Don't buy Aperture if your backup software can't manage selective Package backup

Since Aperture conceals its images within the OS Package framework, it is a huge problem for backup software:

Macintouch - Aperture (Part 4)

Vince Heuring

One tip about backing up the Aperture database. Since it's a single package be sure you have a backup/sync program that can drill down into the package to backup only those files that have changed. Otherwise your program will back up the entire multi GB package every time even if only a few files have changed.

For example, in the ChronoSync synchronization app you need to check the 'Dissect Packages' checkbox, and then check the 'Pkgs' display option to see the package contents. I just verified that ChronoSync will synch just the items that have changed in the package. BTW, to examine the contents of package control-click the package and select 'Show Package Contents' from the drop-down menu. My only relationship with the ChronoSync folks is as an owner of the application.

Wow. This is a bad one. Any database will present similar issues, but most databases are reasonably compact (Outlook PST files being the famous exception). An Aperture package, however, will be routinely enormous. One should probably not adopt Aperture unless one has a supportive backup solution. Kudos to Macintouch and Vince Heuring for raising this issue. I'm evaluating ChronoSync now ...

Update 12/13: I may have spoken too soon here. Aperture has its own backup and archival system. I prefer my backup systems to handle this sort of thing, but I can see advantages to doing it the Aperture way too.

SONY has the first large sensor fully digital camera

I wouldn't buy SONY's R1. It's a lot of money for a very innovative camera that will probably have some bugs ... and I haven't had much faith in SONY for a while -- even before they started installing rootkits and spyware on people's computers. I give them credit, though, for a major innovation (NYT) - a large sensor digital camera that doesn't inherit the noisy, clunky SLR technology of 1950.

Add the ability to switch lenses (presumably with an internal "shutter" to protect the sensor) and either jpeg 2000 or DNG in situ image encoding and it would be about perfect.

I enjoyed Pogue's NYT article because it's the first I've read that explains why relative light sensitivity requires large sensors, and why large sensors until now have require a shutter and a prism (primarily due to heat and power consumption when active). I recently bought my Digital Rebel XT to get that light sensitivity and large sensor quality, but in many respects it's a step back from my old 4 megapixel Canon G2. A future version of the SONY R1 is where we all want to go.

Update 12/17: I recently had some informative correspondence with a photographer. Image processing in today's cameras demands quite a bit of CPU work, and hence produces heat, slows processing, and drains the battery. The problem is worse with large sensors. This may explain why no manufacturer has yet offered JPEG 2000 processing; in comparison I expect JPEG processing is less CPU intensive and better optimized (actually, I recently read of a very clever research technique that allows JPEG compression with < 5% of today's energy drain. I'd guess DNG would work though, and I've read that the new Leica outputs DNG. That's a terrific precedent.

Spotlight bug: disable firewire networking

MacInTouch: timely news and tips about the Apple Macintosh

Problem: Spotlight fails to find filename strings that are right under its nose. It's cuckoo: type a string into a folder's Find box while you're looking at the matching file and watch it vanish with "0 Items" displayed...
Solution: Go to Network Preferences and turn off all networking for Firewire ports.

StickyBrain: An alternative to the MarkSoft Memo app

I use MarkSoft's Missing Sync to sync my wife's CLIE with iCal et al. The only weak link (other than some MS and OS X bugs) is the Memo.app -- it doesn't give me the support I want for moving items around.

MarkSoft suggested I try Sticky Brain instead. Not cheap at $40 but I'll take a look at it!

Apple's Aperture bites - the Ars Technica review

The thorough Ars review is out, confirming everyone's emerging suspicions:

Aperture 1.0: the Ars review : Page 9

Maybe by 2.0 Apple will have the foundation sorted out. At this stage Aperture is a big, expensive misfire and considering the hefty price tag, I can't think of a reason to recommend it. Reading this review, you may think I sound jaded, but I am genuinely angry for those who shelled out US$500 for a program that promised professional results and failed to deliver. Thanks for coming out Aperture, now get off the stage.

Adobe must be grinning today. If Apple were an honorable company they'd refund liberally, slink off the stage, and release a half-fixed version for a lower price point and a free upgrade. IF!

BTW, why is Aperture's metadata updating so slow? It's not fully clear, but it may be that Aperture actually lacks a relational (or object-relational) database engine. It appears to store metadata in a vast number of XML files. Apple appears to be fond of this approach; I personally despise it. It transforms a dual G5 machine into the equivalent of a Mac SE.

An astoundingly clear description of color gamuts and best practices for OS X

I've spent a small amount of time in the morass of color management over the past few years. Just enough to spot something very interesting in this occult domain.

This Aperture article is one of the best simple descriptions I've ever seen: Aperture: Color and gamma settings for print and web.

It does hint at some bugs in Aperture and OS X. For example, I think the recommendation to 'set gamma to 2.2 and white point D65 and never change it' is related to a bug in color profiles and fast user switching -- if not other color profile bugs. (A gamma of 2.2, by the way, will make the entire OS X interface look a bit odd. A seperate kb article mentions how the intersection of color profiles and external editors can crash Aperture ...)

I set my camera to sRGB, my screen to sRGB with Gamma 2.0 and white point D60, and cross my fingers and pray. For JPEG, with its inherently crummy color tables, this is probably good enough. It's a compromise between the Windows and Mac worlds. Pictures will look a bit dark on Windows and will print a bit dark from most print services.

I suspect that when OSX for Intel comes out, Apple will quietly change the hardware and OS to the Windows Gamma. It's about time ...

Update 12/20: Alas, introduce Photoshop and the view is murky again ...

Apple's Aperture knowledge base support articles (via Macintouch)

Apple - Support - Search Results