If the trial worked fine, then you'll be OK. I would assume that there is no real difference in speed working with JPEG vs RAW; once you're editing then the file size is going to not have a very large effect on the performance, but test this yourself. If you're going to be using Aperture all the time, and only uploading your memory cards to your own computer, then you might consider shooting in RAW, as it will give you more headroom for editing. Try RAW + JPEG for a few weeks, and see how you like it.
  5. LDraper

    LDraper Mu-43 Regular

    Feb 4, 2011
    Albuquerque, NM
    Until about a month ago I was running Aperture 3 on a 2006 core duo MacBook Pro. I only had 2 GB of ram. I recently upgraded to a new MBP with 4GB ram.
    Performance was adequate, but some things requrired patience. Most tonal adjustments can be done in real time, but application of sharpening, or noise reduction took several seconds to load. I find working on jpegs to be much faster than raw files. I tend to shoot pairs, and I will test adjustments on the jpeg before I go to work on the raw file. I agree that you should trust your experience with the trial, I don't know why it would be any different from the 'real' program. But then again, if your machine will take more ram 4 gigs is much better than 2. I'm happy with my new machine, it does make the program run much more smoothly and seamlessly, but I did a lot of good work on the older one too!
  6. panyuser

    panyuser Mu-43 Regular

    Dec 22, 2011
    I've been using Aperture 3 since it came out. (Maybe 2 before that but I forget.)

    I upgraded from iPhoto, and the transfer was painless. Zero issues.

    Speed: it's annoyingly slow. My MacBook Pro has 2GB RAM, 2.33 C2D. I need a new machine, and I wouldn't use Aperture on one with less than 4GB.
  7. WJW59

    WJW59 Mu-43 Veteran

    Feb 20, 2011
    Started on V2, now using 3.whatever and waiting on V4.

    One other thing to keep in mind is the video card matters almost as much as RAM. I friend with a Macbook Pro found Aperture slower than I do on my Mini, both with the same size/speed HD and same RAM. While he has a discrete card, my NVidia integrated GPU seems to let Aperture run faster.

    When I last compared LR to Aperture, I preferred the Aperture interface and seemed to run faster, even with the occasional slowdowns. YMMV.
  8. OPSSam

    OPSSam Mu-43 Regular

    Dec 18, 2010
    I got a 3.2 GHZ mid 2010 21.5 inch iMac (i3). Aperture wasn't very snappy a 4GB. I recently upped it to 12GB, and it runs as fast as I would expect it to, with as many Raw files as I throw at it. I average 1 to 2 processed every second during import from my PL1 in Raw, and I do a lot of lift and stamp operations. That takes time no matter what.

    What I heard a lot using 4GB was the hard drive swapping files because it needed RAM. At 12GB, I run Aperture, Photoshop, and OnOne at the same time, and only then could you say I start to hit the wall. So if I'm running 2 out of three of those programs there is no virtual RAM from the hard disk required. So, I agree with those who have said it already, get some RAM, you won't regret it with Aperture.
  9. grantb

    grantb Mu-43 Veteran

    I'm using v3 on MBP 2.4GHz i5 4GB RAM (integrated graphics). I've read that 4 GB RAM should be considered a minimum for this application. I've got 8GB on the way now. Perhaps I lack patience, but it seems slow to me.

    Things which work for me to speed it up:
    Close all other applications
    Turn off unneeded features (faces, places, etc.)
    Turn off automatic preview generation (this is a big one for performance and library size, but has some implications for integration with other Apple software. Google it)

    Edit: One more suggestion, don't use the Flickr integration feature. It is very broken.
  10. grantb

    grantb Mu-43 Veteran

    The swapping is my problem as well. I'm looking forward to just being able to leave my browser open once I get the 8GB.
  11. MrDoug

    MrDoug Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Sep 5, 2011
    Boise, Idaho
    I have Aperture with 8GB Ram on my iMac and 4GB on Macbook Air...the 4GB on Air is a tiny bit faster because of the SSD I think..not really sure why..but both are quite equal and both are SUPER - DUPER fast.. Once you go Mac, (if you have the newest models since late 2009 or early 2010 or so).. you never go Back..:smile: you will throw rocks at Windows PC and Adobe apps etc.. once you play with Apple/Mac for a couple of days.. . just my two cents.. but, it's just a matter of personal choice.. I love my Mac..
  12. sevenil

    sevenil Mu-43 Regular

    Jun 22, 2011
    Why bang your head against a wall? - just give Lightroom a try, then you'll really 'never go back'.
  13. 43hk

    43hk Mu-43 Veteran

    Dec 26, 2010
    Should you buy Aperture is really up to you. Speccing out a mac for it is an important part of the process though.
    I work as lot in 3D so have a fast machine already.

    My specs were :-

    i7 processor 4 core.
    8 meg ram
    Discrete graphics( aperture offloads work to the graphics processor)
    External drive on FW 800 chain or faster. Don't bother with USB 2 ext HDs.... too slow.

    Use the external HD for the library an use the machines HD as the back up.

    This works well, really well. No lag.

    Also the iMac display is very good for the money.
  14. manju69

    manju69 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Jul 1, 2011
    Stroud, UK
    Thanks everyone. Useful tips, it sounds like the way to go. Just upgraded my RAM, but to its max at 4GB. Needed it anyway, then I'll download aperture. And save for an iMac in 2 years! (spent all my spare money on camera gear!)
  15. GaryAyala

    GaryAyala Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 2, 2011
    A wise choice ... camera gear and fine wine as first priority for disposable income over other vices.

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.