Aperture
Aperture 2.0: nice but unnecessary
Apple has just released Aperture 2.0 today. A
nice product to manage your photographs has
gotten even nicer. But -- there should not be a
need for Aperture.
Digital asset management, which is the
predominant function of applications like Aperture
and Adobe Lightroom, should not need to exist,
especially not if you are Apple. If Steve Jobs were
to take his own media hub strategy serious, advanced
asset management capabilities should be available
right in the file-system, as a function of the OS.
Asset management for photographs is why people buy
computers today, so why still does a separate
application need to deal with our most precious
assets. Incremental revenues perhaps?
Today's proprietary photo management systems eat disk space like nothing else. Non-destructive editing is supported by making superfluous copies of originals (especially when using an external editor). The derivatives are usually many times larger in size than their originals (especially when stored in TIFF or PSD), which forces you to stock up on hard disk space. I will keep using LightZone as my main photo editor and save precious disk space by leaving my photographs right where they are. Can't wait till the operating system innovates and supports photographs natively.
Today's proprietary photo management systems eat disk space like nothing else. Non-destructive editing is supported by making superfluous copies of originals (especially when using an external editor). The derivatives are usually many times larger in size than their originals (especially when stored in TIFF or PSD), which forces you to stock up on hard disk space. I will keep using LightZone as my main photo editor and save precious disk space by leaving my photographs right where they are. Can't wait till the operating system innovates and supports photographs natively.