I’m trying out a new software program on my Mac - Aperture. It looks like a dynamite way to organize images, though I have a lot to learn.
Before I get in too deep, I wondered if any of the pros use it in website design. It sounds like it can be associated with databases, though I haven’t figured out how that works yet.
What I’m basically asking is, should I invest time in learning how to use Aperture to organize and manage images on my websites, or is there a better strategy?
Incidentally, Aperture also lets you modify images, though I’d probably stick with Photoshop for that kind of stuff. I assume they’re compatible with each other.
I personally wouldn’t waste my money on it. If you have a large collection like a photographer then maybe…but Photoshop already comes with Bridge that does almost the exact same thing.
Ouch…I think I have Bridge; it’s one of those many software programs I’ve never had time to explore.
I bought Adobe Creative Suite 3 years ago and have been so busy with Photoshop, I’ve never even had time to do much with Illustrator and Flash, let alone the other programs I had neve even heard of. Anyway, I’ll take a look at it.
For me it would depend on if you mean content images or theme images – if your template has enough images to warrant the use of such a tool, there’s something horrifically wrong with your template…
If you have enough content images for it to be a concern, we have this thing dating back three decades called subdirectories…
That’s why most such ‘tools’ are uselessly pathetic to me – I have everything in nice neat organized directories; It’s why even things like media players with that ‘auto categorizing’ garbage like iTunes is effectively useless as I’ve already GOT everything nice and sorted.
But if your organizational skills involves throwing short meaningless gibberish filenames on things and dumping them all into one directory… then MAYBE such a tool would be useful… otherwise I file such things alongside firebug; useful for cleaning up other people’s messes and useless/serving no purpose on my own stuff.
By “subdirectories,” you mean folders and subfolders, right?
That’s the way I’ve always done it, and it would appear to be the logical solution for something as vast as my biggest project, which focuses on living things. At first glance, putting images inside taxonomically arranged folders and subfolders seems simple, but the sheer scope of the project can make it surprisingly difficult. I’ve been told there are better solutions, though I don’t know enough about image management or database design to really understand them.
On a tangent, I have a tip: When you’re in a WIFI cafe, don’t think your laptop is safe just because you’re typing on it. Just as I was about to reply to this post some guy appeared out of nowhere, grabbed my new laptop and was out the door. As he grabbed it, I hollered “HEY!!!” and was right on his heels, but he lost me after four or five blocks. I was utterly shattered, as my laptop and websites are practically all I have.
When I got back to the cafe, I was amazed to see my laptop laying on the table, unplugged and with the earphones ripped out. The only thing missing is my glasses; everything happened so fast, I don’t know if he grabbed them right off my face, or if they just fell off as I was chasing him.
But, sheez, if your laptop isn’t safe even when you’re typing on it, you’d better not even sit near a door.
you must have debugging trauma… and you are obviously a coder…
Public Class FailedJava (String myself){
private postingActualResponse(Int singular){
System.out.println("I " + myself + “don’t like MAC OS at all.” + /n + “I agree with proper organization, ignoring the importance of that is asking for hell cometh.” + /n + “Toodles, have a nice method.”);
nextPost(singular);
singular ++;
}
}
Sorry, I’ve been using computers longer than they were called ‘folders’ – I still can’t even think of them as folders… but then I still think in ‘cd’ and ‘md’ or ‘chdir’ and ‘mkdir’ so… It’s a directory – a list of files and subdirectories.
I always kind-of though the folder analogy didn’t make any sense – I much preferred the tree analogy, with files being leaves… hence why “\” is called “root”. Every time I end up on a system that only allows things like “spatial navigation” I end up screaming at the display “Lands sake, just show me a blasted filesystem tree!!!”…
Actually, when I scream it I’m a bit more profane than that…
Though if you want a GOOD file organization program, check out ZTREE. http://www.ztree.com/
Aperture and Lightroom are probably the two most popular applications in this category. Your question is a little difficult to unpack as these are primarily storage, library categorisation, and minor editing tools. They have some added functionality but these are the areas that they excel and are built for.
A good file structure is fine and good for smaller libraries, but trying to find a specific photo in a library of the 10’s of thousands isn’t easy. Hence the ability to tag or categorise with extra information. Sure if you have a good brain and name files well, these things are easier to recall without these tools. But for most people finding specific combinations of tags without software is a mission. Find all photos of blue umbrellas shot in the month of February between the years 1998-2002 is nothing to a computer. A little more tasking on the grey matter.
Photoshop is impossible to replace for some heavy editing when compared to these programs. As good as they are they have their limitations, but they are brilliant for avoiding having to boot up PS for small edits.
As for websites it is tricky to know what aspect you are referring to. If it is online galleries to show off you work there are a multitude of options again. They both allow for managing galleries but are probably not the best tools if you are wanting to do something like sell your work online.
I’ve used both in recent times, due to my use of Adobe products and the cross platform nature of Lightroom I’ve used that more. But I run on macs and I like the Aperture environment to work in much more.
Yes, that makes it interesting. Bridge sounds nice because it’s more compatible with Photoshop, but Aperture sounds better because it’s more compatible with Mac.
I’m leaning towards continuing with Aperture at least until I can afford to upgrade to CS 5.5 (or whatever version is available by the time I can afford to upgrade).
