IIRC, LR 4 beta was rather short and actual release was just a couple of months after. If this is out before summer hits, Apple is sure to lose customers. The feature spread between Aperture 3 and LR 5 will be too great to ignore. Especially when you can do things in LR 5 out of the box that you simply can't in Aperture 3 without plug ins.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Adobe Launches Photoshop Lightroom 5 Public Beta With New Healing Brush, 'Upright' Tool
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I may be one of them. Aperture is great, but I"m tired of seeing how much it can't do, compared to LR. Unless Aperture comes out with something impressive soon, it may indeed be time to jump ship. Brilliant move on Adobe's part to offer a free beta.
+1 4 u
I have been thinking about what Apple is: hardware company, trend company, consumer experience company, etc. Recently, my view has been toward the "ecosystem" provider of great consumer experience.
However, the languishing product line makes me wonder. Your reference to iWeb struck a chord with me. It is a niche product perhaps, but so easy to use. Why would Apple not have kept it up? Cost hardly appears to be the issue - especially with minor updates and Apple's vast resources. The mobile / iOS focus is understandable, but does it have to come at the expense of the ecosystem?
Apple Aperture used to be a fine product but lost all credibility now. Even in they improve it to Lightroom level now (unlikely), users will be afraid they will not move for another 4 years. I know Aperture users that are moving everything to Lightroom.
----------
Does anybody remember when Steve Jobs used to say that Adobe is lazy?
----------
Does anybody remember when Steve Jobs used to say that Adobe is lazy?
Yes, it gives people on the fence to try it out and make it fit in their workflow. Heck, I think LR 4 has a free 30 day try out too. I told a couple of my friends to switch because Aperture 3 is just withering away, but of course, people work the way they like to work (a buddy of mine still works in Photoshop CS2 doing things that CS6 just does out of the box).
They agreed if there's no major update by the end of the year, or at LEAST some word/announcement, THEN you'd really have to consider making the switch. Going to Photoshop, which makes an additional 200MB file on your hard drive via .tiff, just to make a lens correction, is insanity when you can do it in LR with a check box. Don't even get me started on the round trip for basic noise reduction. I know people tout UI this, UI that, but there comes a point...
If Apple does have Aperture 4 in the works, I don't think that's a product to be tight lipped about.
----------
The dumbest post I've read today.
There's been times where I've processed 1 photo in LR and simply sync the settings to over 500 photos. Took 15 minutes to process 500 photos. That's the benefit of LR. The rest is about organizing photos.
Same here.
Won't want to rely on Aperture for art college work, that's for sure.
Back to Adobe for anything non-private or hobby-esque.
I can't put paid-for or graded work into the hands of a software maker that calls "obsolete" as quick as Apple and doesn't update their software and pro hardware in literally ages.
And whilst the minor upgrades have been nice for what they were, there's a lot more needed than solid minors now.
Glassed Silver:mac
It has nothing to do with the age of the architecture. It is about SW and Adobe's inability to make use of the cores. The faster your 1-8 threads go in GHz the faster your performance. That's bad SW engineering. The Mac Pro's have 8-24 threads. So they can do 2-3 iterations of the iMac's workflow just not any faster.
This puts me in a somewhat awkward situation.
I'm in the market for a raw converter and/or digital asset manager. Either Aperture or Lightroom.
If I buy one of them right now, I risk to have an unsupported product 6 months later (after the launch of Lightroom 5 or Aperture 4) or a discontinued product (Aperture 3).
I could use the Lightroom 5 beta for now, but it's only usable to the end of June.
I'm in the market for a raw converter and/or digital asset manager. Either Aperture or Lightroom.
If I buy one of them right now, I risk to have an unsupported product 6 months later (after the launch of Lightroom 5 or Aperture 4) or a discontinued product (Aperture 3).
I could use the Lightroom 5 beta for now, but it's only usable to the end of June.
Excuse me, don't insult me telling me that I have a "hobby" and don't know what I'm talking about. How rude. I'm involved in a huge part of the business world. You don't even know me. And yeah, like what you're saying over the internet hiding behind a computer is so truthful.
Also I noticed your post history is very much involved in insulting people and talking down to them.Man cambox you win an award for most constructive comment of the week! "Most serious" meaning there are post houses that use it? You're telling me that post houses don't just jump on it right away?! Holy crap, thanks for that Capt. Obvious. I wouldn't be surprised if just now they start to MAYBE look it. Also, why the heck would you change for something that works for you now? Not like they need any new features from ANY of the NLE's right now that demand them to upgrade right now. In a business like that, I'd hope they take their dear sweet time looking at other technologies, but again, if what you're using isn't broke, don't fix it. Yes, eventually they'll have to but nothing has blown up on them in the last two years that would require them to move away from whatever they're using.
Now I'll be expecting you to say, "well from my hollywood movies I've helped produce." or "I work/worked at a big LA post house and we...". Whenever I hear someone say "Well I am/did ...." I ignore them because they're having to prove their worth. Tell me what you did. Did I see a movie of yours on the big screen? No? Hmmm... "but, but my friend...".
So unless you actually have some REAL contribution to the discussion, like personal experience and reasons as to why... I think it best be for you to move on.
----------
Excuse me, don't insult me telling me that I have a "hobby" and don't know what I'm talking about. How rude. I'm involved in a huge part of the business world. You don't even know me. And yeah, like what you're saying over the internet hiding behind a computer is so truthful.
Yeah, Cambox seems to be a kid no one wants to play with with his "I work for a VERY VERY large corporation..". Well hello, so do I. Fortune 100. Big whoop. A company is a company.
Wow. Talk about sounding like a senile old person being stuck in their ways.
Photoshop is 20 years old. While it is extremely powerful, it's bloated, complicated, and is from a era before the advent of commercial digital photography.
Lightroom is a program designed with modern digital photography at the forefront. It takes the best, most photographer-centric components of Photoshop (CameraRAW), puts them in a much-more-efficient workflow, and then bundles powerful catalog and archiving capability (Bridge) with it.
I'm glad you're awesome at Photoshop, and that's still a good trait and skillset to have, but Lightroom will improve your productivity beyond your wildest imagination... assuming you edit more than 20 images in a shoot. I could never effectively edit 800 images from a wedding in a reasonable amount of time with just Photoshop.
----------
Don't forget current Aperture users (and people who have never used either LR or Aperture)... the Lightroom Betas are free to try. Import a few photos and play around. See what you think, for free.
----------
Yes, same processing engine in LR5. While I do have to admit it's not as groundbreaking of a move forward as 2, 3, or 4 were... the price is right for a 2 year upgrade cycle... and the "smart offline preview" and "advanced healing brush" tools are both overhauls to the basic architecture. Everything else could definitely be point-release.
I have also heard that performance will be significantly improved.
----------
The beta is free. Play with it and give it a try!
----------
As with anything, you get to a certain point and it's difficult (and futile) to re-invent the wheel. Changes begin to slow down. 2, 3, and 4 were indeed all substantial... but 4 really came into its own. With the 2012 process version and the sliders being the way they want it... what is there? Better healing brush, we've been screaming about since LR1. Offline editing has been extremely desirable. They've cleaned up and streamlined several tedious operations and made them automatic. They've also greatly improved performance.
I think the only MAJOR request that hasn't been addressed is network sharing of catalogs, but offline preview editing will solve the real issue there for most people.
Lightroom 4 is really a great release and is hard to improve upon as much as 4 was over 3, or 3 was over 2.
----------
Lightroom 4's process version alone makes it a substantial improvement over 3. I have to admit that 5 won't be nearly the improvement over 4 though.
I would suggest getting 5 when it comes out though. Getting up to the new process version will great improve the rendering of your RAW files.
Last edited:
Apple just released an update to Aperture this morning.
Unfortunately, it's just a bug fix and improvements update.
People must still be holding their breaths.
The gentleman who mentioned that Lightroom and Aperture are a waste of time, money and skill probably has never used any of the mentioned software.
My photo processing procedure has improved immensely with the help of Lightroom. The application has been worth every penny and I'm an old school Photoshop user who use to be stuck in my ways as well.
Unfortunately, it's just a bug fix and improvements update.
People must still be holding their breaths.
The gentleman who mentioned that Lightroom and Aperture are a waste of time, money and skill probably has never used any of the mentioned software.
My photo processing procedure has improved immensely with the help of Lightroom. The application has been worth every penny and I'm an old school Photoshop user who use to be stuck in my ways as well.
The day that Adobe and Apple can work together to make a version of Lightroom that allows me to integrate with my iPhoto Library so I can have one unified database, is the day I buy Lightroom and stop using Aperture.
Sadly, this shortcoming alone is enough to keep me away from the Adobe suite, thankfully most of the pictures I take don't need a lot of editing.
Sadly, this shortcoming alone is enough to keep me away from the Adobe suite, thankfully most of the pictures I take don't need a lot of editing.
Lightroom - dng profiles and lens database corrections. That convinced me to make the move over 1 year ago (reluctantly) and while I prefer the Aperture structure and UI, it just doesn't do it for me. Ironically I now spend a lot less time in PSD using Lr4 that I did with Aperture.
Best to find someone near you and ask (hell, demand) a hug. You seem a bit frustrated and it seems to have clouded your rational thought, as you are clearly very wrong. I'm not going to enter into a volley of pros and cons of the things you allege are faulty (FCPX being just one). Important to remember that it's about preference. Now, go get that hug...
While I'm not going to be as abrasive as the first guy I will say that these are basically dumbed down versions of Photoshop and I personally don't like to work with a quarter of the tools I would need only to have shift back into PS at some point to finish anyway. To each their own though.
I don't know how many times I've seen Aperture in a quick glance and instantly thought how much better served Apple would be just putting those resources into Color for cinema colorists. The tools/technology would be more respected, more used and ultimately more useful in an area with a glut of apps with less clearly defined roles.
I don't know how many times I've seen Aperture in a quick glance and instantly thought how much better served Apple would be just putting those resources into Color for cinema colorists. The tools/technology would be more respected, more used and ultimately more useful in an area with a glut of apps with less clearly defined roles.