Aperture vs. Photoshop
Apple has announced Aperture, their new Raw-format photo software.
Apple sure knows how to make something look spiffy. Having recently begun my foray into Raw-format photography with a Canon 20D, and having tried Photoshop CS2’s Camera Raw/Bridge workflow, I see lots of room for Aperture.
Adobe’s Camera Raw workflow is slow and awkward, even if it’s a technical marvel under the hood. Apple is promising a better way. I hope they have it, for a couple of reasons.
I’ve always marvelled that Adobe, which has a virtual monopoly with Photoshop (no, I’ve never seriously considered the GIMP, nor am I likely to, thanks), has nevertheless continued to improve it. In a very real sense, Photoshop’s biggest threat has always come from the previous version of Photoshop. By and large, Adobe has always been up to that threat, even though I personally took a pass on versions 6 and CS.
But now there’s external pressure in the form of Aperture. No, it’s not a Photoshop-killer, nor is it attempting to be one. It’s aimed at photographers, not production designers. It’s about camera workflow, not photo-retouching or editing. And it’s very aggressively priced. It will be wildly popular.
But I’m sure Adobe hasn’t forgotten the lessons of Final Cut Pro, either. Premiere was a slow, buggy thing that hadn’t been upgraded in years, and Apple clobbered Adobe with FCP. And Adobe responded by… giving up.
This time the shot across Adobe’s bow isn’t quite a shot across Photoshop’s bow; it’s more like Corel’s Painter — a companion piece that will sit next to Photoshop in most Aperture users’ Docks.
Aperture 2.0 is where we’ll see the long-term strategy played out.
