PDA

View Full Version : Adobe Shipping Lightroom 1.0




MacRumors
Feb 19, 2007, 09:51 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Today, Adobe announced that they are now shipping Lightroom 1.0 (http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshoplightroom/).

New Adobe Photoshop Lightroom software is the professional photographer's essential toolbox, providing one easy application for managing, adjusting, and presenting large volumes of digital photographs so you can spend less time in front of the computer and more time behind the lens.

Adobe first previewed Lightroom in beta for in Janaury of 2006 and was seen as a direct competitor to Apple's Aperture software.

Lightroom 1.0 is being offered for $199 until April 2007, and will then cost $299. Lightroom requires Mac OS X 10.4, 1GHz G4/G5 or Intel Core Duo processor, and 768MB of RAM.



aricher
Feb 19, 2007, 09:53 AM
Could someone please post a side-by-side comparison of Lightroom and Aperture?

twoodcc
Feb 19, 2007, 09:56 AM
Could someone please post a side-by-side comparison of Lightroom and Aperture?

i would like to see that as well. i like Aperture, but maybe Lightroom is better?

superleccy
Feb 19, 2007, 10:27 AM
Lightroom 1.0 is being offered for $199.

Or US$246 + VAT if you live in the UK (147 incl VAT)

SL

CTYankee
Feb 19, 2007, 10:29 AM
The are different in many ways.

Aperture is better at:
-file management. Allows for more robust searching, organization, automatically generating albums, and most importantly...storing files on volumes other than the main disk.
-sorting and culling a shoot. Its got some nice features with stacks and such that allow you to organize photos in groups and then make selections of final choices
-how it stores edits. LR has one version, but you can creat different versions by making a Tiff. This tiff is full sized and not a RAW file. Aperture stores metadata as the 'version' so the library size is not bloated with all the file versions.

Lightroom is better at:
-better raw processing. I prefer the UI and performance of the LR RAW processor. One great feature is a healing tool that can be applied to multiple images (perfect for dust removal). However this is the same RAW processor that will be in PS CS3 so you can still get it w/o LR.
-Works better on slower/older machines
-Windows version...don't ever expect to work on a windows machine, but it does at least allow you to work cross platform if needed.
-Easier to learn

Thats my assesment so far. I've been using LR for the entire time and aperture for a couple months. Essentially it comes down to this...if you want the better program for one image at a time...Lightroom. If you work with many images at a time (and have a large database) aperture is better. For me its between iView for file management, then PSCS 3/ACR for processing or Aperture and PS CS3. Lightroom is not a contender because its file management is so weak compared to Aperture and very poor vs iView.

marco114
Feb 19, 2007, 10:30 AM
Geesh, that took a long time. I hope it's better. Of course, Apple will release Aperture 2.0 and crush it like a bug.

johnmcboston
Feb 19, 2007, 10:36 AM
LR has one version, but you can creat different versions by making a Tiff. This tiff is full sized and not a RAW file. Aperture stores metadata as the 'version' so the library size is not bloated with all the file versions.


Being a software geek, I found Aperture's 'versioning' system confusing... Does lightroom have anything better? (or anything at all?)

ksgant
Feb 19, 2007, 11:19 AM
They have a 30 day demo download of Lightroom so you can try it out. They've updated it here and there over the last Beta. Give it a try and see if you like it.

bigandy
Feb 19, 2007, 11:35 AM
Geesh, that took a long time. I hope it's better. Of course, Apple will release Aperture 2.0 and crush it like a bug.

my thoughts exactly :rolleyes:

i'm love Aperture, to be honest, and don't see any need to move, personally....

BiikeMike
Feb 19, 2007, 11:44 AM
I've been using Light Room since it came out in Beta 1, and prefer it way over Aperture.

I like Lightroom's UI and its RAW processing. In my experiances, Aperture is VERY slow compared to Lightroom, and gives me the beach ball a lot. I've tried it in the Apple store, and downloaded the trial on my MBP with 2 gigs of RAM.

Also, Lightroom is very tightly integrated with the other Adobe products, and that makes it #1 in my book

iDave
Feb 19, 2007, 11:48 AM
What do these products do that Photoshop doesn't. Please excuse my ignorance.

aaronw1986
Feb 19, 2007, 11:55 AM
What do these products do that Photoshop doesn't. Please excuse my ignorance.

They are geared toward serious photographers. They offer a way to catalog photos. Also, they are powerful editors. The main feature is RAW support.

orangermac
Feb 19, 2007, 11:56 AM
Lightroom has many of the Aperture benefits in the final release version:


Searching and organization features but don't think it has a way to save searches like "smart albums
Now has Stacks
Mutliple Versions as metadata supported, as is complete history of changes.


Right now, it looks like Aperture has the light table concept and ability to print books in its favor still.

Look for many of the features of each progam to migrate to the other. This is competition at it's best!

The are different in many ways.

Aperture is better at:
-file management. Allows for more robust searching, organization, automatically generating albums, and most importantly...storing files on volumes other than the main disk.
-sorting and culling a shoot. Its got some nice features with stacks and such that allow you to organize photos in groups and then make selections of final choices
-how it stores edits. LR has one version, but you can creat different versions by making a Tiff. This tiff is full sized and not a RAW file. Aperture stores metadata as the 'version' so the library size is not bloated with all the file versions.

Lightroom is better at:
-better raw processing. I prefer the UI and performance of the LR RAW processor. One great feature is a healing tool that can be applied to multiple images (perfect for dust removal). However this is the same RAW processor that will be in PS CS3 so you can still get it w/o LR.
-Works better on slower/older machines
-Windows version...don't ever expect to work on a windows machine, but it does at least allow you to work cross platform if needed.
-Easier to learn

Thats my assesment so far. I've been using LR for the entire time and aperture for a couple months. Essentially it comes down to this...if you want the better program for one image at a time...Lightroom. If you work with many images at a time (and have a large database) aperture is better. For me its between iView for file management, then PSCS 3/ACR for processing or Aperture and PS CS3. Lightroom is not a contender because its file management is so weak compared to Aperture and very poor vs iView.

iDave
Feb 19, 2007, 12:01 PM
They are geared toward serious photographers. They offer a way to catalog photos. Also, they are powerful editors. The main feature is RAW support.
Somewhat like iPhoto catalogs photos only with better editing features and RAW support? I never liked iPhoto's method of cataloging. I'd rather just keep photos in folders by date and description. I suppose this is not the place to be asking questions. I need to do some research. Have heard of Aperture and supposed it was kind of like a competitor to Photoshop, which I use nearly every day.

ksgant
Feb 19, 2007, 12:06 PM
What do these products do that Photoshop doesn't. Please excuse my ignorance.

Well, honestly...and I may get lynched for saying this...but Lightroom is mainly just Bridge on steroids. Being a photographer, I can't use Lightroom as a stand alone product because it ignores a few very crucial aspects...namely sharpening and noise control. Lightroom has controls for both of these aspects, but they're very rudimentary.

Right now, Lightroom, for me at least, has to be used in conjunction with Photoshop. Granted, Lightroom is VERY powerful in dealing with RAW data and getting the image almost exactly how I want it...but then I have to save it as a TIFF file and bring it into Photoshop to run it through Noise Ninja (if it needs it)...but then it has to be ran through Photoshops sharpening tools, which are light-years above anything that Lightroom has.

This is mainly because everything that Lightroom and Aperture do is "non-destructive". Meaning that all the changes and adjustments you do in these two programs can all be undone on the image as it's all just stored in the meta-data of the image and you're not actually changing any pixels themselves. Sharpening and noise reduction in a large degree actually change the pixel data itself.

What I'd like to see is Lightroom become the new "bridge" for Photoshop.

Mantat
Feb 19, 2007, 12:21 PM
I used to use Aperture for everything but I never liked the way it process RAWs. LR white balance gives much better results, at least in my case. The problem might be with my screen which need upgrading but still...

Also, LR is wayyy faster than Aperture.

The only place where Aperture is on top for me is the organization of the picture library, book creation, smart folder/album and metadata tree.

If you just want to take pictures and process them, LR is much better.

Also, LR is very open to other software developper so my guess is that a lot of the filters developpers are going to port their filter directly into LR.

Can anyone comment on using LR with dual screen? And how is the support for it.

Right now, I dont know which one to use. I have a licence of Aperture and I have about 8000pics in it which would be a real pain to transfert to LR (everything is metataged) but I am still contempling the task since the pics look so much better in LR. I will upload two exemple pics tonight once I am back home.

Edit: Also LR handle the DNG format much better which is one of my big deception from Aperture

jettredmont
Feb 19, 2007, 12:26 PM
Lightroom is better at:
-better raw processing. I prefer the UI and performance of the LR RAW processor. One great feature is a healing tool that can be applied to multiple images (perfect for dust removal). However this is the same RAW processor that will be in PS CS3 so you can still get it w/o LR.


I do the same (not dust on the sensor, but we bought a new cheapo but tiny camera that had an abnormality in the lens and shot a whole weekend with it before noticing and replacing it) using Apertures lift/stamp. Set up the healing tool jelly blob, then shift-command-C to copy it, then bring up the stamp tool to remove all mods aside from the healing blob, select all the images shot with the camera that weekend, stamp (shift-command-v). Saved me tens of hours of editing and/or decades of spousal bellyaching about the lost weekend of photos!

Of course, it's better just to make sure you don't get dust on your sensor or a scratch on your lens in the first place :)

Westside guy
Feb 19, 2007, 12:28 PM
I will have to try out 1.0 - it's great that both companies are providing free fully-functioning trial versions of their software.

Last time I compared the two was with Beta 3 of Lightroom versus Aperture 1.5. In my mind, Aperture won out because it did the job without getting in the way. I really liked the Lightroom curves tool; but the more I've learned to use Aperture the more I've realized I can get the same results with its tools. But we'll have to see what goodies are in this release version of Lightroom.

I've gotta wonder about people that are seeing Aperture as "slow" on higher-end hardware. I run it on a Macbook Pro 2.16 (Core 2 duo) and most processes are close enough to instant that it doesn't matter.

What do these products do that Photoshop doesn't. Please excuse my ignorance.

Non-destructive raw processing is HUGE.

I used to use Aperture for everything but I never liked the way it process RAWs. LR white balance gives much better results, at least in my case. The problem might be with my screen which need upgrading but still...

Likely a stupid question, but - have you calibrated your screen (using a real calibration tool, not the built-in Mac software)?

volvoben
Feb 19, 2007, 12:48 PM
Overall I'm just quite glad that there's healthy competition in the market. If photoshop had real competition, CS3 would have been out in November with even more new features. That said, pscs3 is nice, runs fast on intel and has some new features I already miss when on cs2 at work.

my take on Lightroom vs. aperture:

aperture has organization mainly on their side, while lightroom is definitely faster, has great raw processing and meshes nicely with the rest of adobe's graphics programs. I like the 'feel' of aperture quite a bit more, but it is much more apt to bog down.

Overall I've decided that the entire concept of a 'super-iPhoto' isn't what I need for my photography at this point. I am sticking to organizing my own nicely labeled folders, viewing thumbnails in finder, previewing in preview (or in leopard the quickview app looks perfect) and editing anything worthy in photoshop. It may sound inefficient, but in practice it works somewhat smoother for me.

I might decide to use the cs3 bridge as a sort of viewer for my folders, but I'm sticking with my own organization and saving my edited files as psd so i'll still have all the originals and never have to worry about having a library of photos without my edits.

I think if aperture or lightroom offered complete processing (good sharpening, noise removal and photoshop plugin integration) i would have used them for 90% of my photo needs, but without these options I'll save my $200/$300 for CS3 whenever that arrives. Given a bit more time to compete, I'm sure these programs will become more useful, even for me.

On a last note, ideally i'd like to have both aperture/lightroom and photoshop open simultaneously, so I can quickly toss a photo to photoshop for more advanced editing. However without more than 2gb of ram, it's awfully tough to achieve quick results with larger files (aperture was worse at this).

jettredmont
Feb 19, 2007, 01:33 PM
Somewhat like iPhoto catalogs photos only with better editing features and RAW support? I never liked iPhoto's method of cataloging. I'd rather just keep photos in folders by date and description. I suppose this is not the place to be asking questions. I need to do some research. Have heard of Aperture and supposed it was kind of like a competitor to Photoshop, which I use nearly every day.

Aperture lets you have "unmanaged" (ie, externally managed) photos as well as "managed" (ie, copied in to its catalogue package) photos. I personally prefer the fully-managed way of life as it's just less hassle, but I know many people moan about not being able to find their pictures in Finder. That having been said, you'll find when using Aperture that if you make changes to the image in Aperture that the original file will remain unchanged. This is by design (the change list is stored separately from the file so you can back up to start at any time without losing anything). In contrast, Lightroom, I believe, will store the changelist also in a separate file, but that file (XSD sidecar) either lives next to the original file or can be exported alongside it (not sure which). So that might be an advantage for Lightroom if you rely on Finder access to your photos.

iPhoto versus Aperture is fairly straightforward. If I were to sum it up, Aperture is for the folks who place a significant value on their pictures (monetary or otherwise), who have a habit of taking a large number of pictures, and who are willing to invest the time to learn a tool which will allow them to spend much less time per picture to achieve significantly enhanced pictures. This isn't for the teenager who captures snaps on their cell phone and emails them to her friends, or for the grandmother who just wants a place to put all her grandkids' photos. One could argue, though, that it's definitely a tool for the non-professional parent who wants to capture treasured moments and make stunning photographs as well as the obviously targeted professional photographer.

Aperture adds:

1. Hierarchal keywords. This is a huge benefit. Unfortunately my workflow doesn't allow their use, but iPhoto's flat keyword list is really limiting IMHO.

2. Non-destructive / non-linear editing. Aperture starts with the original file (JPEG or RAW, although seriously if you're using a tool like Aperture why would you be using JPEG?) and adds a "change list" to it. So, you might do a little cropping, some sharpening, some levels adjustments, and tweak the white balance, then look at it and say you want the same thing done but without the sharpening. In a standard (Photoshop) workflow you might have saved copies between each step, but even so if sharpening was the second thing you did you'll have to go back to the cropped copy then re-apply the levels and white balance adjustments. iPhoto doesn't even allow for the intermediate copies unless you force it to by duplicating the image, so you're always going back to the "start".

3. No compression between edit steps. If you do three different things to a picture in iPhoto, you have to do all three at the same time, starting from the original image, or you start getting multiple compression/decompression cycles degrading the quality of the picture. You can't, for instance, take one pass of color correcting all your pictures, then a second pass of brightening, then a third pass of cropping the best ones. You'll end up JPEG-cycling three times. Even starting from RAW in iPhoto 6, you'll still end up writing the mods out to JPEG after the first change and then you're back in the multiple-compression spiral of image quality death.

4. Highly optimized keyboard-based workflow. Once I started using the shortcut keys in Aperture I was able to do even the simple iPhoto-style edits an order of magnitude faster than I could do them in iPhoto.

5. Significantly enhanced tools. This isn't Photoshop by far, and doesn't really do anything at a pixel level (red-eye adjustments are placed, as are heal and clone instructions, but pretty much everything else acts on the image as a whole). Still, relative to the iPhoto tools you have a huge amount of additional control and options to bring to bear.

6. Vault management. This helps you keep your images in multiple places much more effectively than the iPhoto/Backup combo.

7. Stacking and comparison tools to manage "batch" shots. I operate at least half the time with my camera on burst mode, and will almost always have three or four pictures that are 90% identical, except for the expression on someone's face or the particular way a shadow fell. Aperture will auto-stack these and let me pick the winner of the stack (or in some cases multiple winners of the stack) with its side-by-side comparisons.

I'm sure there's more, but those are the major bits that come to mind. Note, however, that you do sacrifice some niceties with Aperture:

1. Slideshow options are significantly less family-friendly.
2. No Bonjour sharing of photos, or auto iWeb posting, or whatever the kids are doing these days. I really hate that I don't have Bonjour sharing, though; this is something I was using constantly with iPhoto!
3. Significantly higher machine spec requirements for Aperture versus iPhoto. On the other hand, if you're already running up against library-size limits with iPhoto then Aperture might actually be faster for you (it was for me).

My workflow:
1. Capture in RAW wherever possible. My camera captures RAW, but my wife's and kids' do not.
2. Import into Aperture for culling and finishing. "Finishing" might in rare cases involve opening in Photoshop, but that's extremely rare (about one in thousand finished pictures).
3. Delete the real downers from Aperture. These are the ones I can see no way of ever wanting to see again, like the backside of a thumb or the time the shutter released while walking, yielding a blurred shot of the forest floor.
4. Import only the best of the remaining into iPhoto. Note that rankings (stars) and keywords don't make it over in this step, which I find stupid and aggravating, but such is life.
5. Rank, keyword, etc, from iPhoto.

Any time I want a different take on a picture, or want to print it, I go back to Aperture. I find my rate of iPhoto growth is about 1/50th what it used to be, plus I'm not faced with forever losing the other 49 pictures in order to get there.

IscariotJ
Feb 19, 2007, 01:50 PM
Or US$246 + VAT if you live in the UK (£147 incl VAT)

SL

Amazon is selling it for £135, though I don't know how long that will last.

I've used the beta of LR, and had a go with the trial of Aperture. I found Aperture nicer to use. However, I need it to support the RAW for a D80, and a D40. Only LR does both.

SciTeach
Feb 19, 2007, 02:00 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Lightroom 1.0 is being offered for $199 until April 2007, and will then cost $299.

Whether an Aperture fan or Lightroom, I'd buy it now just to save $$:D More money for more memory;)

Di9it8
Feb 19, 2007, 03:33 PM
I've been using Light Room since it came out in Beta 1, and prefer it way over Aperture.


I was supplied a trial version of aperture, which was not possible to run on my G4 Laptop.
Lightroom on the other hand runs just fine, has a great front end which I think will be incorporated into PS3
The development throught the beta testing has improved the interface and I for one will be buying the product:D

Binford
Feb 19, 2007, 03:53 PM
How would you guys compare Lightroom and Aperature with Capture NX? (at least for you Nikon shooters out there)

iMikeT
Feb 19, 2007, 04:35 PM
Are there people who are actually using Aperture and/or Lightroom?

Or perhaps it's just me who doesn't find the need for such applications such as these when I have grown too accustomed to Photoshop and Bridge (a bundled Adobe Creative Suite application which can be seen as a precursor to Aperture and Lightroom).

Now that I think about it, would someone (like myself) who has invested a lot of time to learn Photoshop have the need for Aperture and Lightroom?

DMann
Feb 19, 2007, 04:38 PM
Geesh, that took a long time. I hope it's better. Of course, Apple will release Aperture 2.0 and crush it like a bug.

Very likely, yes, but the competition Adobe brings to the table
makes development that much greater.

Abstract
Feb 19, 2007, 04:48 PM
.....(snip).....

My workflow:
1. Capture in RAW wherever possible. My camera captures RAW, but my wife's and kids' do not.
2. Import into Aperture for culling and finishing. "Finishing" might in rare cases involve opening in Photoshop, but that's extremely rare (about one in thousand finished pictures).
3. Delete the real downers from Aperture. These are the ones I can see no way of ever wanting to see again, like the backside of a thumb or the time the shutter released while walking, yielding a blurred shot of the forest floor.
4. Import only the best of the remaining into iPhoto. Note that rankings (stars) and keywords don't make it over in this step, which I find stupid and aggravating, but such is life.
5. Rank, keyword, etc, from iPhoto.


Why import the best photos into iPhoto? Aperture does the same thing as iPhoto, but better and in a more "useful" way. :confused:


Geesh, that took a long time. I hope it's better. Of course, Apple will release Aperture 2.0 and crush it like a bug.

Who cares if it took a long time. The beta was available for so incredibly long, allowing usage for free. At least they didn't charge users for their beta (ie: every version of Aperture before v1.5), which is pretty much what Apple did with every version of Aperture before v1.5. Everything before that was worse than Lightroom Beta 3 and 4, and slow as a dog.

Being a photographer, I can't use Lightroom as a stand alone product because it ignores a few very crucial aspects...namely sharpening and noise control. Lightroom has controls for both of these aspects, but they're very rudimentary.

Right now, Lightroom, for me at least, has to be used in conjunction with Photoshop.

Lightroom and Aperture was never meant as a standalone product. Being required to go to Photoshop or PS Elements for more powerful editing tools was always a part of the plan.

ksgant
Feb 19, 2007, 04:58 PM
Are there people who are actually using Aperture and/or Lightroom?

Or perhaps it's just me who doesn't find the need for such applications such as these when I have grown too accustomed to Photoshop and Bridge (a bundled Adobe Creative Suite application which can be seen as a precursor to Aperture and Lightroom).

Now that I think about it, would someone (like myself) who has invested a lot of time to learn Photoshop have the need for Aperture and Lightroom?

As I said above, imagine Lightroom to be the Bridge on steroids. It is MUCH more powerful than the Bridge and actually can replace it...at least in my workflow. The images come into Photoshop just about ready to go...with the exception of noise filtering and sharpening.

Mantat
Feb 19, 2007, 05:01 PM
Likely a stupid question, but - have you calibrated your screen (using a real calibration tool, not the built-in Mac software)?

My screen is old and even with the brightness set at maximum, it is still too dark when watching DVD, etc... So I guess my screen should be at fault.

I am thinking about getting two Dell 20'' wide screen or an Apple 23''.. havent decided yet


Or buy a Canon 5D...

Doctor Q
Feb 19, 2007, 05:10 PM
I wonder if Adobe will add to Photoshop Lightroom's tone adjustment features, particularly dragging in the image to adjust parts of the curve and limiting changes to the "safe" range.

Westside guy
Feb 19, 2007, 06:24 PM
Are there people who are actually using Aperture and/or Lightroom?

Or perhaps it's just me who doesn't find the need for such applications such as these when I have grown too accustomed to Photoshop and Bridge (a bundled Adobe Creative Suite application which can be seen as a precursor to Aperture and Lightroom).

Now that I think about it, would someone (like myself) who has invested a lot of time to learn Photoshop have the need for Aperture and Lightroom?

I have been almost exclusively using Aperture (mostly since 1.5 came out) for processing and managing my digital photos. The only time I use Photoshop now is when I need to do some of the more complex tasks that aren't strictly photo-related - combining multiple images, using any of Photoshop's various styles/effects, etc. I don't need Photoshop for photo editing at all.

I'd say if you're happy with Photoshop and Bridge, though, there's no particular reason you have to migrate. I was never a fan of Bridge, and personally I have found I work much faster in Aperture than I ever did with Photoshop (IMHO Aperture's editing interface is just light-years ahead of Photoshop's). I also think non-destructive editing is the wave of the future. I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that Photoshop will go down that road soon (Your dollars, my doughnuts of course :D ).

Edit: I haven't had to do much noise cleanup, I must admit - I can see that as a compelling reason for using Photoshop (for now, until Noise Ninja and the like start hooking into Aperture and Lightroom).

zblaxberg
Feb 19, 2007, 06:27 PM
so can someone please explain what lightroom is...does it replace photoshop? what does it actually do? sry, I know all about photoshop but have never used aperture or heard of lightroom

ChrisA
Feb 19, 2007, 09:56 PM
Geesh, that took a long time. I hope it's better. Of course, Apple will release Aperture 2.0 and crush it like a bug.

No, Apple has a bit to learn about image processing. Also Aperture's target market is small. It only runs well on the newest Apple Macs. It is unusably slow on anything but a fast Mac. LR runs no only an older G4 Macs but under MS Windows too. LR is usable by a larger group.

ChrisA
Feb 19, 2007, 10:01 PM
Could someone please post a side-by-side comparison of Lightroom and Aperture?

Both Aperture and Lightroom are availabble as a free download that you can try out for 30 days. Why not download both and see for your self?

One is not better than the other. They each will have their fans. I think LR streamlines your raw workflow while Aperture has better UI and cataloging. But Aperture needs some high end hardware so many people will not be able to use it. LR will run on "anything"

jrhone
Feb 20, 2007, 12:24 AM
How would you guys compare Lightroom and Aperature with Capture NX? (at least for you Nikon shooters out there)

To me, if you dhoot Nikon and RAW, Capture NX is ESSENTIAL....it gives me the best conversion, with the least tinkering and by far the PUNCHIEST colors....then I import into Photoshop for editing, printing, converting to jpg, etc...i shoot with a D2x and there are lots of little things I like because it ties in perfectly with the camera and its options, like the B&W mode and its filters available at RAW conversion, custom curves, etc....In my opinion, for what I do (lots of fashion stuff, and auto images) I need Photoshop, but I HATE its RAW conversion, so NX to me is the best for Nikon, and then import into Photoshop...I have Aperture and I used it for a while, but I found my colors were less punchy and I had to do more tweaking. The one thing I cant live without is NX's color booster function which boosts color, put can also protect skin tones...so you can get REALLY punchy colors, but not have horrible looking skin...If you ever shot film, its like having Velvia for the scene, and if there are people in it, Astia for JUST the people, all in the same frame....i have YET to be able to duplicate this in Aperture, hours in photoshop, whatever....

Binford
Feb 20, 2007, 12:30 AM
The velvia and astia is the best exlanation i've heard yet =)

Thanks for the input! I think I've come to decide to put in my effort to get proficient in using capture nx. Are there any online/free resources you would recommend?

I really do hope nikon goes FF sometime in the future though. I start working after graduating college in July... my disposable income will be itching for it =)

Macinposh
Feb 20, 2007, 12:43 AM
One is not better than the other. They each will have their fans. I think LR streamlines your raw workflow while Aperture has better UI and cataloging. But Aperture needs some high end hardware so many people will not be able to use it. LR will run on "anything"



This is about the same conclusion that I have arrived into.

Working as a prophotog, I run some quick testes on Aperture and LR.
Ended up using the LR beta for,what,6 months now?

Theese programs definately have their place in the professional enviroment.

One suprising thing that came up with collegues,was that how little people use the central library in both programs.
Seemed that of the about then photogs, 8b]1[/b] used the library, others disabled it or skipped it..
For me,it only uses space and slows down in the long run (I shoot from 5-50GB a week).

Because everyone of us has a personal archiving system (me:year,date,client,case) with several backups, and with minimal re-use of shot pictures, the library is quite futile. I can find the pictures as fast from the archive than the LR takes to wind up,let alone aperture.
And the central library thing is confusing, it doesnt create transparency to the user,what stuff are backed up,and what isnt.


Especially the apertures central library has a very,very disaster prone aura around it... No one that I know trust it and they treat it with great suspicion.

So, in short, for many pro-photographers LR or Aperture is just a sorting+raw converter tool with no use to library

Wich is okay,because LR in my example has speed up my workflow tremendously compared to Canon Raw or Adobe bridge.
AND I get way better results.. Canon raw,and especially Bridge is inferior in developement quality of RAW pictures. But Lightroom has its own flaws too,especially with tungsten lighter pictures. I propably will try out the PhaseOne wich supposedly is a bit better on that area.


Both are flawed and have their quirks, but are getting slowly there.
I just see it as getting the program that suits ones workflow better.
Or wich one runs on ones machines better...
Aperture is a hog with its library,but LR (beta 3,4) have problems running in G5s and MBPs...


It is just for the people to use both and then decide wich one suits their workflow best.

Simple.

PmattF
Feb 20, 2007, 09:57 AM
Check out O'Reilly's Aperture and Lightroom sites, they both just started parallel week long head to head comparisons...
http://digitalmedia.oreilly.com/aperture/
http://digitalmedia.oreilly.com/lightroom/

I have been playing with the Aperture 30 day trial for the last few weeks, and spent all day yesterday with Lightroom 1.0 (I never tried any of the betas). I just recently switched to Mac, getting a 2.66 Mac Pro with 4 gigs of RAM a few weeks ago.

My impression is that I overwhelmingly, unquestionably prefer Lightroom. Here is the executive summary:

To cut to the chase, Aperture's raw conversion is not acceptable. Lightroom's is. In particular, Aperture can not do decent highlight recovery. I have been using Bibble, which IMHO, is the gold standard of raw conversion in terms of power, flexibility, and quality. However its interface is annoying and wonky (no undo, for example). Lightroom has about 95% of the power of what Bibble has, with about 10x the usability.

Aperture does seem to have more powerful asset management (in particular the smart folders). But the reality for me is that Lightroom has everything I would need. I also prefer Lightroom's approach of being much more tied to your folder structure.

It looks like Lightroom has more powerful and flexible printing. I have been using QImage on Windows, which again, is the gold standard. There is no way I would use Aperture's printing instead of that. It is possible I will be able to use Lightroom's -- I still need to look more closely at that.

The web gallery generation on both are unacceptable for me, I will stick with JAlbum for now.

In general, I like Lightroom's interface, and I found Aperture's to be annoying. But that is very subjective -- I am sure many people will have the opposite take on that.

My understanding is that Lightroom has an open API, and so will have more third party plugins/extensions. And the fact that so many more people will be using it, because there is also a Windows version will make it a much more desirable platform for third party developers.

LSS
Feb 20, 2007, 10:38 AM
Does Lightroom have fullscreen editing like Aperture does?

PmattF
Feb 20, 2007, 10:43 AM
Does Lightroom have fullscreen editing like Aperture does?

Sort of -- you can hide all the controls/menus etc away but you still get a slight border around your image, so you get about 90% of full screen. I have not seen a way to get full full screen editing like Aperture has.

But in Aperture's full screen I have not figured out a way to stop the film strip from popping up any time your cursor gets near the bottom, which just irritates me to no end. So I still prefer Lightroom with 90% of full screen, but nothing popping up until you actually want it.

PmattF
Feb 20, 2007, 10:57 AM
Check out O'Reilly's Aperture and Lightroom sites, they both just started parallel week long head to head comparisons...
http://digitalmedia.oreilly.com/aperture/
http://digitalmedia.oreilly.com/lightroom/

Also see the latest fotoespresso -- http://www.fotoespresso.com/

They have a very comprehensive write-up of Lightroom 1.0, with many points of comparison with Aperture.

maxi
Feb 20, 2007, 11:23 AM
To me, if you dhoot Nikon and RAW, Capture NX is ESSENTIAL....it gives me the best conversion, with the least tinkering and by far the PUNCHIEST colors....then I import into Photoshop for editing, printing, converting to jpg, etc...i shoot with a D2x and there are lots of little things I like because it ties in perfectly with the camera and its options, like the B&W mode and its filters available at RAW conversion, custom curves, etc....In my opinion, for what I do (lots of fashion stuff, and auto images) I need Photoshop, but I HATE its RAW conversion, so NX to me is the best for Nikon, and then import into Photoshop...I have Aperture and I used it for a while, but I found my colors were less punchy and I had to do more tweaking. The one thing I cant live without is NX's color booster function which boosts color, put can also protect skin tones...so you can get REALLY punchy colors, but not have horrible looking skin...If you ever shot film, its like having Velvia for the scene, and if there are people in it, Astia for JUST the people, all in the same frame....i have YET to be able to duplicate this in Aperture, hours in photoshop, whatever....

What he said!!
Capture NX color management is incredible. You got these little control points that let you change saturation and other stuff to the colors you want while leaving the rest untouched.
It also has lens correcting tools if you shoot nikon.

I use Aperture for cataloguing and minor correction, Capture NX for some pictures that need color retouches and Photoshop for dust removal and other tricks.
I shoot a lot of film and Capture NX is great for that too.

penguy
Feb 20, 2007, 01:10 PM
I have been on the fence between LR and Aperture...but have leaned towards LR due to the lower hardware requirements. I use a G4 mini with several external drives for the photos...and until I upgrade, I cannot use Aperture. I have been waiting for Apple to update the mini to C2D, and now it makes sense to wait for Leopard as well...summer time seems likely. Since LR will work in either case, the decision may be made for me as I don't want to miss the intro pricing. Any advice?

I currently use iPhoto for my 10,000 or so photos, but most of those are jpg...maybe 1000 or so are RAW, but iPhoto does not allow for batch mods or a number of other features that LR does well.

I take about 500 photos per month on average (family mostly), ranging from kids sports to vacation, etc. I don't feel the need for Photoshop (elements is plenty for what I do), but iPhoto falls short in a number of areas. Which of these would you recommend?

iShak
Feb 20, 2007, 01:37 PM
with lightroom my 1Gb memory macbook is very happy (no sluggish response, no jet engines), my wallet is happy and i find user interface very friendly ..

aperture is good, but its better suited to pro machines i think .. for not-so-prfessional photographers with entry-level portables> lightroom fits the bill.

Westside guy
Feb 20, 2007, 01:41 PM
What he said!!
Capture NX color management is incredible. You got these little control points that let you change saturation and other stuff to the colors you want while leaving the rest untouched.
It also has lens correcting tools if you shoot nikon.

I heard an interesting podcast on O'Reilly's "Inside Aperture" (http://digitalmedia.oreilly.com/2007/02/02/inside_aperture_podcast-8.html), where Ben Long - a Canon shooter - talked about round-tripping between Aperture and Capture NX (as opposed to the usual choice, Photoshop). He sounds quite impressed with what Nikon is doing software-wise (must be, for a Canon guy to use a Nikon-developed program).

shadowlight
Feb 20, 2007, 03:41 PM
If you use the promo code "macworld07" you can get it for $169.00 USD.

jettredmont
Feb 20, 2007, 04:02 PM
Why import the best photos into iPhoto? Aperture does the same thing as iPhoto, but better and in a more "useful" way. :confused:


Was three reasons, now two:

1. Interactions with the rest of iLife and iWork. This is sorta-kinda fixed, but Aperture still seems to be a second-class citizen.
2. Ability to share photos across our LAN. Sometimes the kids want to use one of our pictures in a report for school or such. Often my wife wants to show a slideshow of recent vacation pics in the downstairs living room while the G5 remains under my desk upstairs.
3. Not necessarily an Aperture/iPhoto thing, but having the libraries separated allows me to have quick-access JPEG images sitting in iPhoto and let an age-10 someone sit down there and know they won't be able to modify the real images. I view iPhoto as the "dummy mode" kiosk for Aperture.


Who cares if it took a long time. The beta was available for so incredibly long, allowing usage for free. At least they didn't charge users for their beta (ie: every version of Aperture before v1.5), which is pretty much what Apple did with every version of Aperture before v1.5. Everything before that was worse than Lightroom Beta 3 and 4, and slow as a dog.


True, however everyone who bought Aperture 1.0 got Aperture 1.5 for free (and got a $100 refund off the original price).


IMHO, having seen more of the final LR app, I have to say the killer feature is the point-and-drag image adjustments (I want that color more saturated). The "Colors" adjustment in Aperture has let me do some really amazing fixes, but I still feel like I'm groping around in the dark trying to decide which color to adjust for the area I'm wanting to change. LR's interactive adjustments gray-donut whatever is an awesome feature. If it doesn't make it to Aperture 2.0 I'll be incredibly disappointed!

Cult Follower
Feb 20, 2007, 05:13 PM
I'm really not that excited about this release. I don't have either product nor have I tested either of them, but I just feel better giving my hard earned money to Apple rather than Adobe, but you can't live without Photoshop.

tivoboy
Feb 21, 2007, 01:20 PM
If you use the promo code "macworld07" you can get it for $169.00 USD.


I was just coming here to post this, but ya beat me to it. After having used the betas since b1, I decided I would just buy lightroom. the code made it 167.00$ I think, go figure, no tax, downloaded both versions to Mac and PC.

painandgreed
Feb 21, 2007, 06:47 PM
Are there people who are actually using Aperture and/or Lightroom?

Or perhaps it's just me who doesn't find the need for such applications such as these when I have grown too accustomed to Photoshop and Bridge (a bundled Adobe Creative Suite application which can be seen as a precursor to Aperture and Lightroom).

Now that I think about it, would someone (like myself) who has invested a lot of time to learn Photoshop have the need for Aperture and Lightroom?

I use Aperture. Learning photoshop has nothing to do with Aperture (perhaps bridge, but I don't have that). When I shoot, I often take 500+ photos. I need a way to store, sort, and backup these images, sometimes in the next hour. I used to use iPhoto to review images and create albums of the ones worth bothering with in PS. After 25,000 photos, iPhoto really begins to bog. With Aperture, I can download the images, sort through them all and even edit with photoshop inside of Aperture. I can do this quickly and without issue. Sometimes I need to download the photos, sort through themn all to find the five worth printing, burn them to CD, and pass it off before people leave the studio and Aperture is the easiest way I've found to do that so far.* Still learning the features but the backup looks like a dream. The time it saves me with reviewing and organizing images has already made it worth it. As I change over to RAW workflow, I expect it to do it again simply due to color balance issues.

*Full disclaimer: I have not tried Lightroom or any other image management software. They could very well be better.