Great article by Micah. Thanks, Derrick.

I was shocked, surprised and upset when I read those articles by the Lightroom who is who. The showed great ignorance of Aperture. It is a shame that to promote a very good product like LR 2 they have to lower themselves to deception.

They love to brag how the "aperture" people and others implement things from Lightroom into Aperture and their products, but they are not willing to admit when they implement things from Aperture to Lightroom, like say... Smart collection?...

I think they thought that they had slain Aperture just to find out that Aperture 2 came out swinging strong and it is here to stay. And while LR has many things to be praised for, it came out less strong plagued with problems.

Hi Derrick. Yes, to say that there is no difference between the plugins and an external editor is just flat our wrong. Adobe's perpetuation of this myth is in poor taste.

As a "passionate" Aperture user, my frustration with the current crop of plugins is that most (if not all) are destructive. I'm most certainly not alone. Aperture is marketed as a non-destructive raw image processing workflow. This does not extend to the plugins, for whatever reason. Why?

So to say that there in no difference between an external editor and a plugin may be wrong, but for a lot of Aperture users the loss of the non-destructive workflow outweighs any real benefits the plugins provide. So much so, that most probably skip buying them for that reason alone.

The current plugins are good, some are amazing, but until they are fully non-destructive (and that may not be technically possible for some), you'll always have "passionate" Aperture users griping. When Apple unleashed non-destructive raw image processing on the world, they let the genie out of the bottle.

Adobe capitalizing on and distorting genuine frustrations from within the Aperture users and fanbase (because admittedly we all have a star wars-esque love for Aperture) is not cool.

Hi Ed, I think the direction your pointed out is the way everyone wants to go. The SDK, as it stands now, is a good step on that direction. I'm pretty sure that Raw files can be passed through the Edit API. Let's see what happens in the coming months.

I'm a huge fan of the plug-ins. Just so not to repeat myself, have a read of:
http://edmondterakopian.blogspot.com/2008/08/aperture-21-plug-ins.html

and

http://edmondterakopian.blogspot.com/2008/08/more-on-aperture-plug-ins.html

Edmond

Actually, I think all plugin from Nik Software may use the RAW file as no new file is created until you click ok and leave the plugin. The question then would be why it does not come back as a adjusted RAW file instead of a tiff file.

Maybe we can get Joe Schorr can help us with that.

What you're missing here is that the criticism is not of the plug-in architecture or what it could one day deliver, but is rightly pointing out that strapped-on tif editors in their modal windows aren't meeting your somewhat-jerrymandered definition of a plug in, let alone how we might have defined plug-ins for non-destructive workflow apps before Apple cleverly stretched the term. Tomorrow's Aperture plug-ins may well be worthy of the name, but for now methinks you and Micah protesteth too much...

Andy

ps As for the comment "they are not willing to admit when they implement things from Aperture to Lightroom, like say... Smart collection?..."
Don't forget Extensis Portfolio had smart galleries long before Aperture, and it may be merely coincidental that Extensis also had a product manager called...wait for it... Joe Schorr. Anyway, since when was it uniquely Apple genius stuff to stick a user query engine in a database application - rather than copy Aperture, it's more than Adobe aren't so thick that they'd miss it out of two release cycles.

What would really be great would be if Aperture could add in something akin to Smart Objects in Photoshop, where you could have the plugin render a PSD or TIFF and then still be able to edit the underlying RAW data... all in due time I imagine...

-micah

Derrick and Micah,
Well said, both of you. Derrick, one thing I've always admired about you is your even-handed fairness in discussing both applications. You don't denigrate one in favor of the other. Also, I've been impressed with how Joe Schorr speaks about Aperture without the need to disparage any other applications. I feel as long as Joe is heading things at Aperture, it's in very good hands.

And Micah, I enjoy your insights as well (well done on the SilverEFX Pro write-up!). I get your frustration on the whole "vs." argument. It's a pretty infantile subject at this point. I'll take a page from Derrick and Joe and keep to the high road with Aperture. I also think that like most things in the digital world these days, definitions are expanding. Keep your dictionaries and minds open as to what defines a term (case in point, the notion of what is"non-destructive"). Everything is changing, roll with it!

Hi Derrick, yes we all want the plugins to go non-destructive, the edit api *can* pass raw files. it's a shame that the way Aperture is perceived is directly related to what the software developers do – writing plugins that don't jive with the non-destructive image editing concept. Aperture's team have been very slow to pick up on this, and in doing so, left a lot of room for Adobe to cloud the issue in the way they've done.

Joe Schorr to the rescue...

Actually, I don't think Micah "protesteth too much" at all. He addressed issues that have been raised on other forums, and he did so in a thoughtful, straightforward way. That's why I pointed to the article.

I think Ed pretty much nailed it. As long as the plug-ins return flattened tiff/psd files, they're not much use to me. I tend to do complicated and detailed edits, each step of which may require adjusting the step before, which is impossible to do if every time you close a plug-in all your settings are erased and a flat file is produced.

I'm a huge Aperture booster, but Adobe's right on with the masks and non-destructive editing tools they've added to LR2. As a user, right now, if I could take the basic raw decode and noise reduction from Aperture, add the develop tools from LR to the develop tools in Aperture, add real curves, and put it all in the Aperture interface and management system, I'd be very happy.

It's good to have dreams... ; )

I agree with Janet. Even Apple it self could not or did not make there example plug-in work with out having to make a Tiff. If it walks like a duck and it talks like a duck and it looks like a duck it's a duck. Apple is trying to say it a water foul but it but it still a duck. They may be Technically there is no doubt that in their minds it is true and that there is a difference but functionally I'm getting bigger files much bigger files. If this is the plug-in architecture it's very disappointing. The plug-in ex-paternal editors are very helpful at times but not nearly as useful as they would be if they were just applying data calls and I can click them on and off the break.

Here we go again... the infamous LR vs. Aperture debate...

The only things LR has that Aperture don't is called Global presets and the new ways to export from LR to PS.

I also use to think that of the plugin was the same as a trip to PS, but after a while I have come to agree with Micah and Derrick, there are not the same, I think if you still think they are your need to read Micah article slowly.

My opinion was based on the same premises: why does the plugins have to be destructive? But I was missing the point completely because I was stuck on my premise.

Yes, I would love to see the implementation be non-destructive. But they are not the same as going to PS and Adobe people are lying or showing their ignorance when they said they are. Yes, I an do the same things if I go to PS but they are done more efficiently, quicker and to batch them is easier in Aperture.

It is nice to know that if I want to apply Noise Ninja to 100 images I don't have to open each one individually in PS.

"Here we go again... the infamous LR vs. Aperture debate...
The only things LR has that Aperture don't is called Global presets and the new ways to export from LR to PS."
Sorry David, but with respect, that statement is unadulterated nonsense. Let's add AutoSync, the targeted adjustment tool, split toning, and not least localized adjustment.... One could no doubt describe Aperture's features to give a similar slant. But claiming it's the versus debate is a smokescreen - it's a simple correction of facts.

And that includes these so-called plug-ins. Since when was batch processing a badge of a plug-in? Keep watering down the definition with Apple marketing kool-aid and we'll soon be calling command prompts plug-ins too. A plug-in becomes an integral part of the host application, in this case one that trumpets its non-destructive and non-modal character. It's misleading to pretend that the architecture or whatever the technology permits, makes the existing batch of add-ons anything more than external tif editors in modal windows.

"The only things LR has that Aperture don't is called Global presets and the new ways to export from LR to PS."

That's just not true. Check out the Graduated filter and the Adjustment Brush. These two tools allow you to _non-destructively_ paint masks for Exposure, Brightness, Contrast, Saturation, Clarity, Sharpness, and Color. The changes are stored as instructions in metadata, and are fully editable.

I'm not trying to start a debate about which is the better program--we all make our choices for our own reasons. But at the moment, LR2 has some kick-butt non-destructive localized editing tools that I for one would love to see replicated, and improved on in Aperture.

>> A plug-in becomes an integral part of the host application, in this case one that trumpets its non-destructive and non-modal character.

That actually seems to me to be the OPPOSITE of what a plug-in does. By definition a plug-in is not integral.

When you launch a plug-in in a program like Photoshop, it launches code written by a developer. That code takes your original data and then manipulates it, and results in a file that has altered the pixels. It is not, for example, creating an adjustment layer, which IS integral to the program.

If you added the software and it were to do something like create a new internal adjustment tool (a brick, as is the term in Aperture) THAT would be an integral addition, and it wouldn't, by definition be an plug-in. That's usually called an add-on or extension. (Extensions is what Firefox calls it.)

We're working on an Aperture 2 compared to Lightroom 2 article. I hope to have it published within a week or so.

The reason why I want to do this is because we need to look at the breadth of both applications. Often these discussions distill down to image processing, which granted, is very important. But for top-tier photo management applications, that aspect isn't the entire story.

Lightroom's Develop module is very strong, and it became stronger with the 2.0 release. So naturally, those who have strong feelings about Lightroom focus there. But there are other important areas that didn't see the same progress. The Slideshow module, for example, isn't nearly as robust as it should be, especially for a company that acquired Flash technology.

So, we're going to expand this conversation a bit in the coming weeks. It should be fun.

Amern, Derrick, Amen!!

No one is taking away from Lightroom... And my intention wasn't to minimize Lightroom's teams accomplishments for version 2. They have done a great job... and yes, it has some nice features that I didn't mention... But if I say tomato I am sure someone else will make sure to remind me is said differently...

Yes. LR has localized non-destructive adjustment but I have Viveza... At the end I accomplish the same. See, if just a matter of preference... Would I love to see Viveza implement non-destructive? Yes. I would also would love to see Viveza and the rest implemented in Lightroom too.

I am impress what the engineers at Apple and Adobe are accomplishing and were these tools... Yes, TOOLS... are going.

Hec. I teach both Lightroom and Aperture at a local college! and I am even ACE certified in Lightroom! I own both software and I enjoy using both.

Lightroom is an awesome tool, as it is Aperture, Capture NX and the rest. To each its own. People, this are just tools! TOOLS! as with any tool, you need to pick the one that works best for you. But because you picked one over the other does not make the one you pick superior just because you picked it. It is just more useful to you. Period.

That is why we get tired of this useless debates about LR vs. Aperture... They sound like little kids in the playground fighting over their toys... mine has this but mine have that...

It is simple. if you don't like Aperture and feels that something is better for YOU, well, use whatever you feel like using.

I want to see "non-destructive" debates about this two great pieces of software. and not the typical me vs. them non-sense.

Derrick, looking forward at the article.

Then I tighten up my wording and say *functionally* an integral part of the host application. Clearly I don't mean integral in the sense of the code becoming part of the host, but functionally a plug-in is part of its host and its processes. So a Photoshop plug-in works on the same document as you're working on in Photoshop, adds adjustment layers (claiming adding adj layers isn't a plug-in feature is to further gerrymander the definition of plug-ins. IIRC Nik tools add layers), adds smart filters etc. New Aperture bricks would indeed be plug-ins (though we can dignify them even more and call them extensions if you want). The important thing is that plug-ins fit within the host's workflow and characteristics. Destructive tif editors in modal windows run directly contrary to Aperture's non-destructive, non-modal ethos.

David Schloss said: "That actually seems to me to be the OPPOSITE of what a plug-in does. By definition a plug-in is not integral."

David, the issue isn't about what you call it: plugin/extension/etc. it's about the fact that Aperture *is not* like Photoshop in that it creates non-destructive edits. This is integral for the workflow and Janet Taylor's comment echo this. Aperture's plugins should naturally follow this core concept of the app. To see them echo the same funcctionality that they have in Photoshop, is to see that the software developers don't understand the inherent power in non-destructive edits, as it related to workflow.

"Non-destructive" debate is a terrific phrase and a good thing to keep in mind for these raw discussions.

Derrick, I think the "non-destructive" question is great too. I hope you can address the issue in your article by adding this point: To the best of my knowledge, both applications treat layered .PSD files "destructively".

That is, in roundtripping to Photoshop, or simply working in Photoshop and creating multilayer .PSD files, upon bringing those back into Aperture or LR, if you continue to edit those images, you lose all layering. This effectively flattens your .PSD. The way I work in Aperture is to keep one library of "Master" .PSD multilayer files which I will only Keyword, file, save in a separate vault. I then have an identical library set up with flattened hi-rez .Jpeg versions of the same files. These .Jpegs are the files I then work on further in Aperture. Cumbersome a bit, but it works for me. I would love for Aperture to solve the issue of editing layered .PSDs without losing the layer structure when going back into Photoshop. I'm looking forward to your article as well.

Not correct, Trace. Lightroom 2 gives you the choice of opening the original layered file, a copy of the original, or a flattened LR adjusted version. If you had created the PSD's as smart objects, the raw data would remain editable.

I just glad that I don't have to go to Photoshop to apply Noise Ninja, Silver Efex, Viveza or Color Efex (as well as many others) and I can do all that from within Aperture.

With Lightroom I have to go to Photoshop to use any of this and still is destructive to use them.

So really, the debate is silly and moot. If you want to use any of this plugins you have to go to a "destructive" environment anyway. The advantage Aperture offer is that you can still do them within Aperture... and that seems to be the point everyone is missing and Derrick as well as Micah remind us.

That it would be incredible to use them non-destructive as Captute NX does? Yes, indeed. But the reality is that neither Aperture nor Lightroom can do that yet, but, all metaphysical discussion about Aperture ethos aside, at least Aperture allows me to use them internally. For that, I am glad.

David Medina says: "But the reality is that neither Aperture nor Lightroom can do that yet, but, all metaphysical discussion about Aperture ethos aside, at least Aperture allows me to use them internally. For that, I am glad."

David, I think it's you that is missing the point. Aperture *can* pass raw information to plugins and receive it back. The point is that plugin developers haven't gone the full mile to write this in to their plugins yet. Yes, it's nice to not have to leave Aperture, but converting to tif/psd is time consuming/harddisk chomping and destructive edits do not allow for a flexible workflow - which is how Aperture is marketed: Edit, organize, adjust, edit, organize, print, edit, export, organize, edit.

I want them to go the full mile. And so do *a lot* of other people. It would be interesting to see what sales of plugins are like before and after the developers build non-destructive versions of their plugins. I bet sales go dramatically up. I'd say a lot of people are holding off buying plugins until they go non-destructive, or at least the people that understand what's being left out.

"at least Aperture allows me to use them internally."
It's little more than a modal window containing an external editor. Whatever the plug-in specification makes possible in the future, right now modality is the only real difference from LR's external editors.

The question for me on plug-ins and Aperture's plug-in architecture are in Apple indeed wrote the plug-in architecture for the ability of nondestructive editing then why did they not use that technology when introducing their own example plug-in. Please don't tell me it's because it's free because that sounds like BS. It makes no sense as a plug-in to have to make a 50 MB file for Viveza adjustments another 50 MB file to apply dodge and burn another May 50 MB file to apply Filter Efex and another 50 MB file if I need Noise Ninja. So that ends up being 200 MB to get my image out the door. And I still can't go back and tweak without introducing another hundreds of megabytes worth of files. I have not done a file size check the it seems Photoshop and Lightroom are dealing with these things as smart objects so even if the final file is as large a can always be tweaked. I was under the impression that Aperture was going in the new direction of nondestructive small files. I must've been mistaken

Well for one the Nik plugins in photoshop have the brushes options Aperture versions don't, why this is i don't know. The round trip to PS is no more onerous that the time to prepare a tiff for a plugin, plus you have all the PS plugins that aren't (yet) available fro Aperture. Still i like the in Aperture workflow.Which brings up what i'd like to know is why we aren't seeing anyone making plugins like the one Apple offering that leverage Aperture's non-destructive approach to editing!!??

Here a few thoughts...

When Lightroom2 anounced nondestructive localized edits, it was clear that this was the killer feature some of us expected to happen in Aperture.

What strikes me most was Apple's poor implementation with its own Dodge&Burn Plug-in which gave the tone for all other developers to follow. I am today still not sure if I would prefer to roundtrip my data internally to Viveza or externally to NikonNX2. This results that even all NIK Plug-Ins are very useful, I could still not justify to purchase whichever.

To me, the result is the same: it breaks my flow.

I have to admit, Apples promise of a real workflow which allows me to revisit my edits, multiply my versions without thinking about Harddrive space is so enticing that it is such a disappointment not being extended to the plug-ins instead of breaking the chain at exactly this point.

The Plug-Ins as they stand now stand for this break, and this is very comparable as roundtripping to an external editor.

So by now, I'm sure Apple is quite aware, that a lot of users are upset about this breaking point, and possibly things are going to move...
Already Maperture shows a possible way of moving forward, although a dangerous one (The Original RAW image is replaced by an altered one - but Exif Manipulations are done this way as far as I know). Maperture feels much more integrated and not only allows to geotag images without such informations, but to correct imperfections where the signal has been a bit too far off!

So this is a Plug-in which is very useful and which doesn't break the flow (Isn't Aperture all about the workflow?) which helps to adjust metadata done right and this is what I am expecting in a similar fashion for image edits and waiting for...

Bernt

One thing I think we all agree is to have a non destructive plug-in. And I'm pretty sure we will be getting there, but for now this is a step. Some are talking of ways to add individual non-destructive actions within a single plugin. I'm sure Apple wants true non-destructive plugins but allowing certain access to deep parts of the library could create problems. So I'll wait a bit.

Also why is this being compared to Adobe's external editor? That's been in Aperture for a very long time (pre 1.5?). So, even if you hate the new SDK (why, but whatever...) you're not loosing anything over an external editor.

These options developers have seem very similar to Photoshop plugins. But now we don't have photoshop.

Also about development time: If a developer already has a Mac version I'd say about 75% of their coding is done. Though this depends upon other things like their interface. So much of the code is the same as a regular app. And because they already have an app, you know what? It WILL work as an external editor!! Already compatible!!!

So NO the current SDK IS NOT perfect, but it IS a step in the right direction. Personally I'd like an SDK that allows developers to create bricks to sit directly in the adjustments HUD. Simple and uses less power.