Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Adobe 'Doubling Down' on Lightroom in Wake of Apple's Aperture Announcement

Pafoofnik

Pafoofnik

macrumors member
Apr 14, 2014
85
276
Lightroom Alternative

I have been an Adobe fanboy for many years but CC put a big chink in their armor. When they released Lightroom's 5.4 upgrade and gave compatibility with their mobile versions only to the CC version of LR, it broke the poor camel's back.

I had a paid-for version of LR. Some guy in Dubuque had the same version but it was for CC. Both of us upgraded to LR 5.4. He was able to use the mobile apps. I was not. I got an invitation, though, to abandon the copy of LR I paid for in full and join the CC bandwagon.

No. Instead I switched to Capture One Pro 7 by Phase One. It's on sale now, 50% off. It also has a three-month trial. It has mobile apps. There will be an inconvenience with the learning curve for awhile but it shares much functionality with LR.

Adobe, enough is enough.

----------
 
Last edited:
laurihoefs

laurihoefs

macrumors 6502a
Mar 1, 2013
792
23
wheelhot said:
I thought some features in Lightroom CC is not available in Lightroom 6?

Though TBH, I prefer Aperture workflow any day over Lightroom. Now I'll have to consider going to LR which has the added benefit of vast 3rd party plugins support or go for ID which has the best RAW converter in the market. Hmmmm
Click to expand...

In CC you just get the current Lightroom version, which is Lr5. There is no separate CC version of it (for the time being...)
 
D

dorsal

macrumors regular
Aug 20, 2002
161
131
Maybe they should "triple down"?

Capture.JPG
 
C

cube

Suspended
May 10, 2004
17,011
4,972
Pafoofnik said:
I have been an Adobe fanboy for many years but CC put a big chink in their armor. When they released Lightroom's 5.4 upgrade and gave compatibility with their mobile versions only to the CC version of LR, it broke the poor camel's back.

I had a paid-for version of LR. Some guy in Dubuque had the same version but it was for CC. Both of us upgraded to LR 5.4. He was able to use the mobile apps. I was not. I got an invitation, though, to abandon the copy of LR I paid for in full and join the CC bandwagon.

No. Instead I switched to Capture One Pro 7 by Phase One. It's on sale now, 50% off. It also has a three-month trial. It has mobile apps. There will be an inconvenience with the learning curve for awhile but it shares much functionality with LR.

Adobe, enough is enough.

----------
Click to expand...


I did not now LR mobile was only compatible with LR CC.

My answer is to stay on LR4 and not buy LR5.
 
imajez

imajez

macrumors regular
Mar 11, 2014
113
42
1080p said:
Doubling down... not! Your biggest competitor pulls out. No competition means higher pricing and dragging your feet when it comes to innovation.
Click to expand...
Not much of a competitor as most pro photographers, Aperture's intended market used LR anyway. 5 years back when Aperture wasn't so far behind LR and many photographers hadn't yet moved from PS to LR, Aperture usage among American Mac using Pros was only 12.5% and LR was 44%.
 
page3

page3

macrumors 6502a
Feb 10, 2003
805
759
Outside the EU
As far a photo organisation goes, Aperture was far far ahead of lightroom and still is. You've got to be madder than a pair of dingo's kidneys not to see that. Simply saying Aperture was far behind doesn't make it so. :rolleyes:
 
laurihoefs

laurihoefs

macrumors 6502a
Mar 1, 2013
792
23
cube said:
I did not now LR mobile was only compatible with LR CC.

My answer is to stay on LR4 and not buy LR5.
Click to expand...

This is interesting. AFAIK, the mobile sync feature should work on both the retail and CC versions, as they are exactly the same.

But so far the sync has been somewhat unreliable. I had trouble setting it up, and I'm on CC.
 
Alphabetize

Alphabetize

macrumors 6502
Oct 6, 2013
452
48
Adobe seems pretty happy about this. Apple must be really confident in the new Photos app, or perhaps they just want to expand their general consumer base and rid the pro market.

I consider myself a general Apple user, I've never used Aperture, but I really love iPhoto. I'm pretty excited about the Photos app.
 
P

petsounds

macrumors 65816
Jun 30, 2007
1,493
519
1080p said:
Doubling down... not! Your biggest competitor pulls out. No competition means higher pricing and dragging your feet when it comes to innovation.
Click to expand...

Exactamundo. With no competition and people paying subscription fees, there's no need for them to push hard on innovation. Apple's decision is pretty disappointing from that perspective, as we need more competitors to Adobe, not less. They basically have monopoly status at this point.
 
imajez

imajez

macrumors regular
Mar 11, 2014
113
42
mozumder said:
The strength of Aperture was it's asset management, of which Lightroom isn't going to work.
Click to expand...

page3 said:
As far a photo organisation goes, Aperture was far far ahead of lightroom and still is. You've got to be madder than a pair of dingo's kidneys not to see that. Simply saying Aperture was far behind doesn't make it so. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Obviously you haven't learnt how to use LR properly then as it's asset management is far better.
You can organise by file/folder and by metadata. Not just the latter

A major part of the reason Aperture didn't take off was that you simply could not import your already tidily organised folders built up over many years as they were. Whereas you could with LR and then organise by metadata if you wanted to. Early betas of LR experimented with a library similar to Aperture but it was disliked so much it was thankfully replaced by the more powerful/versatile system LR now has.
 
nwcs

nwcs

macrumors 68030
Sep 21, 2009
2,722
5,262
Tennessee
mozumder said:
The problem is is that those are Raw converters & processors.

That's the LEAST important part of a pro photographers workflow. Photoshop fills the role just fine, and photojournalists don't even shoot raw. Additionally, people don't buy photos because of picture quality. They buy photos because of their relevance.

The strength of Aperture was it's asset management, of which Lightroom isn't going to work.
Click to expand...

No, all of them are not just raw converters.
 
imajez

imajez

macrumors regular
Mar 11, 2014
113
42
petsounds said:
Exactamundo. With no competition and people paying subscription fees, there's no need for them to push hard on innovation. Apple's decision is pretty disappointing from that perspective, as we need more competitors to Adobe, not less. They basically have monopoly status at this point.
Click to expand...
Apart from DXO and Capture One which are actually serious competitors to LR unlike Aperture. Plus there's Silky Pix, Corel After Shot Pro [was Bibble], Lightzone, DP, NX-D and there are a few others I can picture but not recall the names.
 
M

matt.b.powell

macrumors member
Jun 10, 2014
32
0
spaceballl said:
I'm happy to give Lightroom a shot, and I'd even pay $50, $100, or more for it if I enjoyed it, but even at only $10 / month, I don't love the idea of adding yet another "small" fee to my monthly recurring expenses. These things add up. I know saas is the future business model all these companies want, but I'd rather just pony up some $ and have everything working, free of monthly charges.
Click to expand...


http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-65215211-Photoshop-Lightroom-5/dp/B00CH6ATMO

There you go, go buy it for 135 and you don't have fees.
 
pubwvj

pubwvj

macrumors 68000
Oct 1, 2004
1,901
208
Mountains of Vermont
Adobe's subscription model kills the deal. I have been buying and using Adobe Illustrator and Photoshop since versions 1.0. I don't want to be paying them a monthly or an annual subscription fee. The issue is not the cost but that if I stop paying or they go out of business or they discontinue the product I lose access to my data and can't do my work. With my owning a bought copy I don't lose access to my data and I can always still do my work. Subscriptions are a no-go.
 
AppleInLVX

AppleInLVX

macrumors 65816
Jan 12, 2010
1,238
744
Unless adobe absolutely guarantees me I can use Lightroom forever without a subscription, they can kiss my big yellow butt.
 
Redneck1089

Redneck1089

macrumors 65816
Jan 18, 2004
1,211
467
Yeah great... Pay Adobe ever more for photo editing. Their creative bs cloud will soon cost me more than just buying what I need out right. Damn Adobe. And **** Apple.
 
P

petsounds

macrumors 65816
Jun 30, 2007
1,493
519
imajez said:
Apart from DXO and Capture One which are actually serious competitors to LR unlike Aperture. Plus there's Silky Pix, Corel After Shot Pro [was Bibble], Lightzone, DP, NX-D and there are a few others I can picture but not recall the names.
Click to expand...

I was speaking in general terms of competition to Adobe's products (esp. Photoshop and Illustrator), not to Lightroom specifically.
 
L

Lazy

macrumors 6502
May 27, 2003
305
335
Silicon Valley
page3 said:
As far a photo organisation goes, Aperture was far far ahead of lightroom and still is. You've got to be madder than a pair of dingo's kidneys not to see that. Simply saying Aperture was far behind doesn't make it so. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

mozumder said:
The strength of Aperture was it's asset management, of which Lightroom isn't going to work.
Click to expand...

imajez said:
Obviously you haven't learnt how to use LR properly then as it's asset management is far better.
You can organise by file/folder and by metadata. Not just the latter

A major part of the reason Aperture didn't take off was that you simply could not import your already tidily organised folders built up over many years as they were. Whereas you could with LR and then organise by metadata if you wanted to. Early betas of LR experimented with a library similar to Aperture but it was disliked so much it was thankfully replaced by the more powerful/versatile system LR now has.
Click to expand...

They are referring to the intuitiveness and ease of use. Just because "You can" do something doesn't mean much if actually doing it is painful and counter-intuitive. I thoroughly despise Lightroom's "management". Definitely going to follow up on the tip in the other thread to check out Capture One.

Interesting point about importing and keeping existing folder structures. It probably would have been better if Aperture offered that, but sadly it's not the Apple way to offer choices for non-mainstream uses or do anything to assist one in not doing things the way they think they should be done.
 
imajez

imajez

macrumors regular
Mar 11, 2014
113
42
petsounds said:
I was speaking in general terms of competition to Adobe's products (esp. Photoshop and Illustrator), not to Lightroom specifically.
Click to expand...
Well you need to be more precise about the fact you were speaking generally then! :D

Either way, there's lots of alternatives to Adobe's other products.
 
M

melsea

macrumors newbie
Jul 26, 2011
4
11
Photostream

As far as I know there is no photostream integration with LR or any Adobe products. I find this frustrating as I use this to sync between devices - is this correct?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom