Adobe Announces Lightroom Beta, Aperture Competitor

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Adobe has announced a new product called Lightroom (http://labs.macromedia.com/technologies/lightroom/). Adobe Lightroom offers a tool for professional photographers to import, select, develop and showcase large volumes of digital images.

The software is presently released as a public beta and will expire at the end of June 2006 and is available for download now (http://www.macromedia.com/cfusion/entitlement/index.cfm?e=labs_lightroom).

Interestingly, the beta is only available for the Mac at this time.

Adobe Lightroom Beta requires Mac OS X version 10.4.3 (Tiger) or higher, a 1GHz or faster PowerPC G4 or G5 processor (including iBook G4 or PowerBook G4), and 768 MB of RAM (although more is recommended), and 1 GB or more of free hard drive space. Windows requirements will be announced when that version is ready.


MacCentral has some (http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/01/08/lightroomfirstlook/index.php) early notes on Lightroom and offers some comparisons with Aperture (http://guides.macrumors.com/Aperture) -- Apple's professional photography tool which was announced in October.

[EricNau]

Finally, software that is only available for Mac! :D Adobe is definitely trying to compete with Aperture. :mad:

[Gherkin]

Competition is a good thing.

[arn]

Finally, software that is only available for Mac! :D Adobe is definitely trying to compete with Aperture. :mad:

Yeah... I'm guessing they released it so early for the Mac to stop people from buying Aperture.

arn

[p0intblank]

Finally, software that is only available for Mac! :D Adobe is definitely trying to compete with Aperture. :mad:

A Mac-only app from Adobe is a sweet thing, isn't it? :D :downloading now:

This is definitely some big competition for Apple's Aperture.

[Abstract]

Hopefully it's better than Aperture. Competition is good for all of us, and that'll mean Apple will have to make Aperture better than it is. :)

And it's not like Adobe is copying Apple's idea, either. They were both working on this project at the same time, obviously. I just don't wanna hear "Adobe copied Apple" at any point.

[UberMac]

Nice to see some lower specs meaning a few more people can run it. Now its time to see just how it compares to aperture for the Pros. Apple seems to be pretty good at getting it's Pro software "just right", so it will be interesting to see who comes out on top!

Uber

[EricNau]

Hopefully it's better than Aperture. Competition is good for all of us, and that'll mean Apple will have to make Aperture better than it is. :)

And it's not like Adobe is copying Apple's idea, either. They were both working on this project at the same time, obviously. I just don't wanna hear "Adobe copied Apple" at any point.
What are you talking about?! Adobe copied Apple, we all know it! Aperture was out months before "Lightroom." In fact, Adobe just copied Apple's code, that's why it is only available for Mac right now.

Just Kidding :D (someone had to say it, right?)

[Gherkin]

I have a feeling that Adobe is really going to hook me with this program by offering it for free now. I can see myself most likely coughing up the dough once they release it. Aperture would probably run like crap on my computer, so I'm happy there's an alternative.

Can't wait for this to be available tomorrow.

[Daveway]

Adobe must have had this product in the pipeline before Apple released Aperture. Adobe takes forever to develope apps and Aperture was released just a few months ago.

[EricNau]

Anybody sign up for an Adobe/Macromedia account so you could download it? Are you getting daily/weekly/monthly email updates from Adobe? - I hate it when that happens. :mad:

[toneloco2881]

Adobe must have had this product in the pipeline before Apple released Aperture. Adobe takes forever to develope apps and Aperture was released just a few months ago.
Either that, or it just shows Adobe's ability to respond when they feel threatened. In other word's, we could probably have a universal binary of photoshop in january if Adobe was so inclined, but they figure what else are we going to do? Not much choice but to sit it out, and they'll milk us along to CS3, and charge for an upgrade.

[mcarnes]

VERY EXTENSIVE REVIEW HERE:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/software/lightroom1.shtml




mc

[dansgil]

Why didn't Adobe make it Universal Binary? If they're making a new app with the Intel Transition so close, why not make it compatible with current and future macs?

[Aldaris]

Hey Adobe just want's to make sure they can get Apple Fans to approve or at least give good input before they go gold... that's all...

Either way I'm downloading now and can't wait to play!

-Judicator

[kanaka]

I wonder how far along in development the Windows version is right now. Since they don't have the pressure of Aperture on Windows, Adobe probably doesn't feel the need to release a Windows beta, but it will make me happy if the final non-beta Mac version is released a few months before the Windows version :) From the Lightroom FAQ:
The final, packaged versions for both platforms should be released within a few months of each other.

[x86isslow]

coming from a very non-professional background, the beta looks amazing. it feels like a pleasant version of iPhoto.

its all very pretty, though i'm not quite sure what it does.:confused:

[adam1185]

The only thing I don't like so far is the ugly cancel logo when you click on the progress indicator :rolleyes:

http://members.shaw.ca/adam1185/ugly.png

[Arnaud]

Mmm, I'm trying to press my brains to remember if/when such an aggressive action from Adobe against Apple happened before... :confused:

I mean, Adobe releases a free (ie, marketing agressive) beta (ie, not-ready-but-we're-in-a-hurry) version of a direct competitor to Apple's software... Maybe it's because Apple stepped for the first time of the last ten years on Adobe's market - Aperture reducing the need to use Photoshop for color corrections -.

(I said "in the last ten years" to avoid anyone bringing the Claris era and even previous Macpaint/Macdraw era...)

It was interesting to see the references to Photoshop in Aperture's advertizing, I thought they were trying to show Adobe they were not so much of a competitor...

Oh well, hopefully the users will benefit from it all... :rolleyes:

Edit: Btw, I'm waiting for a potential release of a new iPhoto, with iLife 06; maybe some of the quirks will be fixed, and that will be a good tool for most beginners ? Batch chromatic corrections ? (Nah, just kidding...)

[Staffroomer]

If I had broadband I'd check it out. I never did get around to Aperture myself.. I just use Photoshop..

[cait-sith]

Either you use the Mac software, or you buy the Mac hardware and use the Adobe software.

Smart, Apple. Smart.

[liketom]

looks as if Adobe is going against Apple on this one - day before MWSF and a blatent rip off of Aperture.

but saying that it does look good - for a beta

i wonder how much Adobe will price this at ?

[nagromme]

Competition? Good. (Plus, an option for Macs whose specs are too low for Aperture.)

On Mac before Windows? Better!

Adobe showing signs of being able to develop software quickly? Best! :)

[erickg]

Yeah, it looks good. Although, to be quite honest it looks nothing as good as Aperture. Aperture just seems much more well thought through and cleaner somehow (although I admit not owning it and just seeing the info and clips on Apple's site).

I also got Lightroom to crash after only five minutes. :D Was playing around with the slideshow function and while playing a slideshow I pressed the forward button a couple times, that pretty much did it. Of course, it's beta so we shouldn't expect anything else.

I'm sure Adobe will make a lot of refinements over the coming months and improve functionality. Seems to have the makings of a nice app though.

[erickg]

If I had broadband I'd check it out. I never did get around to Aperture myself.. I just use Photoshop..

The download's only like 4 megs though, so even a dial-up connection should be able to hack it.

[Fotek2001]

The history of Lightroom (aka Shadowland) http://photoshopnews.com/2006/01/09/the-shadowlandlightroom-development-story

[skidknee]

looks as if Adobe is going against Apple on this one - day before MWSF and a blatent rip off of Aperture.

but saying that it does look good - for a beta

i wonder how much Adobe will price this at ?

Blatant rip off...I would disagree. I believe they started this project 18 months ago, and it seems that Adobe and Apple had the same idea to start.

They'll probably price it a lot less than $500, as they are in competition with Aperture. One thing that Adobe has as an advantage is the huge negative feedback of Aperture to help them sway the consumer.

It's lightweight, runs a whole lot faster on a laptop than Aperture, and gets the job done with the same RAW capabilities that you'd expect from Adobe. I'd say Adobe has a slight, if not growing, advantage over Apple, as their beta is free, undercutting Aperture and showing how solid it is already in a beta state.

It leaves much to be desired from Aperture.

[eXan]

Competition is a good thing.

Thats what I was going to say :)

Anyway, I'll keep using Aperture :D

[yoak]

I´ll definitly have a look at this. Aperture is too system heavy and expensive for me as a non proffesional.
This will even run on my ibook!! Great

[MarcelV]

One thing that Adobe has as an advantage is the huge negative feedback of Aperture to help them sway the consumer.
And this is based on....? Except for system requirements, Aperture isn't too bad. Haven' t taken a look at Lightroom yet and will do that shortly. Competition is good at this front, but to state a huge negative feedback for Aperture is just not correct. In the Pro market Aperture is received fairly well. So, please explain.

[Brundlefly]

and deleted one hour of intensive usage later.


I don't see how ( for me ) either aperture or lightroom can be what I might want in a photography package. I use photoshop for hours on end in an average work day, and I guess part of it is I am used to it. I go through hundreds of pictures in a week, and I appreciate the concept of having this formatted layout for working on multiple files.

iPhoto is more powerful than this release beta of lightroom, where as Aperture is like iPhoto on steroids, it still doesn't have the features I would want.

No doubt they will bundle this with cs3 as a value add, but for my money, photoshop is all I need for what I do. Utilizing actions along with channels and curves is all this is.

Trés Light-weight.

[aafuss1]

Nice to see Adobe releasing a Mac only beta-and it seems to have lower requirements than Aperture. Also I like the interface a lot.

[mdriftmeyer]

They mention Cocoa Application, but don't discuss language used.

My instincts tell me this is an ObjC++ wrapped in Cocoa interfaces to leverage the minimum necessary Cocoa qualified label and their graphics routines are just C++ so they can port it to Windows with C# Interfaces for Vista. Makes sense for their markets.

It definitely isn't what one calls a Pure ObjC Cocoa App leveraging Core Data and Core Imaging plus Foundation/AppKit solely.

Sounds like they want to re-use their core apis and just leverage the necessary interface toolkits where they need to do so.

Hell they could have written it with Qt 4 mostly and just exposed enough with Cocoa interfaces to get the label, "Written in Cocoa."

[Truffy]

Maybe it's because Apple stepped for the first time of the last ten years on Adobe's market - Aperture reducing the need to use Photoshop for color corrections -.

(I said "in the last ten years" to avoid anyone bringing the Claris era and even previous Macpaint/Macdraw era...)<cough>FCE/Premiere ... 2003 (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2003/jul/16fcp.html)</cough>Trade in Premiere for a Free Copy of Final Cut Express or Upgrade to Emmy-Award Winning Final Cut Pro 4 for Half Price

[Fotek2001]

and deleted one hour of intensive usage later.

I don't see how ( for me ) either aperture or lightroom can be what I might want in a photography package. I use photoshop for hours on end in an average work day, and I guess part of it is I am used to it. I go through hundreds of pictures in a week, and I appreciate the concept of having this formatted layout for working on multiple files.

Trés Light-weight.

Your signature says you are a graphic designer not a photographer and I think these apps are more workflow for photographers than editing for designers...

Having purchased Aperture, the main thing I'm disappointed in is the lack of EXIF/IPTC metadata in exported images and the sluggish performance. I still use it because there's nothing else out there like it and the organisational aspects are great - far better than iPhoto. Having said that, there are a lot of very rough edges so it would be good to see some improvements!

The announcement of Lightroom is fantastic news for all photographers because competition will spur Apple into improving Aperture and Adobe will aim high to topple Aperture.

[Platform]

Yeah...Mac first :D

Well I like Apple software and looks...I don't like the icon for Lightroom...Aperture looks better :p

[Iroganai]

Hell they could have written it with Qt 4 mostly and just exposed enough with Cocoa interfaces to get the label, "Written in Cocoa."

Well in that sense the WebKit is also the KHTML in C++ wrapped in Objective C, right ?

The good thing for us is that they're using Cocoa GUI layer so that all the controls look very Cocoa, very OS X.

[Truffy]

And this is based on....? Except for system requirements, Aperture isn't too bad. Haven' t taken a look at Lightroom yet and will do that shortly. Competition is good at this front, but to state a huge negative feedback for Aperture is just not correct. In the Pro market Aperture is received fairly well. So, please explain.Well, there are quite a few unhappy bunnies on the Apple discussions boards. But I guess that's just the nature of discussions boards, thet're hardly representative.:rolleyes:

[psycho bob]

The ironic thing is the more you use Lightroom the more you realise it does all the essential Aperture things but a lot more smoothly. It doesn't look as neat and I miss the ability to spread stuff over two monitors but it just works and does so really well. Aperture 1.0 and even 1.0.1 is an expensive beta, its RAW support is less than perfect, it isn't quick, export quality is not great and there are countless smaller bugs. Adobe has gone and provided something in the form of this beta which for me so far has been stable, smooth and if nothing else will make Apple pull there finger out.

One killer feature about Lightroom which is so simple is the ability to add files without having to import them into a new library. Why Apple didn't allow Aperture to reference files regardless of there location on the hard drive is beyond me.

[chubad]

When you go to download the public beta it says Macromedia. Your Adobe ID will not work. Could this be something that Macromedia had in the pipeline? It's on the Macromedia site not Adobe.

[redAPPLE]

Lightroom is "based on" Adobe Camera Raw. which is i think version 3.x. i don't think it is fair to compare it with Aperture 1.0.

[chubad]

It's a beta alright. Two crashes in two imports. Aperture really does have competition now!:rolleyes:

[sebpayne]

This looks great! I'm using iView Media Pro with Photoshop CS2/Camera Raw at the moment so this could be sweet! Lightroom might become the leader if:

a.) It is multi-platform
b.) It is faster than Aperture
c.) It doesn't cost $500 (the final version)
d.) It runs all all modern Macs (like my iBook and Mac Mini)
e.) It intergrates with BOTH Adobe CS and Apple stuff like Finder

I am really looking forward to trying this!

Seb

[psycho bob]

It's a beta alright. Two crashes in two imports. Aperture really does have competition now!:rolleyes:

No crashes for me after referencing 3000's pictures. Least Adobe tell us their software is beta :p

[Chip NoVaMac]

This looks great! I'm using iView Media Pro with Photoshop CS2/Camera Raw at the moment so this could be sweet! Lightroom might become the leader if:

a.) It is multi-platform
b.) It is faster than Aperture
c.) It doesn't cost $500 (the final version)
d.) It runs all all modern Macs (like my iBook and Mac Mini)
e.) It intergrates with BOTH Adobe CS and Apple stuff like Finder

I am really looking forward to trying this!

Seb

I totally agree, that I would prefer that it remain an Mac only program. Hey, any reason to get more Mac market share is good IMO.

I am really happy to see that Adobe hasn't thrown in the towel on the Mac platform. I thought with Aperture that we would see Adobe get pissed off at Apple and do less for the Mac. Witness the Elements 4.0 only being PC based so far.

[Glenn Wolsey]

Just downloaded, looks pretty nice, still playing around with it though.

[Truffy]

Adobe showing signs of being able to develop software quickly? Best! :)
Even better still, Adobe getting users' input on development at an early(ish) stage.:D

[Chip NoVaMac]

Even better still, Adobe getting users' input on development at an early(ish) stage.:D

Add to that, they have assured that as long as it does not cost more than Aperture, they will be able guaranty many users will pay the piper when the program does go on sale.

I read the Luminous Landscape "review". Pretty impressive. In some ways a better iPhoto for those that don't need integration in to the rest of the iLife suite.

Now is there an easy way of exporting files out of iPhoto's library structure?

[bigandy]

Well, there are quite a few unhappy bunnies on the Apple discussions boards. But I guess that's just the nature of discussions boards, thet're hardly representative.:rolleyes:


i believe a good point was made. with my links to the professional community, and a huge interest in the world of computing, i have noticed that there were a few people mildly unhappy with Aperture, but these were mainly reviewers. most people i know who actually (a) use it, and (b) have a good reason to use it, such as being a professional photographer, have been happy with it, for they rarely touch a version 1.x of anything.

so, i ask, as have one or two others, for some proof that there have been so many unhappy users.

[iGary]

People who are already using Aperture and have the time invested in setting up their library, along with keywording and metadata tags will most likely have no interest in Light Room.

That's me.

People who haven't adopted Aperture will obviously be interested in Light Room. Adobe was smart to get it out, but if the beta sucks really bad, it could be disasterous.

It will be interesting to watch. :D

[Stella]

First releases of Apple software aren't the best so its not surprising the flaws in Aparture.

Anyway, competition is good and Lightroom initially looks quite good having a 10 minute play with it.

[barunpaudel]

Its 2006 but I use dial up because i don't have broadband facility here. Anyways I am feeling great to be here and I expect I will gain knowledge having a look at the postings over here.Thankyou.

[Chip NoVaMac]

People who are already using Aperture and have the time invested in setting up their library, along with keywording and metadata tags will most likely have no interest in Light Room.

That's me.

People who haven't adopted Aperture will obviously be interested in Light Room. Adobe was smart to get it out, but if the beta sucks really bad, it could be disasterous.

It will be interesting to watch. :D

Right you are.

Though with public comment on the public beta, there may be hope that if enough users comment - that Adobe might be able to provide a utility to transfer the work you already have done in Aperture. Though if you love stacking you may have to stay the course.

[iGary]

Right you are.

Though with public comment on the public beta, there may be hope that if enough users comment - that Adobe might be able to provide a utility to transfer the work you already have done in Aperture. Though if you love stacking you may have to stay the course.

I like the stacking from an organization aspect when I am first bringing in a ashoot, but don't use it much past that.

Aperture's main strength IMO is its organizational aspect. I have found nothing else that allows me to go through two to three hundred images and cull out the BS anywhere as fast as Aperture.

Thi image editing has worked very well for me, especially Aperture's sharpening algorithm and WB controls. Anything elese is s simple flip over to PS.

[SiliconAddict]

Hopefully it's better than Aperture. Competition is good for all of us, and that'll mean Apple will have to make Aperture better than it is. :)

And it's not like Adobe is copying Apple's idea, either. They were both working on this project at the same time, obviously. I just don't wanna hear "Adobe copied Apple" at any point.


the fact that the thing doesn't need to be on uber hardware to run :rolleyes: pretty much assures that.

[ebally]

Am I the only one who thinks that the reason there is no Windows version yet is probably due to the fact that Windows XP cannot do all the fancy effects that Lightroom requires?

Adobe are probably working on a Windows Vista version, but as Vista isn't due out until Christmas, Adobe needed to test Lightroom to get all the bugs out... especially before Apple's Aperture gains too much ground.

[chibianh]

I haven't had a chance to download it yet. Is it PPC only? or can it be run natively on a Macintel?

[johan_tanying]

I haven't had a chance to download it yet. Is it PPC only? or can it be run natively on a Macintel?
PPC only now - there are no (commercially available) intel-based macs yet, you know... ;) There will be a Universal Binary out when the intel-macs are out (26 hours from now? :confused: :D )

[Fotek2001]

I haven't had a chance to download it yet. Is it PPC only? or can it be run natively on a Macintel?

PPC Only at the moment...

[iMeowbot]

Am I the only one who thinks that the reason there is no Windows version yet is probably due to the fact that Windows XP cannot do all the fancy effects that Lightroom requires?
I don't think there is anything especially Mac specific in there. Actually, Lightroom looks quite a bit like the parts of PS Elements that were left out of the Mac version.

So far Lightroom looks really nice. It needs crop and rotate and some sort of easy way to tie things in with Version Cue, but it really looks as though they're on the right track.

[Porchland]

Hopefully it's better than Aperture. Competition is good for all of us, and that'll mean Apple will have to make Aperture better than it is. :)

And it's not like Adobe is copying Apple's idea, either. They were both working on this project at the same time, obviously. I just don't wanna hear "Adobe copied Apple" at any point.

Oh, who knows. Companies like Apple and Adobe compete for very high stakes, so I'm sure the intel they get on each other is pretty good.

[ibook30]

I like the stacking from an organization aspect when I am first bringing in a ashoot, but don't use it much past that.

Aperture's main strength IMO is its organizational aspect. I have found nothing else that allows me to go through two to three hundred images and cull out the BS anywhere as fast as Aperture.

Thi image editing has worked very well for me, especially Aperture's sharpening algorithm and WB controls. Anything elese is s simple flip over to PS.

Good feedback from a man who stares at photos all day!

I'll be anxious to hear more feedback - I want to download this on my machine at home after work to give it a try.

[thirdwaver]

Hopefully it's better than Aperture. Competition is good for all of us, and that'll mean Apple will have to make Aperture better than it is. :)

And it's not like Adobe is copying Apple's idea, either. They were both working on this project at the same time, obviously. I just don't wanna hear "Adobe copied Apple" at any point.

Actually, I'd like to take a pot shot at Apple, not Adobe. If Apple knew that Adobe was working on such a product (doubtful they didn't) they should have left it to them.

I completely support Apple making products that software vendors seem unable or unwilling to make, but I don't like it when they steal marketshare from the very software developers that feed the platform. They could have worked with Adobe to ensure Lightroom was integrated into the other pro apps the way that Aperture is.

Competition IS a good thing... between two separate third party vendors. Not between the hardware manufacturer and one of it's developers.

Sean

[Synapple]

Good feedback from a man who stares at photos all day!

I'll be anxious to hear more feedback - I want to download this on my machine at home after work to give it a try.

Yep, I am devouring feedbacks and reviews for Aperture and will start with Lightroom from today before I take my decision.

I have a feeling, though, that the loud noise made by those who never miss a chance to slam Aperture is making us overlook the great features this application has implemented.
I'm not saying Ap is perfect as it is (lol... very far from it, as I understand it) but I am not so sure that Lightroom will be the magic wand that those disappointed by Ap are expecting it to be.

Anyway, as iGary stated, it will be very interesting to watch and see how it all develops.

[0tim0]

I was so excited when Aperture was announced. Only to find out it won't run on my G5 iMac. I did download a "hacked" version that did run on my computer. It seemed really nice, but I didn't play with it that much. Being used to Adobe's Camera Raw, I wasn't too comfortable with the image editing tools. Maybe I just needed to try it for longer.

Either way, I cannot wait to get home and download this to try it out. The things I really want out of this tool are:

1) Good RAW support (Adobe probably beats Apple here)
2) Non-destructive editing (this is probably at best a tie. Lightroom doesn't require a "library" so it might be better -- not sure, though)
3) Organization (Apple probably wins here, but I'll find out when I try it)
4) Runs on my computer (Obviously, Adobe wins here)

So, on paper, it looks like a winner. I guess I'll find out tonight!

--t

[Stella]

Light room does not use Core Graphics ( read the article ), so there is no reason why XP can't do any thing that this app does in OSX.


Am I the only one who thinks that the reason there is no Windows version yet is probably due to the fact that Windows XP cannot do all the fancy effects that Lightroom requires?

Adobe are probably working on a Windows Vista version, but as Vista isn't due out until Christmas, Adobe needed to test Lightroom to get all the bugs out... especially before Apple's Aperture gains too much ground.

[bousozoku]

Hopefully it's better than Aperture. Competition is good for all of us, and that'll mean Apple will have to make Aperture better than it is. :)

And it's not like Adobe is copying Apple's idea, either. They were both working on this project at the same time, obviously. I just don't wanna hear "Adobe copied Apple" at any point.

It looks to me as though Macromedia (notice where it's hosted) were working on it and Adobe were worried enough to have two competitors that the merged with one of them.

It's always good to have competition to move things forward.

[rayz]

Looks good, but what would I know ...?

Is it a Cocoa application?

Some of the dialog boxes look a little odd. Are they using some cross-platform toolkit to build it?

[bretm]

Let's not be so dense here. If you hadn't noticed, Apple is one of the major competitors in Multimedia Creation software. With FCP being second in the marketplace only to Avid (if they're not first actually) and they probably lead the pack in DVD with DVD Studio Pro.

They have always made software because they were always the underdog to Windows based machines. In the last 5 years or so they had to truly become a software company BECAUSE they are a hardware company that software developers were quickly not fully supporting. Companies like Avid, which used to only run on Apple, were fully switching to Windows and actually toying with the idea of leaving Apple. Apples chip manufacturers were doing squat, and Apple had to create reasons for loyalty.

Now, they are a software, hardware, and of course gadget company. And I'd argue they do all 3 better than companies that only do 1. With the success of FCP, DVDSP, and Aperture I'd say Apple can compete in the Software biz alone just fine. They're poised to do it to. All their apps run on intel. Jobs loved pointing that out, almost as a threat. If Apple hardware and OSX goes down the tubes as a platform, Adobe and Microsoft will be faced with FCP and Aperture running on Windows.

etc, etc, blah blah blah

Actually, I'd like to take a pot shot at Apple, not Adobe. If Apple knew that Adobe was working on such a product (doubtful they didn't) they should have left it to them.

I completely support Apple making products that software vendors seem unable or unwilling to make, but I don't like it when they steal marketshare from the very software developers that feed the platform. They could have worked with Adobe to ensure Lightroom was integrated into the other pro apps the way that Aperture is.

Competition IS a good thing... between two separate third party vendors. Not between the hardware manufacturer and one of it's developers.

Sean

[ifjake]

that's probably the reason it doesn't use core graphics so that the program can be ported between systems more cost effectively.

i think the move to make it more portable friendly is definitely smarter. maybe Apple will counteract with an Aperture Express version for that purpose. or maybe the new Apple portables will be awesome enough to handle it.

Adobe could definitely have the upperhand with any special Photoshop integration they could possibly add.

[mainemike]

Aperture's main strength IMO is its organizational aspect. I have found nothing else that allows me to go through two to three hundred images and cull out the BS anywhere as fast as Aperture.

This image editing has worked very well for me, especially Aperture's sharpening algorithm and WB controls. Anything elese is s simple flip over to PS.

I've been using Aperture for over a month now and I just downloaded the Lightroom beta out of curiosity. Initial reaction is that it looks like a clunkier version of Aperture. But I haven't tested Lightroom with any files yet.

It may be awhile before Lightroom is finished with the performance/polish that Aperture exhibits; quite a head start for Apple.

But that's not to say that Lightroom won't be a great app. It could be, I suppose. Unless it ends up dead in the water.

PS - Noticed it has options for Flash slideshows. Why didn't Apple build that into Aperture? Legal issues? Missing the boat?

[mambodancer]

Taking a quick look at Lightroom I can see the following pluses and minuses:

On the plus side:
The file browser and image editing tools are better than iPhoto.
System requirements are considerably less than Aperature.

On the minus side:
Printing is not as flexible as iPhoto or Aperature. You cant select standard print sizes.
No photo book support.
Very basic slideshow. No transition effects. Does not support Quicktime export.

As is, it doesn't yet offer a compelling enough reason to use. It's a good first start, but I don't think, as is, that it is a serious competitor to Aperature and not even iPhoto yet. I'll wait and see what the final version brings and how it will compare with the new version of iPhoto.

[sarge]

I wonder if Apple will fold Apperture in w/Filemaker at some point in the future.

I worked in a stock photo library years ago and the image managing software was truly an exercise in pain. I looked into Cumulus, iphoto and Apperture and will wait it out a little longer I think. So far I have filled a 160gig drive with images, so I hope it sifts out quick.

[kugino]

just downloaded and played around with it for the last 15 minutes. imported 2000 photos from iphoto library folder, choosing to keep everything there for the time being. running pretty well on my ibook (specs in sig)...haven't tried aperture yet, but this seems to be pretty good. initial thoughts:

- startup was quicker than any adobe app i've ever used (please, please don't bog down startup in the final release)
- there is rotate right and left (in response to an above comment that there wasn't)
- loupe view isn't as nice as aperture's (from what i've seen in demos), but works fine.
- scrolling through grid view is a little sticky, but a faster processor should help load the thumbnails faster (or a faster graphics card?)
- the filmstrip view on the bottom slides smoothly. like it.

'sall for now, more playing to do.

[jared_kipe]

This puts some huge pressure's on Apple to make Aperture a better product. I find it to be good, and the best at what it does, but apple needs to implement some things to not loose to Adobe. Basically they need to copy all the Adobe Camera Raw features not already in aperture specifically things like Chromatic Aberration, and better sharpening. Color could be better, though I haven't found the really wacky false contouring that some people have found.

[atari1356]

They have always made software because they were always the underdog to Windows based machines. In the last 5 years or so they had to truly become a software company BECAUSE they are a hardware company that software developers were quickly not fully supporting. Companies like Avid, which used to only run on Apple, were fully switching to Windows and actually toying with the idea of leaving Apple. Apples chip manufacturers were doing squat, and Apple had to create reasons for loyalty.

Now, they are a software, hardware, and of course gadget company. And I'd argue they do all 3 better than companies that only do 1.

Well said... Apple is as successful as it is because of the software they create. If a 3rd party app isn't as good as it should be, then why shouldn't Apple create a better competing product?

I'm sure Apple has sold a ton of hardware just because of Final Cut Pro.

[Arnaud]

<cough>FCE/Premiere ... 2003 (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2003/jul/16fcp.html)</cough>

Ah yes, my mistake... :o
Sorry !

[nxtort]

I am very impressed with this software. I have laptops doing most of the on site touch-up work and this screams compared to Aperture on the desktops.
So far so good, great job adobemedia.
-nx

[iBS23]

*puts on flame-proof suit*

This might be a stupid question, but what does one use Lightroom/Aperture for? I saw the release of Aperture and didn't look much further after seeing the price and system requirements. I've downloaded Lightroom and played around with it a bit out of curiosity. (BTW, it seems to run just fine on my iBook G4 1.42GHz with only 512MB ram -- a few points where it eemed to slow down a bit, but nothing unusable).

I guess the question should have been what does a product like this offer that Photoshop or iPhoto doesn't? Is the strength in Lightroom/Aperture simply the bulk-processing capabilities for adjusting the exposures, etc? What other benefit is there to using this type of product vs. using iPhoto and Photoshop?

[iMeowbot]

- there is rotate right and left (in response to an above comment that there wasn't)
I think that was my comment. I was referring to rotating to an arbitrary angle, not just multiples of 90 degrees. That and cropping are nice features in Aperture (and even iPhoto) that Lightroom does not yet implement. From what I've been reading so far, that's an area they do intend to address.
- loupe view isn't as nice as aperture's (from what i've seen in demos), but works fine.
The one in Aperture looks cool in demos, buy try it out. The "eyepiece" flips around if you get too close to the screen edge, which can be horribly distracting. It's a little to cutesy for its own good.
- scrolling through grid view is a little sticky, but a faster processor should help load the thumbnails faster (or a faster graphics card?)
It seems nice and smooth even on the wimpy boxes here. Are you trying this while it's still generating thumbnails? That will bog down everything, and it seems to generate them in the same seemingly random order as Bridge :(

[manu chao]

*puts on flame-proof suit*

This might be a stupid question, but what does one use Lightroom/Aperture for? I saw the release of Aperture and didn't look much further after seeing the price and system requirements. I've downloaded Lightroom and played around with it a bit out of curiosity. (BTW, it seems to run just fine on my iBook G4 1.42GHz with only 512MB ram -- a few points where it eemed to slow down a bit, but nothing unusable).

I guess the question should have been what does a product like this offer that Photoshop or iPhoto doesn't? Is the strength in Lightroom/Aperture simply the bulk-processing capabilities for adjusting the exposures, etc? What other benefit is there to using this type of product vs. using iPhoto and Photoshop?

Using raw in iPhoto is pretty useless since it is impossible to adjust the raw to jpeg conversion (the point of using raw in the first place is to be able to influence that conversion).

For me as an amateur and to simplify things a lot, Aperture is basically iPhoto on steroids, albeit a lot of steroids.

[Captain Canuck]

Adobe's Answer to iPhoto not Aperture.

Downloaded the beta and seriously it's more comparable to iPhoto than Aperture folks. It falls short of providing the working environment that Aperture does and is slightly better than iPhoto in the color and editing controls. The printing options in Aperture and iPhoto are far superior.

Adobe has a lot of work to do if they want this to be on the same level as Aperture.

[iPegboy]

Yeah, I was kind of curious what this stuff actually does. Does it organize (like iPhoto), and give you the ablity to change things like contrast and what not (like Photoshop)?

I think i'm going to download and play, just to see.

[matttichenor]

I have been using Aperture for a few weeks now and have to admit, at first it was a little daunting, but once I figurd out the workflow and the new approach to photo organization, it is like nothing else I have used before. It is revolutionary software. Indeed it has its flaws, but it is verswion one and Final Cur Pro was also problematic when it first came out, now it is the leader in its field.


I downloaded Lighroom from the Macromedia website and opened it up. Yeah it opens fast, and has a simple interface, but is miles behind what you can do with Aperture. The first thing I noticed was that I could find no stacking feature, one of the Aperture essentials. Secondly, the so called Loupe feature in lightroom is basically just a zoom tool, with less control. Compare two pics with lightroom and try to run a loupe over them and you will get my point. Try the same thing in Aperture ans see why they introduced the Loupe tool in the first place.

I stopped using Lightroom at this point. Seems to me like it miust have been a Macromedia program designed to compete with Adobe Bridge that was scrapped when the company got into trouble and was bought by Adobe. It is nowhere near as full featured as Aperture and looks like it was hortwn together in about two hours. I know it is a public beta but I suggest Adobe is worried about Pros switching to Apple for Photography and don't like i one bit. This seems like a half baked frantic reaction by Adobe to try to block Aperture from being successful.



my 2 cents


Matt

[thirdwaver]

Let's not be so dense here. If you hadn't noticed, Apple is one of the major competitors in Multimedia Creation software. With FCP being second in the marketplace only to Avid (if they're not first actually) and they probably lead the pack in DVD with DVD Studio Pro.

They have always made software because they were always the underdog to Windows based machines. In the last 5 years or so they had to truly become a software company BECAUSE they are a hardware company that software developers were quickly not fully supporting. Companies like Avid, which used to only run on Apple, were fully switching to Windows and actually toying with the idea of leaving Apple. Apples chip manufacturers were doing squat, and Apple had to create reasons for loyalty.

Hmm. I'll try not to be so dense in the future. I did happen to notice that Apple is a major competitor in the Multimedia Creation software arena because I may be "dense" but I don't live in a cave. However, what you failed to notice in my post - as demonstrated by your line "In the last 5 years or so they had to truly become a software company BECAUSE they are a hardware company that software developers were quickly not fully supporting." is that I acknowledged Apple's need to fill holes that it's software developers were not willing/able to fix. I was specifically stating that if Adobe had plans to support this, it should have been left to them.

Adobe doesn't have huge quantities of profits coming in from hardware sales to support it's software division like Apple does. Do we really want to live in a world where all of our software comes only from Apple? Would that truly lend itself to marketshare growth? If Apple and it's developers agree (like Adobe killing Premiere for the Mac in light of FCP or Microsoft killing IE in light of Safari) then fine. But it doesn't seem like this was the case this time and I don't think it's too healthy for a company with multiple revenue streams to undercut the development of one of it's vendors with two. It happened before... When Microsoft cut Netscape's throat.

How long before Adobe, Quark, and Microsoft all suddenly say, "Fine Apple. You make it. We can no longer justify the cost to support the development for your platform."

Sean

[vga4life]

My instincts tell me this is an ObjC++ wrapped in Cocoa interfaces to leverage the minimum necessary Cocoa qualified label and their graphics routines are just C++ so they can port it to Windows with C# Interfaces for Vista. Makes sense for their markets.

Or, maybe, Adobe knows something about Apple relaunching the yellow box - i.e. Cocoa for Windows.

A man can dream, anyway. :)

-vga4life

[iMeowbot]

This might be a stupid question, but what does one use Lightroom/Aperture for?
It will depend on who uses it, but from my point of view they're for "auditioning." 8,493 photos are dumped in my lap, and I need 4 or 5. A few of them might be just right if only they were a little more (fill in the blank). Programs like this offer a faster way to flip through the mess, check out the interesting ones, twiddle the knobs to see if they can be just right, and put them into a package so that we have more free time to waste in meetings debating details that no one in the real world will ever notice.

[sw1tcher]

Why didn't Adobe make it Universal Binary? If they're making a new app with the Intel Transition so close, why not make it compatible with current and future macs?

Maybe that's why it's still in Beta. They wanted to rush a product out so we'll consider this over Aperature. With the official release, it'll be a universal binary one.

[ThomasW]

[deleted]

[iMeowbot]

A little more information (http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2006/01/introducing_lightroom.html) from Adobe's John Nack on why they are doing what they are doing.

[ktb53]

I LOVE Adobe but this is just a straight ripoff of Aperture, it even looks and works the same, except not nearly as good. I don't care that they built a competing product but come up with something unique. It's obvious that they threw and early beta out there just to get the word out to the photo community so they didn't rush out and buy Aperture.

Many of you get mad at Microsoft when they ripoff Apples technology, I hope you get as mad at Adobe.

The thing that bugs me about Adobe is that they will put any product on the market that they think will make them money without much thought to how their products work together or where there's overlaps. Wasn't Bridge supposed to be their file management tool?

[iBS23]

Adobe's Answer to iPhoto not Aperture.

Downloaded the beta and seriously it's more comparable to iPhoto than Aperture folks. It falls short of providing the working environment that Aperture does and is slightly better than iPhoto in the color and editing controls. The printing options in Aperture and iPhoto are far superior.

Adobe has a lot of work to do if they want this to be on the same level as Aperture.


I guess this is the point of my question re what do you use it for. In the brief playing I did with Lightroom, it seems like a more limited version of iPhoto (limitied in that some features are missing like red eye removal) that is really designed to organize your RAW files effectively while adding the ability to make "exposure" type adjustments. For every other type of adjustment, you need to go to photoshop.

How is Aperture different? Is it essentially iPhoto with support for RAW? I assume you "professional" users still go to Photoshop for some adjustments (blemish removal for example)?

[bikertwin]

Does anyone else find it curious that on the day that Apple announced Aperture, there were some blogs about it but not much else? Compare that to the first day of Lightroom, and there are videos and tutorials and full reviews all over the place!

So, while Adobe's spies knew Aperture was coming, they probably didn't know the details until very close to the announcement date. OTOH, Apple's spies probably knew a lot about Lightroom long before it was released. This gives Apple an ample opportunity to respond to the threat.

To get to my point:

Does anyone think Apple's response tomorrow will be one or the other (or both) of:

1. Aperture 1.1/1.5 with better performance, more raw files (OS X 10.4.4), and more features

2. iPhoto '06 with significantly more power

??

[benpatient]

Having been terrified by the shortcomings of aperture when i got it, i'm quite relieved to see that there is at least some competiton. i was starting to regret switching from iView Pro 3.

To those saying that this is a lame attempt to copy apple, you've clearly not been paying attention to adobe for very long. Look how many years it took them to get indesign to it's current state...they couldn't have "just whipped this out" when they heard rumors of Aperture.

Apple, on the other hand, seems quite capable of doing massive, ground-breaking projects in months where other company's take years...which tells me that it's more likely the timeline was thus:

• Adobe aquires macromedia, along with an alpha version of a program that is now known as Lightroom.
• a little birdy mentions the concept of this program to someone on Infinity Loop, some time in the last year or so.
• Apple decides to beat adobe to launch, starts the Aperture project and decides to put a lot into making it a "big deal" pro app.
• Adobe first finds out about Aperture only this fall, probably right before the public found out. They put a big rush on the Lightroom project to try and control the damage.
• Aperture ships. With bugs. (what's up with the crappy RAW conversions, by the way?) No Curves. Fake histogram (google it). No RGB point values. No zooming beyond actual pixels. I could go on.
• Adobe decides to release a beta for free and let the community have come control over what happens with development.

[Arnaud]

... Does anyone think Apple's response tomorrow will be one or the other (or both) of:

1. Aperture 1.1/1.5 with better performance, more raw files (OS X 10.4.4), and more features

2. iPhoto '06 with significantly more power

??

iLife'06 is "expected", I think it means iPhoto'06 with it.

I really like iPhoto, but for 1) its slowness sometimes and 2) a couple of bugs (like the thumbnails not always changing to the edited photo, or twisted, or also the software crashing a little too often).

If it is properly fixed in iPhoto'06, and there's a couple of goodies more (but not to the level of Aperture, of course), I'll be happy :)

Maybe that's the real threat for Adobe, more than Aperture ?
Isn't it all a matter of how-expensive this Lightroom would be in the end ?

[bikertwin]

iLife'06 is "expected", I think it means iPhoto'06 with it.

Maybe that's the real threat for Adobe, more than Aperture ?


Yeah, when I said "iPhoto 06 with significantly more power," I really meant significantly more power. But not to the extent of Aperture, which will only get more powerful over time.

iPhoto '05 was a pretty wimpy upgrade. Here's hoping iPhoto '06 will be a significant upgrade.

[Chip NoVaMac]

A little more information (http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2006/01/introducing_lightroom.html) from Adobe's John Nack on why they are doing what they are doing.

Thanks for the link.

Gives good insight (maybe just corporate-speak) as to the reasoning on a public beta. Just look at some of the negative comments about Aperture 1.0, and saying wait till you see the improved versions down the road.

Here it seems that Adobe is giving us the core that it feels is needed. And they want to hear from us as to what we really feel is missing from Lightroom, before giving us bloat-ware.

From Nack's comments, it looks like they are looking at a $400 price tag.

Q. What will it cost?
A. We believe there's a sweet spot between Photoshop Elements and Photoshop, and we expect Lightroom to come in between those tools.

[jrhone]

For the pro photographer this thing is amazing, a near perfect application that integrates PERFECTLY with Photoshop. It does all that Aperture does, and what it doesnt do, you do in Photoshop, which most people will do in Photoshop anyway. Its fast, easy to use and works great. I played with Aperture at the Apple store for about an hour, almost bought it, but the RAW conversion is inferior to anything out there, so professionally I can't use it yet, I have been using the Nikon software, then importing to Photoshop. If Apple does not fix a few things, like the RAW conversion, and the library, then I will be using this as my RAW convertor.

[jrhone]

I guess this is the point of my question re what do you use it for. In the brief playing I did with Lightroom, it seems like a more limited version of iPhoto (limitied in that some features are missing like red eye removal) that is really designed to organize your RAW files effectively while adding the ability to make "exposure" type adjustments. For every other type of adjustment, you need to go to photoshop.

How is Aperture different? Is it essentially iPhoto with support for RAW? I assume you "professional" users still go to Photoshop for some adjustments (blemish removal for example)?

For photos shot in RAW format, which you do to get the best results, you need a GOOD RAW converter. So the first step after transfering files from the card is to sort through them, pick out the winning shots, and convert them to a usable format, PSD, TIFF, JPG, etc. The best time to do exposure , color, and white balance adjustments is at this step when you are working with the most data and dynamic range. iPhoto is awful at this. Slow, clumsy, not a very good RAW conversion. Aperture looks amazing and does a ton of stuff, but its RAW converter is still not up to par witrh Nikon, Capture One, and Adobe Camera Raw (which is the RAW converter in Lightshop). I just did a shoot and faster than I have ever done, I did all my adjustments and selections. Now from here you import into Photoshop and do your major adjustments, blemish removal, etc....But in any case you NEED a good RAW converter as a first step. Up to now, there has not been a universal first step, you usually used the siftware theat came with your camera, but the usually had its shortcomings....Lightroom is as close to the perfect solution as there is. Aperture does more, because it adds some of the editing functions of Photoshop, but if you use Photoshop, Lightroom is the perfect companion at this point. The ball is in Apple's court now.

[phonic pol]

I've been using aperture since release and initially put the time in learning all the new tools. Trying out lightroom this evening illustrates to me just how 'right' apple have got it with aperture. Adobe have got a really hard task ahead of them if they want to come anywhere close to the excellent tool that is aperture.

Lightroom has the potential to be a great product. In it's current extremely basic form it doesn't even come close to aperture's highly polished GUI, ease of use and performance. I suspect adobe will have a great product but aperture will have the edge and be the discerning choice among pro's.

My 2pence worth...

[winmacguy]

Its 2006 but I use dial up because i don't have broadband facility here. Anyways I am feeling great to be here and I expect I will gain knowledge having a look at the postings over here.Thankyou.
Welcome to Macbytes potential switcher. I think you will learn a lot from reading the posts on Macbytes forum.:)

[phonic pol]

I guess this is the point of my question re what do you use it for. In the brief playing I did with Lightroom, it seems like a more limited version of iPhoto (limitied in that some features are missing like red eye removal) that is really designed to organize your RAW files effectively while adding the ability to make "exposure" type adjustments. For every other type of adjustment, you need to go to photoshop.

How is Aperture different? Is it essentially iPhoto with support for RAW? I assume you "professional" users still go to Photoshop for some adjustments (blemish removal for example)?

Photoshop is still the best at what it does and compliments Aperture nicely. Most Pro's will be able to take pictures that don't need much in the way of pixel manipulation (Photoshop) but do need post processing or a digital darkroom (Aperture/Lightroom).

iPhoto and Aperture are worlds apart! Try working with both products within an intensive raw workflow and not much comes close to Aperture.

[phonic pol]

For the pro photographer this thing is amazing, a near perfect application that integrates PERFECTLY with Photoshop. It does all that Aperture does, and what it doesnt do, you do in Photoshop, which most people will do in Photoshop anyway. Its fast, easy to use and works great. I played with Aperture at the Apple store for about an hour, almost bought it, but the RAW conversion is inferior to anything out there, so professionally I can't use it yet, I have been using the Nikon software, then importing to Photoshop. If Apple does not fix a few things, like the RAW conversion, and the library, then I will be using this as my RAW convertor.

I've found the opposite. Raw conversion is excellent within Aperture, better than dng/photoshop. You really need to spend much more than an hour with Aperture. I would recommend at least a couple of days before you can start getting the best out of it. There are also fundamental ways of working within Aperture that take a bit of getting used to but once you are used to them they really are the best tools out there.

From one pro to another, I would recommend you spend more time with Aperture. I don't compromise with anything when it comes to producing images, especially raw conversion.

[CalfCanuck]

Here's the dreaded quote from the Luminous Landscape quick review:

"A Word of Caution

Give some thought to where you want your Library to be located. This applies both to Libraries containing imported files as well as ones that simply reference external ones, and therefore only contain thumbnails. Even these can grow quite large, quite quickly. Thumbnails of high-res raw files can be well over 1MB each."

1 MB "thumbnails"! OUCH. This is what always drove me CRAZY with integrating the Adobe Bridge solution, even for quick culling of images before I imported them into Cumulus, as it ate up my HD space just for thumbnails.

So with the 100,000's of images that some power users are complaining that Aperture can't handle (due to it's use of the Aperture library), how are they going to be happy with needing 100 GB just to store "thumbnails"??

Here's hoping that Apple allows multiple Libraries, on multiple HD's, to be open at once in Aperture 1.5 / 2.0.

[mdriftmeyer]

Well in that sense the WebKit is also the KHTML in C++ wrapped in Objective C, right ?

The good thing for us is that they're using Cocoa GUI layer so that all the controls look very Cocoa, very OS X.

Yes. Anyone who develops in the toolkits knows this. What's your point? I was speculating on what "type" technically this is classified as a Cocoa Application. It's the thinnest level of Cocoa there can be.

[bigandy]

so i've had a look at it, and me no likey.

i'll stick to aperture, with all it's problems that only i haven't experienced, and all that stuff is so bad about it, which i don't agree with.

[mlrproducts]

What gets me is I can't export a bunch of JPEGs and specify resolution, only dimensions...

[phonic pol]

so i've had a look at it, and me no likey.

i'll stick to aperture, with all it's problems that only i haven't experienced, and all that stuff is so bad about it, which i don't agree with.

I'm with you on this, very satisfied with Aperture and can't see what everyone's winging about...

[atomwork]

Gee, I thought at least Adobe will give like photoshop an action support. I think both apps are nice. Apple is still my interface fav.

I am very disapointed in both apps however that none of them give action support. When retouching many images I like what photoshop offers with their actions.

Dave

[Grimace]

This is the biggest Aperture rip off ever. Everything about the interface looks the same. Oh well, we'll see what happens.

[CalfCanuck]

I'm with you on this, very satisfied with Aperture and can't see what everyone's winging about...
Some people whine about anything - it's a first release, for crying out loud!

I loved one review that complained about the Unsharpen mask feature, using the newly implemented Unsharp features in PS CS2 (version 9!!) as an example of how backward Aperture was! So were PS v.1-8 unusable?

For me, I love the Stacking feature (not what I purchased it for), and the ability to cull 300-400 images to send off for CMYK/print (conversions via PS) out of my larger library. If it saves me tons of time selecting the images, I can never "get" why everyone is complaining about how "RAW conversions" make it unusable for in a pro workflow.

[magi.sys]

I tried this beta out. So far, so good. But I prefer Aperture's workflow and UI. I'm sure Adobe will improve it for Final release, but I'm a bit skeptical about Adobe lately. Their other products just have been 3rd rate software. I can't believe how unstable CS2 is, just seem to be getting software out a little quickly to make money. They need to focus on stability before new features!!! I guess that can be said of Apple as well though (with Aperture, Tiger, etc). I hope Aperture and Lightroom both mature into a great app and competitor.

[iMeowbot]

It looks as though Lightroom may be a lot more interesting than it appears on the surface. The about box mentioned the Lua language, and sure enough the program embeds a Lua interpreter and a fair bit of the program is written in it. Adobe haven't yet released an SDK (they say it's coming), but it's looking as though Lightroom may be more of a framework than a simple image sorter.

[TreeHugger]

I LOVE Adobe but this is just a straight ripoff of Aperture, it even looks and works the same, except not nearly as good. I don't care that they built a competing product but come up with something unique.


Um, right... Except that they started development of Lightroom way before Aperture came out. Lightroom was ironically code named shadowland and development on that had been going on since years.
I love apple as much as the next guy here, but FWIW most of apple's software isn't unique either, and just because one company is able to get its software out on the market earlier doesn't make it the paradigm that no one else is allowed to follow.


It's obvious that they threw and early beta out there just to get the word out to the photo community so they didn't rush out and buy Aperture.


Perhaps they would have not released a beta (if at all?) that soon if it hadn't been for aperture but that doesn't change anything. Its called market strategy.
As you will find if you use google, or follow this link: http://photoshopnews.com/2006/01/09/the-shadowlandlightroom-development-story, lightroom hasn't just been thrown together last week in order to compete with aperture.


Many of you get mad at Microsoft when they ripoff Apples technology, I hope you get as mad at Adobe.

The thing that bugs me about Adobe is that they will put any product on the market that they think will make them money without much thought to how their products work together or where there's overlaps. Wasn't Bridge supposed to be their file management tool?

Apple did its fair share of ripping off. I don't know all the details all to well but it has something to do with Xerox and thats a whole other story.

The file browser / bridge are very different from lightroom. Lightroom is supposed to optimize a professional photographers or serious amateur's workflow from importing from the camera to, selecting images, simple editing , more advanced in Photoshop, and then finally printing. Remember its for photographers. Graphic artists probably won't be able to benefit that much from it if at all. They have the file browser / bridge.

Truth of the matter is, Apple's Aperture and Adobe's Lightroom are probably overkill for the average person/photographer. I'm by no standards a professional photographer. Perhaps close to a serious hobby photographer and dabble a bit in graphic design. After having imported to lightroom, having made a selection from a bunch of similar images, to editing in PSCS2 and then printing, I must say Lightroom made it a lot easier. I wish we had this for my high schools yearbook back in the day, where we'd often have more than 400 photos on days with big sporting events and such.

[bigandy]

I'm with you on this, very satisfied with Aperture and can't see what everyone's winging about...


maybe it's being so far away from MWSF right now... maybe the RDF is upsetting everyone's views of everything.

or not. :rolleyes:

[bigandy]

Apple did its fair share of ripping off. I don't know all the details all to well but it has something to do with Xerox and thats a whole other story.

wasn't sure if you were being sarcastic, but, just in case...

Xerox, at PARC, developed the first Graphical User Interface, in 1973. (Well, the second, but it was really a completion of the work started at SRI).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerox_Alto

This was the basis for all GUIs. Apple didn't rip it off completely, it was 'inspired' by Alto. There is a difference. Imitation is the biggest form of flattery, as we all know (See below, section 8, Microsoft Windows. :p ).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_graphical_user_interface

[TreeHugger]

wasn't sure if you were being sarcastic, but, just in case...



nope wasn't being sarcastic :) just wanted to point out that we apple zealots often overlook apple's own faults as well :)

[sjk]

It looks to me as though Macromedia (notice where it's hosted) were working on it and Adobe were worried enough to have two competitors that the merged with one of them.Did you read The Shadowland/Lightroom Development Story (http://photoshopnews.com/2006/01/09/the-shadowlandlightroom-development-story), referred to here earlier?

[frome]

I hope this "threat" to aperture enchourages apple to improve aperture and if prossible allow it to work on slower machines. :rolleyes: Competition is (in most situations) good, so here comes Aperture 2!!! lol :D

[jacobj]

I downloaded this last night and I have to agree that it doesn't feel as advanced as aperture. But the truth is that Aperture is a Motion like beast in that it demands ridiculous amounts of processing power. For people like me who do not have the processing power (yet) Lightbox is superb.
One thing I love that I wish iPhoto did is that it opens in a album (can't remember the term they use) that is not the main library which means that it doesn't kill the processor when loading and closing.
I say well done Adobe, this may be for me!

[bousozoku]

Did you read The Shadowland/Lightroom Development Story (http://photoshopnews.com/2006/01/09/the-shadowlandlightroom-development-story), referred to here earlier?

I missed it when I posted but a lot of the parts sound familiar from way back when. Kai's Photo Soap was certainly a bad memory--good ideas wrapped up in a constantly crashing application.

I downloaded and worked with the Lightroom earlier. It could have potential but it's going to have to go much further from the current beta.

[sjk]

I read the Luminous Landscape "review". Pretty impressive. In some ways a better iPhoto for those that don't need integration in to the rest of the iLife suite.Since third party apps (e.g. Toast) can integrate with iApps (their libraries anyway) I don't see any reason why Lightroom couldn't support that, if Adobe chooses to do it.

Now is there an easy way of exporting files out of iPhoto's library structure?Are you implying there are hard ways to do it? :)

[sjk]

I missed it when I posted but a lot of the parts sound familiar from way back when. Kai's Photo Soap was certainly a bad memory--good ideas wrapped up in a constantly crashing application.Closest I came to that, I guess, would be a copy of Kai's Power Goo I ran a couple times on my wife's old PC. :)

I downloaded and worked with the Lightroom earlier. It could have potential but it's going to have to go much further from the current beta.I watched the video (which mentions a few unfinished things that have drawn criticism here) and downloaded the beta last night but haven't tried it yet. Aperature is out of my league (both hardware/software-wise) but Lightroom (if affordable enough) might eventually be tempting as an iPhoto replacement if iPhoto '06 is disappointing.

. . .

Btw, I liked benpatient speculation (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=2037581&postcount=94).

[Truffy]

Lightbox is superbMe too ... I keep calling Lightroom Lightbox! :D

[Truffy]

People who are already using Aperture and have the time invested in setting up their library, along with keywording and metadata tags will most likely have no interest in Light Room.

That's me.

People who haven't adopted Aperture will obviously be interested in Light Room. Adobe was smart to get it out, but if the beta sucks really bad, it could be disasterous.

It will be interesting to watch. :DWhether Aperture has stolen enough of a lead already is probably open to debate (read: 'wild speculation'), but I ordered Aperture in November (admittedly not from Apple) and it still hasn't arrived.

Last night I downloaded the LR beta and cancelled my order. It's a pity Apple don't offer a downloadable trial version for us to make up our own minds prior to purchase.

But for me, and I guess others, it's no longer the one-horse race that I thought it was late last year.

[The Past]

Lightroom is outstanding. Aperture does not even come close. Just looking forward to Lightroom final release makes me forget the pain of the $499 I flushed down the drain in the name of Aperture.

[bikertwin]

Lightroom is outstanding. Aperture does not even come close. Just looking forward to Lightroom final release makes me forget the pain of the $499 I flushed down the drain in the name of Aperture.

??!! :eek:

Lightroom doesn't have half the functionality of Aperture. It doesn't even support versions yet, much less stacks, lighttables, or anything resembling a real loupe.

Adobe needs to put out some more betas with a *lot* more functionality before Lightroom has any credibility at all.

[platinum321]

The one thing that Apple continually seems to do is shoot itself in the foot.

They should make a copy of Aperture for windows sytems.
Why? (Competition)

Because Adobe caters to both platforms they are ahead of the game.

Why Apple does not create software for both systems is beyond me.

Just my opinion. The fact is more people use windows based systems than Mac.

Adobe is firing both directions making the proggy availlable for Mac and Windows. They are also taking both professional and non professional suggestions from potential users while developing the program.

At this point it has the potential to be more powerfull than Aperture.

Look out Apple here comes Lightroom.
And don't forget they have the ability to add any of Photoshops functionality to Lightroom.