Talk:Aperture (software)

Fair use rationale for Image:Apple Aperture.png

Image:Apple Aperture.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

New picture...

The image accompanying this article is very small and, as stated, is not subject to copyright laws as it is a screenshot. A full sized screenshot would be helpful in demonstrating the purpose and features of this program. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.25.42.225 (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Adding time line for raw support

Would this new section be useful? Should it be formatted differently? Does anybody have a good idea to obtain shipping dates?

Raw support history

This raw support applies both to Aperture 2.x and iPhoto'08. Camera release dates and estimated shipping date from dpreview.com, luminous-landscape.com

• Digital Camera RAW Compatibility Update 2.2, released 16 Sep 2008.

Camera model	Camera announced	Camera shipping	Announced to supported	Shipping to supported
Canon EOS Digital Rebel XS/1000D	10 June 2008		98 days
Kodak DCS Pro SLR/n	18 March 2004	May 2004	1643 days	~ 1580 days
Nikon D700	1 July 2008	July 2008	77 days	~ 60 days
Olympus EVOLT E-420	5 May 2008	May 2008	134 days	~ 120 days
Olympus EVOLT E-520	13 May 2008	June 2008	126 days	~ 90 days
Olympus SP-570	22 January 2008	March 2008	239 days	~ 180 days
Samsung GX-10	21 September 2006	November 2006	700 days	~ 650 days
Samsung GX-20	24 January 2008	March 2008	236 days	~ 180 days
Sony DSLR-A300	30 January 2008	April 2008	230 days	~ 150 days
Sony DSC-R1	8 September 2005	November 2005	1104 days	~ 1050 days

• Digital Camera RAW Compatibility Update 2.1, released 28 May 2008.

Camera model	Camera announced	Camera shipping	Announced to supported	Shipping to supported
Canon EOS Digital Rebel XSi/450D	24 January 2008		125 days
Epson R-D1	11 March 2004		1649 days
Leaf AFi 7	25 October 2007	late 2007	246 days	~210 days
Leaf AFi 6	25 October 2007	late 2007	246 days	~210 days
Leaf AFi 5	25 October 2007	late 2007	246 days	~210 days
Pentax K200D	23 January		245 days
Pentax K20D	23 January		245 days

• Digital Camera RAW Compatibility Update 2.0, released 20 March 2008.

Camera model	Camera announced	Camera shipping	Announced to supported	Shipping to supported
Hasselblad CFV-16	2005 or 2006
Hasselblad H3D-31	29 January 2007		416 days
Hasselblad H3D-31II	21 September 2007		989 days
Leaf Aptus 54S	15 September 2006		1360 days
Leaf Aptus 65S	15 September 2006		1360 days
Nikon D60	29 January 2008		51 days
Olympus E-3	16 October 2007	end of November 2007	186 days	~ 60 days
Pentax *ist DL2	27 January 2006		783 days
Pentax *ist DS2	21 August 2007		422 days
Pentax K100D Super	28 June 2007		274 days
Sony DSLR-A200	7 January 2008	February 2008	73 days	~ 30 days
Sony DSLR-A350	30 January 2008	March 2008	50 days	~ 0 days

Noirdesir (talk) 13:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

References

Peachpit

Speer320, as I admitted, I have not yet had the time to check the material from peachpit. Did you do so? In which way is it more of advertising than an informative article about the economy from the NYT with plenty of flash ads? They probably contain the company name peachpit, just like the articles from the NYT contain the name New York Times. I just try to understand why information from one source is acceptable but not from another? Mlewan (talk) 14:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

NYT is a publication that reports news very different from what Peachpittv Did . The Edits made violated Wikipedia Guidelines see: Not. Speer320 (talk) 14:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Your logic is far from convincing. "Very different"! What's that supposed to mean? And in which way do they violate any guidelines? In the future, please, don't just add a link to a "guideline" without explaining in which way a particular source in your opinion violates it.

However, I have now watched the actual clips, and I agree that in this case, they do not add any valuable information. Not because they "violate" anything, but because their information is trivial. They are not at the same level as many of the other peachpit podcasts. I will not add them back to the article. Mlewan (talk) 19:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I am Sorry I gave such a short answer I was in a rush. I was saying that what they edited was a collection of external links Which violates the Guidelines. Also In My opinion NYT is a Much More reliable source/link since it is a Newspaper vs a Producer of learning materials Speer320 (talk) 02:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification! Mlewan (talk) 04:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

No Problem Speer320 (talk) 05:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 01:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Aperture (photography software) → Aperture (software) — The name if the proposed article title currently redirects to this article. It should be simplified for convenience. NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 13:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Was developed"?

The first line of the article has the words "Aperture is a photo editing and management software program that was developed by Apple", which sounds like the program is discontinued. Any specific reasons? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iqbal.safdar (talk • contribs) 02:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Another misconception is that Apple was the original developer and now another entity is the developer. I suggest removing "that was" so that it reads "...and management software program developed by Apple..."Gregtheross (talk) 18:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

In the intervening years this issue has resolved itself. Since mid 2014, Apple has ceased development on Aperture, so now "was developed" is now correct. 82.30.103.179 (talk) 14:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Jafeluv (talk) 00:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Aperture (software) → Aperture (application) — This article should be moved to Aperture (application) as it is more specifically an application, software seems too broader term whereas application more accurately reflects the articles subject. Additionally, programs developed for Apple's operating systems (i.e. Mac OS X and iOS) refer to computer programs as applications. - 81.154.164.210 (talk) 21:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose; "software" is only too broad if there is other software with the same name. "Application" is just short for "software application", so there's no material advantage there. Powers ^T 23:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose; per Powers. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Why the detailed version history?

...with every little bug and change? Isn't that a bit much for Wikipedia? Equinox (talk) 20:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

It is absolutely too much for Wikipedia. They are hardly notable, and half of the References are from Apple itself, which is out of bounds given the prohibition on primary sources. NewkirkPlaza (talk) 20:57, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Citation for demise from App Store

This MacRumors page confirms that Aperture was actually removed from the App Store on or about April 9. I'll let a more experienced Wikipedian convert this to a proper citation and resolve the cn annotation. Caveduck (talk) 04:33, 7 March 2016 (UTC)