Ellen, Why isn't Photoshop listed as an Aperture plug-in on that Apple page? After all, it's an external editor just like these so-called plug-ins. Welcome as they are, there's too much hype around these external editors.

"Why isn't Photoshop listed as an Aperture plug-in on that Apple page? After all, it's an external editor just like these so-called plug-ins. "
Hmmm... no disrespect but: because Photoshop is NOT a plugin? do you really think Apple should list every graphic application out there? Aperture plugins use a set of APIs that allow them to directly interact within the application itself. While this requires the creation of a TIFF file, it's still within the confines of Aperture. For instance, you can send mutliple files to a plugin for batch processing - you can't do that with an external editor. Furthermore, I heard Derrick's interview with Joe Shorr yesterday and apparently it's actually possible to pass RAW data to a plugin (!!!!!). This could open up all kinds of things in the future (hope, hope).

I will admit that I too wasn't convinced at first. But I've changed my mind. I find plugins much less ressource intensive than launchung a separate app and it just makes for a quicker and more streamlined workflow. It all depends on the value proposition though. I recently bought Silver Effex Pro after trying out the 30 day demo. It's a stellar plugin for black and white photography and to me it was worth the $199 price tag for what it brings both stylistically and as a time-saver. But I also tried Viveza (also from Nik) and couldn't justify $249 for it - I just keep exporting to Capture NX when I need U-Point technology or just use Photoshop.

What I find interesting is that sometimes plugins force me to try different things in Aperture. For example, I tried out Color Effex Pro (hey, I was on a Nik rampage!) but the only filter I really liked was something called Bleach. So just for fun I decided to replicate the effect using only Aperture's bricks. I put the two pictures side by side in the viewer and after just a few minutes I had a new version that was almost identical! So now I know how to get Bleach (almost) without spending another $200 ;-)

I think we're in the infancy of plugins for Aperture; there are good ones and really bad ones. But we're in for a great ride I think.

Oh! and I bought Noise Ninja three minutes after I read the news...!

Most useful plugin so far : definitely Creaceed's Hydra : http://creaceed.com/hydra/

for HDR photos. It's very easy to use, so much that it enables HDR photography as just another adjustment of Aperture. I hope the guy working on Double Take (http://echoone.com/DoubleTake/ ) will make a plugin as well.

Patrick -

Thanks for the comments. I was considering the Silver Efex plug-in, and you may have convinced me to go for it.

Separately, your idea of replicating the setting for Bleach is something I was thinking about just last week while finishing an Aperture Prolab here in NYC. Would you be willing to share your settings for educational purposes? I think a number of effects can be completed right in Aperture, and I'm looking for help getting started.

"Within the confines of Aperture" - as a modal dialog.... Wow.
"requires the creation of a TIFF file" Bingo - external editor.

Calling these things plug-ins is stretching the truth well beyond breaking point. It's pretending Aperture has capabilities which it really doesn't have - and therefore pretending its competitor doesn't have the same ability to send rendered TIFs to other applications. Set NoiseWare standalone as an external editor in Lightroom and you've got everything that the NoiseNinja "plug-in" offers. Better for Apple to be honest and tell us when a real editing plug-in comes along.

You're definitely right to point to the astonishing prices by the way.

Gio, as Patrick explained there are differences between external editors and plug-ins. From a user's point of view, an external editor is a stand alone program that you're accessing. A plug-in is just that - it isn't accessible without going through the parent program. I understand that from your point of view you're accessing both of them through the same Images >Edit With window and it feels like you're leaving Aperture. But on laptops and such you'll probably notice that opening a full program suhc as Photoshop in addition to Aperture will slow down the processing more than using a plug-in. In addition as I edited the blog to indicate, some of the plug-ins access the raw data, which an external editor currently can't do (unless you export the masters and reimport them.)

Patrick, good points and thanks for the heads up about the podcast - I missed it yesterday!. I agree completely about Silver Efex Pro (SEP). It's a fantastic application that makes all sorts of black and white interpretations possible with just a few clicks. I too like to figure out when I can just emulate a program and then create my own preset rather than buying an extra program, but SEP has more facets than I can readily replicate in Aperture alone. As for Viveza, the price is way high imho, but the program is quite remarkable. If they significantly lowered the price then I think a lot of people would be singing its praises.

As for the person who ranted and feels that these are not plug-ins, I think you need to recheck your facts. And Apple IS being honest.

I was going back and fourth between getting a license for noiseninja or noiseware a month or so ago. I needed something at the time, so I emailed both companies about forecasted pricing info for the upcoming Aperture plugin release. Picturecode (NN) told me that existing customers of the PS plugin would get a discount. Imagenomic guaranteed me personally a free upgrade. Since I was also wanting their portraiture plugins, I was sold. I have to say I'm very happy with the Imagenomic plug-in suite, and can't wait for the Aperture plugins so I don't have to round-trip it (and also get further RAW processing ability by using Aperture's processing instead of a straight to PSD approach).

However, I'm wondering about those of you who have products from both companies. Which does a better job of getting rid of noise for you in PS? Do you think that will be the same when they have both been ported for Aperture?

Daniel, why not download a trial version of NoiseNinja for PS and judge for yourself? Granted you can't save the file in a meaningful way without a license but you can see the effects before you save it. I personally like the presets and detailed slider controls within Noiseware as well as the different views that make it easy to compare before and afters. But NoiseNinja does a good job with a minimum of fuss. See what you think.

I'd have to side with gio here. Apple is definitely stretching the truth beyond the breaking point. Yeah, there's 70 aperture plugins. How many of them are actually used on a daily basis? How many do *you* use on a daily basis? ('you' as in the collective 'you'). maybe one or two? Why? probably because of the destructive nature of 95% of the plugins. They just aren't practical from within a RAW workflow. Apple knows this.

Noise Ninja is an entirely different workflow tool than those of Nik Software. Nik Software's plugins are used on a photo by photo basis. You choose which photos need tinkering and assumably only a few need that extra attention. Noise Ninja is a completely different beast. *All* photos need sharpening. If I have a batch of photos from a shoot, I'm going to want to pass all of them through Noise Ninja. But if I have to first create Tiffs, it's going to eat my harddrive for breakfast.

Apple knows/understands that most of the current plugins represent a hefty compromise with regards to RAW workflow. The prevailing wisdom: get these companies to support Aperture with a plugin architecture that's relatively easy/quick to port from their standalone application; and then usher in full support for RAW farther down the line (more time/resource intensive).

Aperture's plugin architecture may support RAW, it's just a shame that *none* of the plugins do. In this fact, they nearly all represent a compromise in RAW workflow, which is what draws people to Aperture. In geek speak this would be called an "epic fail".

In a year or two, one-by-one all these plugins will start to support the RAW workflow in a more integrated manner (hopefully/ideally) and all this divisiveness will be slipped under the rug.

With regards to Ellen's original question: I use *none* of the plugins on a daily basis. If for nothing else, because I hate the converted file conundrum. I suspect that I'm in the 98 percentile.

Hmm - I don't agree that Apple is "stretching the truth." I think they're being very clear. Ed. as to your point that not many of the plug-ins are used on a regular basis by any one person - my response is , "of course!" First of all they're expensive - none (except Dodge and Burn) are free. Secondly many are redundant or deal with tasks that you may not need. The idea is that you choose which plug-ins are beneficial to YOU. Also, Ed, I'd be careful about stating what Apple "knows" unless you're a spokesperson for them. It's probably better to identify your opinion as your opinion, OK? Your opinion does count - as does every other person's out there!

I'm actually not sure that "none" of the plug-ins are using the raw data at this point. What is clear is that a second file is created after using the plug-in. Maybe this process will change over time so that we don't have a second file created. But even if it doesn't, the convenience and power that some of the plug-ins and is undeniable. And fortunately storage gets less expensive all the time.

I in fact did try them both, and found them to be fairly similar in output, but like you, I appreciate further control. I'd like to see lift and stamp ability added to adjustments within this plugin. That way you could apply the same adjustments with similar images, and tweak them slightly as you do with lift and stamp settings from the adjustments HUD.

Re your point that each person probably only uses one or two plugins: I agree with you on that. Point taken. What I was *trying* to communicate is that most people use no plugins at all.

Re your point that I should state that what I'm saying is my opinion: I assume that the readers of 'Inside Aperture' already know that this is only my opinion, so to state "In my opinion, Apple knows..." seems redundant, you may disagree that's your right. As to its validity, I think it's common knowledge that Apple pays attention to forums like this one. So to say "Apple knows..." isn't, eh hmm, stretching the truth. only time will tell if its correct, but I'd bet the farm on it.

Re that Apple isn't stretching the truth: Aperture is marketed as a "Nondestructive Image Processing" tool. The current crop of plugins should *but do not* follow this model. Apple may call these applications plugins, but they are most certainly not plugins in any real sense. They are standalone apps that integrate with Aperture's API. Within the concept of "Nondestructive Image Processing" the current plugins available for Aperture do not fit. IMHO.

Now, how about addressing my point that a plugin like Nik's Efx are in a different category than those like Noise Ninja? i.e. they have entirely different uses.

Actually Ed, I thought your point about different uses for the two noise reduction programs was quite interesting. Most people aren't going to want to pay for both though. And you can establish settings within Noiseware to use on multiple images, so that although you're applying it one image at a time, the settings are ready to go.

And Ed, I appreciate the addition of "imho." It may seem redundant but sometimes things can come across differently in print than in a conversation, OK? Yes, I agree that Apple is responsive to and aware of what's going on in forums and blogs like this. That's a good thing! And those of us on the Aperture Advisory Panel reinforce the common concerns and needs.

Daniel - being able to use noise reduction settings the way we use Lift and Stamp would be GREAT!

Ellen, my point about 'different usages' wasn't about Noise Ninja's plugin version versus the standalone app. My point was that Noise Ninja isn't applied to images on an image-by-image basis. It's not like a 'burn n dodge tool'. You use batch processing to process your entire output of images (assuming we're not talking about fine-art, one-off image editing).

If the functionality of something like Noise Ninja is going to be destructive, then why even have it as an 'editing' plugin? Why not have it work like an 'exporting' plugin, where you specify the compression settings and export to jpegs? with no residual tifs lying around.

In other words, when Noise Ninja eventually works non-destructively, it'll be the bomb and *everyone* will use it, 'til then, it's just another 1% plugin (one percent of aperture users will use it).

Ed, NoiseNinja can certainly be applied to one image at a time or you can batch process as you note. It's one of the plug-ins that accepts more than one image at a time. And conversely Noiseware (in PS) can applied as a batch action using whatever settings you choose. Sorry, but I'm not totally following your point. Since I haven't yet seen Noiseware for Aperture, I don't know how it will be implemented.

And although you are focusing on the "destructive" nature of a plug-in - and I too would prefer they operated more like Smart Filters - how often do you really go back and change the settings? By working as a plug-in, depending on the app there can be access to the raw data, and more importantly your computer will be processing faster than if it has to open another huge program such as PS. And there are lots of reasons TIFs are preferable to JPEGs including the ability to be in 16 bit rather than 8 bit as well as the compression.

And btw, if you have images with noise, destructive or not, having an effective noise reduction plug-in is a huge boost to productivity.

"I agree completely about Silver Efex Pro (SEP). It's a fantastic application that makes all sorts of black and white interpretations possible with just a few clicks."
That's how I feel about it as well Ellen - it's the "just a few clicks" that won me over (plus the film and grain engine!).

Michael:
send me an email and I'll send you a preset image for the Bleach settings (although I find I do need to tweak it a lot for each picture). Here's a quick and dirty recipe:
- high exposure
- low black point (as in more intense)
- high definition
- lowered saturation and vibrancy
Use Shadow and Highlights to bring things back in check (as well as tweaking contrast with the mid slider) and add Levels to shift the midtones towards the right of your histogram. It usually helps to keep white balance on the cold side too but that's a matter of taste.

my point is simply that having to convert files to tifs greatly reduces the potential productivity of any plugin (like Noise Ninja). For some plugins it may be necessary from a system resources pov.

You bring up a *very* interesting point, with regards to all destructive plugins (which is 95% of current aperture plugins). You asked, "how often do you really go back and change the settings?"

My answer is that for most of my 'marquee' images, the really good ones, I have to re-edit them every time Aperture upgrades the RAW fine tuning. Upgrading from 1.1 to 2.0 engine was particularly a problem as this was necessary to gain "previews" within iLife and other apps like InDesign. For a project, I've been revisiting a ton of images I processed pre-Aperture 2 and re-processing them using the new fine tuning engine, new exposure and enhance tools. In some cases the results are *amazing*.

So as this relates to destructive editing, and your question, for functionality like Noise Ninja, if it were really non-destructive, I'd set the options once and leave it. In Its current state (file conversion) I would have to re-process and then run them through the plugin again. This is a total time suck.

I understand that in general, these kind of plugins have productivity boosts for some people. I'm arguing that in their current 'destructive' state, that percentage of users is so small, I don't see why they bother. Further, simply by switching from destructive to non-destructive that percentage would be completely reversed. So why don't they do it? Frankly, I'm surprised no one has done it already. Aperture users would go gaga. You guys at 'Inside Aperture' would be fighting over who gets to review it. Am I wrong?

I did a quick google blog search of "Aperture" and "plugins" and I don't see anyone blogging about how easy these plugins have made their lives. I just see a bunch of people asking why all the plugins are destructive. That should be the litmus test right? When something really works, people *like* to talk about it.

Frankly, who "ranted and raved", Ellen? No-one here. Anyway.

Standalone apps, launched in a modal dialog, working on rendered TIFS and outside the raw processing pipeline are simply not plug-ins in any meaningful sense. Comparing their lighter processing hit with Photoshop's might highlight their value but does not make them any more plugged-in. Calling them add-ons would be honest, or external editors as Lightroom calls them, but in this market "plug-ins" carries much more specific implications of integration with the host and its philosophy, and Apple are certainly intelligent enough to know that.

Wow,

Such emotion this is great. I love Aperture and especially love Aperture users that are passionate about the tool. Apple literally invented this genre of software with Aperture 1.0 and revolutionized my old iView blah blah blah, etc workflow. I was never excited about the "plug-ins" with Aperture and thought the dodge and burn included with 2.0 was a joke.

Although I still prefer Aperture's UI and overall feature set and organization I truly hope that LR2 (especially the local adjustment features and keyword synonyms, as well as a couple of other things) really sends a wake-up call to Apple and the Aperture development team in terms of how fast it's competitor is moving with real value into a category of applications that Apple invented.

Give me some real meat with V2.5 like the capabilities of LR2 local adjustments with a better UI. Give me some of the things on my wish list since version 1.0, for heavens sake at least give me the ability to embed the keyword hierarchy into my exported files with a checkbox. Heck they can even take back all project view with the little iPhoto looking square projects and mouse over crap.

RB

Since this is a really important issue, and I have been an Aperture fan, evangelist, encourager, etc., from day one, let me weigh in agreeing that

a) these destructive plug-ins do no more than an external editor (e.g. PS with plug ins) can do from Aperture with only a minor, to me inconsequential, increase in usability and, perhaps, performance.

b) what would make a difference would be non-destructive plug-ins (or Aperture adjustment bricks) that do localized adjustments and localized high quality noise reduction and sharpening at the level of Noise Ninja and PK Sharpening.

c) Lightroom 2 has non-destructive localized adjustments -- and this is the first time that LR has something I really care about -- and Aperture does look like it is falling behind.

Point b) was made with considerable emphasis several years ago. I am really surprised not to see it by now and I am worried about Aperture's progress and long term competitiveness for professional users.

I have been aware for some time that the API allows for real non-destructive plug ins working on raws. What I really don't understand is why the Aperture team has not demonstrated this capability in the burn and dodge "plug-in". That would be a long overdue start!

When I first got aperture 1.0 i was disappointed with its noise reduction features. I still am very disappointed and the moire addition in favour of chroma reduction made it even worse in my experience (i see absolutely no difference when moving the sliders).

Since 1.0 i wanted a noise ninja plugin. I was so excited when i heard there would finally be one with 2.1. Once i found out that it's destructive I think it's useless (for me). There is NO WAY i'm going to create TIFs out of EVERY SINGLE high-iso image I have. I want noise ninja and every other plugin to work on the RAW image nondestructively. When that happens I'll buy them.

Tym,

First off, the Moire slider does deal somewhat with chroma noise - check your image at 100% while adjusting it. However, that said, imho, the noise reduction features in Aperture are nowhere near what's possible with a program such as Noise Ninja or Noiseware. I agree it would be great if the engineers could incorporate better noise reduction inside a future version.

However I'm confused as to why you're so adamant that a noise reduction, or any plugin, is useless for you. Do you realize that every file you save in PS is also a converted file? In addition, if you only want the file for a specific output purpose, then after the output, delete the extra file. In reality storage space is relatively inexpensive now. While I agree it would be great to have the plug-ins not create extra files, it's not a do or die situation, imho. And lastly at least with many of the newer cameras the noise is considerably less at higher ISOs so it's less of a problem with "every high ISO" image. It's more likely to be an issue with "certain" of those images.

But in the end you have to develop the workflow that works for you.

I too used to think that the latest round of plug-ins was hype as they were just glorified editors, but after using some of them I think they are a good first step towards the ultimate non-destructive version. It allowed existing plug-ins to be brought to the Aperture platform quickly with few modifications from their existing code while they have time to develop a fully non-destructive plug-in. And as mentioned earlier, they can be a workflow time-saver more than making up for the high cost of some of these.

One of the plug-ins that I would like to see offered is a panorama stitcher such as RealViz's stitcher or PTGUI.

Ellen,

I've tried the moire slider at 100%, in every combination on every ISO3200 image out of my 40D and see absolutely no difference at any of the settings. None of the settings makes the image any better.

I hardly ever use PS for the simple reason that I don't want a huge file sitting around in addition to my RAW. I could delete a converted image after exporting it for my puropose, but that would be a waste of time and energy every time I want to output the same image again. I suppose Noise Ninja is probably one of the few plugins that I could do that with since it's a last stage in the workflow that is pretty easy and quick to make.

Even though 40D high iso images are much better that older cameras (my XT for example), every single one of them could use some noise reduction to make it better.

Tym, I'm wondering if you're dealing with chroma noise or primarily luminance noise? Have you also tried using the Noise Reduction adjustment from the Add To popup menu? I've found it to be of some help, but nowhere near what Noise Ninja or Noiseware Pro can do. And I agree that a plug-in that effectively removes noise is quite useful for a lot of people who shoot high ISO and/or long exposures, whether or not you opt to keep the second file.

Digital software as well as our digital workflow is en evolving process ... but what we can quickly do with our images today is light years ahead of what we could do 10 years ago!