Aperture Tip – Zoom vs Loupe

RB | 02 February 2010 | Apple Aperture, Articles | Aperture, Apple Aperture, compare mode, Loupe, performance, Stack Mode, work-flow, Workflow, Zoom | 17 Comments

This entry is part 26 of 27 in the series Aperture Work-flow

Aperture Work-flow

Until we see Aperture 3 I am going to try to get all you Aperture fans “ready” by trying to give you some useful stuff that you may not know or may not have thought about in the version that we all have right now. For some of you it might be a whole lot like getting a new version.

This is a quick one covering something obvious but there are a couple of little hints in here that even you experts might have missed. As you know I am a big fan of stack mode if you have been reading some of my other stuff. Stack mode helps me get to selects really fast. I use compare mode as well but to a much lesser extent and usually use it way down the road in my work-flow to compare very different images.

One of the things that we all need to do is compare similar images – not just overall composition but also images that are very similar compositions in a quick sequence to get to our selects. Aside from an overview we photographers compare detail – usually at 100% – sometimes for sharpness but mostly for subtleties.

The Aperture loupe tool is the worst way to do this. Really it is. The zoom tool (Z key) is the best way. Especially if you are in stack mode or compare mode. Both images get zoomed to 100% and you can drag them around with the space bar. Better yet you can drag them both around at the same time using Shift+Space. Using Z and Shift+Space to compare two images is about 900 times more productive than trying to go back and forth using the loupe. Try it.

But wait there is more – zooming and shift space works on any number of images in a selection when you have more than one being displayed in the viewer. Yep it works with three or four or… I do this all the time and it is by far the fastest way to do things in a lot of cases. Esp if you are a shortcut key junkie like I am.

Hold on – we do have one more thing (as Steve would say). You hecklers out there may be saying to yourself – dragging images around zoomed in or using the loupe tool is so slow it sucks. Well you are sort of right but you are actually wrong. You are right if you do not have any idea how to do things effectively in Aperture – If you have a fantastic machine two images with a ton of performance killing adjustments layered on that you want to compare you should be fine. If you want to do it on not so great a machine with those same adjustments it will drag. If you have 4 images up and they have a tone of stuff going on even the biggest machine will be brought to it’s knees.

So what to do – well that’s easy instead of complaining over on the Aperture support forum of how bad Aperture sucks because it allows you to ask it to do a lot of work easily – just do it smarter. Even on the lowliest machine this works great. Before you start dragging the images around zoomed in just hit the “M key” to disable all the adjustments – drag – hit the M key again – bang no performance lag. Now if you use the menu for everything instead of shortcut keys this would be cumbersome. If you learn to use Aperture well it can be a joy in terms of responsiveness and work-flow productively. So…

Select images
Z key
M key
Shift+Space drag them
M key

I swear I can be about 4 times as productive even on a 13inch last gen MacBook with Aperture, its shortcuts, and it’s UI options than I can with Lightroom. If you didn’t know this or have not thought about it before give it a try and be sure to get used to the shortcuts so they become automatic – I swear it will feel like you got a new machine and a new version of Aperture.

17 Comments

RB says

02 February 10 at 1:10pm

Ps. For the “slow” loupe tool complainers out there the ‘M’ key trick works for that as well. You really do not need every pixel with all 52 adjustments rendered in real time as you drag the loupe to where you want it to go.

The only time this is an issue is with the killer adjustments anyway (straiten+highlight/shadows+sharpen+…) you get it.

Make it a habit and it will be come pretty much automatic muscle memory even whey you don’t ‘need’ it.

RB
Jeremy says

02 February 10 at 4:12pm

Hello RB, and thanks once again for this as smart as simple trick. I mean…heck, I know what the M key does, I know the shift-space thing…but never linked them together…

I just have one peripheral question, abut the last words of this tip: I understand you use Aperture on a last gen 13″ MBP…How does Aperture run on this machine? I want to replace my 4 years old core duo MBP, and still cannot make up my mind between the yet unannounced MBP Core i5, either 15 or 13, and the i5/i7 iMac… for my little amateur needs….but perhaps an email should better suit to this kind of question….
RB says

02 February 10 at 7:34pm

Jeremy,

I was using that 13″ last gen MB as hyperbole – I actually do not own one – nor have I run Aperture on one but I do know what causes Aperture to perform badly – combination of uninformed use, hardware, etc. If you have issues this is one thing that can help you use a machine effectively.

The newer NVIDIA machines – even the low end are far superior to the old Intel integrated graphics machines for Aperture but personally I would shell out the couple of bucks for a 15″ with the high end graphics (512M).

It is hard for me to guess at the performance of your 4 year old MBP (what model?) and the yet to be released Apples. I can tell you the new MBP’s (current) with the good graphics rock – I have two.

The point I was making is if you know Aperture and use it intelligently you can be productive on a wide variety of hardware.

RB
Eddie says

02 February 10 at 10:42pm

Jeremy,
I can tell you that Aperture runs better on my MacBook Air (rev. A) 1.8Ghz 2Gb ram Core 2 Duo than my 2007 iMac Core Duo (2 GB ram / 1.8 Ghz). Downside is the MBA will kick in the fans after a few edits, whereas the iMac stays relatively quiet.

So, any C2D is better than a CD, and the i5 will be better than both, and the i7 better still, even with the i7′s slower clock speed. It’s all about the cores, baby!

/eddie
Jeremy says

03 February 10 at 3:43am

RB, Eddie,
thanks for your feedbacks.
My MBP is a first Gen MBP Core Duo 2GHz (not core 2 duo), “maxed out” with 2GB RAM and an ATI X1600 128Mo…well, a 4 years old machine.
I think I mainly have to make up my mind between a laptop (i.e the future MBP Core i5) and an iMac…Assumming that the iMac will be more powerful than the laptops…
Sorry for the out-of-topic comments.
RB says

03 February 10 at 4:06am

Jeremy,

That is a bad assumption – some iMacs do not have as good a graphics subsystem as some of the MBP’s and vice versa. honestly all of the newer models are pretty good and will probably stack up well against your particular machine but… If you are investing in a new machine and you are running Aperture i cannot emphasize enough how much of a difference the 512M VRAM with the high end MBP’s and iMacs will make – it is significant – more than just about any other app you run.

RB
Jeremy says

03 February 10 at 5:54am

RB,
for the particular point of the VRAM, I’m convinced that either way I’ll go (MBP or iMac), I’ll get a 512VRAM machine.
Do you work only on your laptops now, or do you keep a desktop for your heavy work?
RB says

03 February 10 at 9:30am

I do a lot of work on my MBP and always have – I had the model you have with the upgraded video – Heck I started running Aperture when I had a 1.25Ghz G4 powerbook 15.

I also use a current gen macpro as well.

Both of the current gen machines I have are great.

RB
Jason D says

03 February 10 at 9:37am

Jeremy,

I have a Mac Pro with 30″ monitor and a 15″ MBP with a 2.2 GHz Core 2 Duo and 4 GB RAM. For me, it’s not so much a speed issue as it is a screen issue. I can get by on my 15″ MBP, but I really prefer to do things on my big display.

Screen size (to me) is as important as processing speed, when it comes to working with Aperture or any photo application.

The only time that I’m really doing serious photo work on my MBP is if I need to generate files on location. Some people prefer to do their own editing and just want the JPG’s. I shoot, import into the MBP, do a quick sort, and burn a CD for the client. I then export the project to a FW 800 external drive and then import into my Mac Pro when I get back home. Otherwise, I just bring the cards back home and get to work on the big screen, with a real mouse, and iTunes rocking through my external speakers.

Generally speaking, you can get more performance and more screen real estate for the same money in a desktop. There is a large premium to pay for portability, especially if you really don’t need it.

However, I would hold off a few months if you are considering a 27″ iMac until the screen issue is resolved.
RB says

03 February 10 at 9:44am

Jason,

Great advice – just one note – the current gen MacBook pros with the good graphics do as well or better than a lot of the older desktops – I swear my new MBP is about the same as my old MacPro (1st gen) with the exception of disk.

You can always connect an external display and blue tooth keyboard mouse – I travel and do workshops and find myself using that combo a lot more than I would expect.

If you don’t have MASSIVE image volume that solution is perfectly workable if you are limited in budget and need the benefits of a large display and portability. granted the ultimate set up is YOURS.

RB
Jason D says

03 February 10 at 10:44am

RB,

I upgrade computers every 3 years. This was absolutely necessary when I had a PC, but not required with Macs. However, I think I’ll stay with the schedule on my laptop and maybe go to 4 years on my Pro, especially with the new graphics card.

As I think about it, my next laptop purchase may be a 13″ MBP with a SSD. You may want to consider this as well, especially if you’re using an external monitor and keyboard/mouse. I know there is some tradeoff in performance, but you save some coin and gain portability.

However, I agree that the good old 15″ is a definite sweet spot.

It SUCKS that I can’t simply connect my display directly to the laptop on the new models. It’s a feature I would happily trade for that sorry-ass SD card slot.

It SUCKS WORSE that the adapter that I need isn’t included in a $2K computer.
RB says

03 February 10 at 10:49am

Jason,

With Apple we go through this pain every couple of years as they change display connectors – ADC – DVI – display port – I cannot wait until they come out with the 27 stand alone. If they don’t soon I might have to get a 27 iMac.

I do think it is really cool that you can use the 27 iMac as a display. We gotta take the good with the minorly bad.

RB
Jeremy says

03 February 10 at 3:34pm

Jason, RB,

thanks for your inputs.
Performance-wise, considering the limited needs I have as an amateur, I assume that either a MBP (with a dedicated GC) or an iMac will do perfectly fine.
It’s just a matter of having a laptop that only hangs around in the house (from desk to sofa) or having a desktop on which I go when I want to work on photos…
The 13″ may be an interesting option, if Apple dre to put a dedicated GC on it in the next revision. The $$ saved vs a 15″ may be used to buy an external monitor.

All this is quite futile
Jason D says

03 February 10 at 4:54pm

Jeremy,

Unless I’m wrong, Apple has the 13″ MBP to cover a price range. Unless it does EXTREMELY well, I can’t see them changing much to take it out of said price point.

Do you have an Apple store near you? If so go and try out Aperture on both a laptop and a desktop.

If you get serious with Aperture, you’ll really want a dedicated mouse for adjustments and the like (its a pain to do crops on a trackpad). If you add an external monitor (a good one anyway) you’ll be right in the neighborhood price-wise of a nicely outfitted iMac that will smoke that 13″ MBP and actually take up MORE room than an iMac alone.

If you look at the numbers, you’ll need to spend another $1K + on a 15″ MBP to equal or better the performance of the most basic 22″ iMac and you still won’t have a 22″ screen. For the same money as the hotrod 15″ MBP, buy a 22″ iMac AND an iPad for the couch.
Eddie says

03 February 10 at 10:44pm

Jason places it into a good perspective. I need to upgrade to a newer iMac also, and the new 21.5 seems the best “value for dollar”, considering the 27″ screen issues at the moment. I can utilize the Air for the occasional traveling edits (I do 95% at home), but that iPad would be a killer thing to hand to a client and have them hold it and flip through the proofs loaded in iPhoto….
Jeremy says

04 February 10 at 2:47am

Jason,
you may be right. I can’t say that i NEED portability, as the laptop stays in the house. It’s just that I’ve been getting used to to do some processing/editing with the laptop in front of the TV. But I’m inclined to change that, as I’m not satisfied (neither are the wife or my daughters) with getting stuck in front of my laptop every evening. Moreover, while doing this, I’m usually not that efficient while “working” on photos as I just talk, surf…etc at the same time. Those elements make me want to have a dedicated desktop computer. And the 27″ iMac is just a gorgeous piece of machine.
The screen real estate it offers almost scares me, as I’m used to my 15″ laptop.

Well, I just have to hit the bullet. And, in the worst case, if a desktop computer doesn’t fit me, I’ll always be able to change
Jason D says

04 February 10 at 9:16am

Jeremy,

I’m in the same spot you are most times, and that’s on the couch with the MBP sitting on the armrest or on my lap doing everything BUT photos.

The thing about having a desktop, and you already realize it based on your above post, is that it forces you into a “work” mindset. You’re more focused and that leads to better photos. All good things. I don’t know your size, but if you’re a photographer, 22 or 27″ will fit you much better than 15″

Don’t discount the iPad as a living-room laptop replacement. It’s cheaper than any Apple laptop and probably BETTER (if we believe Jobs) at the things that we were mainly using laptops for anyway. If it stays at home, you don’t even need 3G.