And yes I read the Ars Technica review. It is a perfect example of what the critics don't get about Aperture. The fellow who wrote the piece admitted he's not a professional photographer, yet he reviewed a piece of software designed for professional photographers. He used an unsupported camera to craft his review. Should we be surprised that he didn't get good results? If I try to put water in my Chevy's gas tank, do I have a right to be upset that it won't run even if the manufacturer's specs say the car needs gasoline to run?

The Ars Technica review goes on to blast the RAW conversions from Aperture and the reviewer posts his proof in the form of pictures. There's a slight problem...everyone I know looks at those pictures and sees it differently than he does.

I speak with people every day who find out how powerful Aperture is and then decide that they are going to make up their minds based on their own experience, not based on the reviews.

And by the way, I don't work for Apple nor am I sponsored by them in anyway. I did point out flaws in Aperture in this and other articles. I don't think it's a perfect program, but I do think it's worth a look.

And in closing, just because I think Aperture is an important piece of valuable software, doesn't mean I'm an Apple cheerleader. It just means that I know how to make the program work.

Thanks for reading the article Riskin.