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

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
63,194
30,136



Adobe today updated Lightroom to version 5.7, bringing a number of new features including a built-in importer tool for users migrating their content from Aperture and iPhoto. The update follows the release of a separate plugin last month which contained similar functionality. The update also allows users to view comments and feedback from collections on Lightroom's web interface and contains bug fixes.

lightroom572.jpg
Adobe has also updated its Camera Raw plugin to version 8.7, bringing RAW file format support in Photoshop and Lightroom for cameras like the Canon EOS 7D Mark II, Fujifilm X100T, and the Samsung NX1. The update also adds new lens profiles for Apple's iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus.

Adobe Lightroom 5.7 is a free update for existing users and can be downloaded through the "Help" section in Lightroom. Adobe Camera Raw 8.7 can be downloaded through the "Help" section in Photoshop.

Article Link: Adobe Launches Lightroom 5.7 with Built-In Migration Tool for Aperture and iPhoto
 

simonmet

Cancelled
Sep 9, 2012
2,666
3,663
Sydney
I'm unfamiliar with Lightroom. Some people say the software is better but what about actual results using a range of common editing tools? Is there any difference or is it so minor as to be insignificant and impossible to detect?

As long as Aperture does what I need I can't see too much need to move over and pay Adobe for the priviledge but then I tend to only use the basic tools in Aperture.
 

d4rkc4sm

macrumors 6502
Apr 23, 2011
438
134
been using lightroom to migrate all my photos from aperture. have to say, i prefer lightroom. it's faster and i like the myriad ways i can organize my photos. the keywording in lightroom is light years better than aperture.

photo development is better too. glad i made the switch.

blurb is integrated into books module. created a 80 page book in a day, which would have taken 4 days with aperture.
 

ginkobiloba

macrumors 6502a
Jul 2, 2007
627
1,737
Paris
I'm unfamiliar with Lightroom. Some people say the software is better but what about actual results using a range of common editing tools? Is there any difference or is it so minor as to be insignificant and impossible to detect?

As long as Aperture does what I need I can't see too much need to move over and pay Adobe for the priviledge but then I tend to only use the basic tools in Aperture.

Lightroom's editing tools are more powerful, but ( like most Adobe's products ) I find it much less untuitive to use than Aperture. I've been using Aperture without ever looking at the manual, but I had to go through quite a few video tutorials to even start using Lightroom.
The ergonomy of most Adobe's tools is terrible.
 

cgc

macrumors 6502a
May 30, 2003
718
23
Utah
I'm unfamiliar with Lightroom. Some people say the software is better but what about actual results using a range of common editing tools? Is there any difference or is it so minor as to be insignificant and impossible to detect?

As long as Aperture does what I need I can't see too much need to move over and pay Adobe for the priviledge but then I tend to only use the basic tools in Aperture.

I think Aperture and Lightroom are equally good but the problem is Aperture will not be actively maintained...may see a couple Yosemite compatibility fixes but that's the end of the line for Aperture.
 

peterh988

macrumors 6502a
Jun 5, 2011
625
1,028
I think Aperture and Lightroom are equally good but the problem is Aperture will not be actively maintained...may see a couple Yosemite compatibility fixes but that's the end of the line for Aperture.

+1

I use both, each has it's own strengths and weaknesses for me, I just choose depending on what I'm doing at the time. Lightroom won the early battle for me as Aperture wouldn't allow you to rename easily in its first iteration, other wise I'd have probably chosen it.

But my main use for lightroom is just as a library manager, I rarely do any post work in it. (or in anything, I'm old school 'get it right in camera'!)
 

AppleInLVX

macrumors 65816
Jan 12, 2010
1,237
744
My primary concern has always been getting roped into some stupid Adobe subscription model. Nothing is worth that for me.

I'm waiting to see what Apple actually does with its photo strategy. I honestly don't have high hopes, as it seems impossible today to create a good cloud-based photos option that'll serve professionals. That said, photos are one of the main things that people do with their Macs, and Apple knows it. Maybe they have a rabbit in the hat yet. I'm waiting to find out.
 

staypuffinpc

macrumors member
Jun 4, 2008
49
2
Has Adobe improved its DAM? that's one of the things that had prevented me from migrating. I have alot of personal photos and have used the faces recognition feature extensively. Will the migration tool create keywords for face-tagged photos?
 

FieldingMellish

Suspended
Jun 20, 2010
2,440
3,108
From software where I can choose to upgrade or not, or use infrequently at no penalty, to software that requires a monthly subscription, like being tapped into the Adobe Matrix. No thanks.
 

throttlemeister

macrumors 6502a
Mar 31, 2009
550
63
Netherlands
My primary concern has always been getting roped into some stupid Adobe subscription model. Nothing is worth that for me.

I'm waiting to see what Apple actually does with its photo strategy. I honestly don't have high hopes, as it seems impossible today to create a good cloud-based photos option that'll serve professionals. That said, photos are one of the main things that people do with their Macs, and Apple knows it. Maybe they have a rabbit in the hat yet. I'm waiting to find out.

Lightroom is a standalone product. Nobody can say if or how long that remains, not even Adobe at this point, but not using one of the best post-processing softwares currently available because of what may potentially eventually happen in the future is just plain silly. Just like Aperture users getting their pants in a knot because they have to switch now is. As if Aperture all of a sudden stops working now.

There are a lot of programs that have their pro's and con's. But you may want to hurry up and make a choice, or get over your aversion to subscriptions because C1Pro is going subscription too. Still offered as standalone as well (like Lightroom), but the fact they offer a subscription now too is writing on the wall.
 

peterh988

macrumors 6502a
Jun 5, 2011
625
1,028
as it seems impossible today to create a good cloud-based photos option that'll serve professionals.

Yep, I'm currently managing close to half a million images via lightroom, I can't see that being possible via a cloud based system. (At least with current storage and speed limitations)
 

marioguarneros

macrumors regular
Nov 2, 2011
156
71
Does this fix the terrible performance on the iMac 5K?

Could you please elaborate? Which configuration are you using? (Memory/SSD or Fusion?)

Slow performance importing, generating 1:1 previews, or overall sluggishness?

Thanks in advance for any info you could share.
 

Chupa Chupa

macrumors G5
Jul 16, 2002
14,835
7,396
Lightroom is a standalone product. Nobody can say if or how long that remains, not even Adobe at this point, but not using one of the best post-processing softwares currently available because of what may potentially eventually happen in the future is just plain silly. Just like Aperture users getting their pants in a knot because they have to switch now is. As if Aperture all of a sudden stops working now.

There are a lot of programs that have their pro's and con's. But you may want to hurry up and make a choice, or get over your aversion to subscriptions because C1Pro is going subscription too. Still offered as standalone as well (like Lightroom), but the fact they offer a subscription now too is writing on the wall.


Well it's not all that silly for us hobbyists. From my own perspective changing to another app IS a big deal because conversions are never 100% without issues. It's neither something to be taken lightly considering all the work that goes into editing and cataloging photos nor something most want to do multiple times in as many months or years.

As you say, it's unknown how long LR will remain stand-alone which is a consideration for me because spending $120 is a non-starter. And Apple has pretty much said, while it will build in compatibility into 10.10 it won't for 10.11. So then the choice becomes staying with Aperture and 10.10 or moving forward. So while it's true Aperture won't suddenly stop working, that's only realistic as long as you stick with 10.10 and never buy a new Mac as soon as this Fall when, presumably Macs with 10.11 ship.

The unanswered question for me is where on the feature spectrum does Photos for OS X fall. If it's more Aperture-like, with iCloud options great. Problem solved. If it's a refreshed, mostly iCloud dependent, version of iPhoto then Houston, we have a problem.

So I will wait and see what Photos for OS X brings, but that alternatives are fairly daunting and worrisome for those of us hobbyists who don't have unlimited funds to rent software infinitum just to have proper access to our edits.
 

AppleInLVX

macrumors 65816
Jan 12, 2010
1,237
744
Lightroom is a standalone product. Nobody can say if or how long that remains, not even Adobe at this point, but not using one of the best post-processing softwares currently available because of what may potentially eventually happen in the future is just plain silly.

I dunno if I'd go that far. It's not silly to me to be wary of getting myself into a product to then have it turned into a monthly or annual money suck that I have come to depend upon. I have enough bills, thank you very much and that kind of business model seems utterly exploitative. It's a good reaosn to move *away* from Adobe, rather than get deeper in.

If all else fails, I have already made my choice. I'll stick with that I have. I've said it before, if I can't get good images out of Aperture + Photoshop CS6 then the problem is me, not the software.

I'm sure eventually, the software will stop running or become incompatible, but there'll always be options. SOMEone will sell something that works. Pixelmator isn't photoshop, but it's also not terrible.
 

John.B

macrumors 601
Jan 15, 2008
4,192
705
Holocene Epoch
Add my voice to the chorus wishing for a decent forward-looking solution.

Frankly, the current options suck.

For now, I'm on LR 5.x (perpetual license) but have no desire to sign up for their forever-subscription model required for new features or iOS integrations. They have yet to publish a roadmap for the perpetual use version, and given the way they are pushing CC everywhere else, I'm not holding my breath. Also, Lr web galleries still require Flash (not happening, Shantanu) and Adobe has flatly refused to update this to generate HTML5-based galleries viewable on mobile devices (iOS or Android).

Before that I was on Aperture, which had a far better workflow, not locked in to one methodology like Lr, but as we all know any meaningful work was abandoned years ago and Tim killed the product in favor of (currently vaporware) "Photos", which doesn't have a release date or even a published feature set.

The future is looking pretty grim for photographers on the Mac platform. :(
 

oscarmacca

macrumors member
Oct 22, 2008
78
0
I'm unfamiliar with Lightroom. Some people say the software is better but what about actual results using a range of common editing tools? Is there any difference or is it so minor as to be insignificant and impossible to detect?

As long as Aperture does what I need I can't see too much need to move over and pay Adobe for the priviledge but then I tend to only use the basic tools in Aperture.

Wait and see what arrives in Photos.

I can’t believe Apple is willing to sacrifice their Pro and Prosumer customers to Adobe.
 

John.B

macrumors 601
Jan 15, 2008
4,192
705
Holocene Epoch
Lightroom is a standalone product. Nobody can say if or how long that remains, not even Adobe at this point, but not using one of the best post-processing softwares currently available because of what may potentially eventually happen in the future is just plain silly. Just like Aperture users getting their pants in a knot because they have to switch now is. As if Aperture all of a sudden stops working now.

I think we can all agree that it's doubtful there will ever be a Lr 6, and at some point the 5.x version will stop being updated with RAW support for the next generation of camera sensors. Photographers would like to move forward with a product that has a future direction, and I'm not seeing anything worth the effort from either Apple or Adobe.

IMO, your "pants in a knot" comment is out of line, given that we know Aperture (and Lr 5.x) will stop working on some future version of OS X. All computer hardware eventually needs to be replaced, and Apple doesn't support older versions on newer hardware.

There are a lot of programs that have their pro's and con's. But you may want to hurry up and make a choice, or get over your aversion to subscriptions because C1Pro is going subscription too. Still offered as standalone as well (like Lightroom), but the fact they offer a subscription now too is writing on the wall.

Thanks for the heads-up. One more alternative I can scratch off my list.
 

Verita

macrumors regular
Mar 15, 2011
214
160
Atlanta/London
I'm unfamiliar with Lightroom. Some people say the software is better but what about actual results using a range of common editing tools? Is there any difference or is it so minor as to be insignificant and impossible to detect?

As long as Aperture does what I need I can't see too much need to move over and pay Adobe for the priviledge but then I tend to only use the basic tools in Aperture.

To sum it up, Lightroom is more powerful and Aperture is more intuitive. You can definitely see that functions like healing brush, noise reduction, and color channel controls are more powerful. Pictures just look better, and you have features like lens profiles built-in. However, most people will have to consult the manual to really understand how to use LR without breaking things.

I've used both, side-by-side since 2007. This pattern has always held true, throughout the versions.
 

cambox

macrumors 6502
Jun 8, 2010
256
35
omnipresent
I use Aperture occasionally but as a pro photographer most people use a pro tool and not Adobe or Apple. I personally use Phase one but then I'm shooting on digi backs of 80 megapixel. Aperture was and still is a good library and adjustment tool its just a shame Apple have yet again stiffed their pro followers yet again.
 

Going Digital

Suspended
Feb 22, 2011
39
15
Personally I am going to stick with Aperture for now and see what the new photos app has to offer when it arrives.

I'm not risking going the Adobe route so that they can fleece me for monthly rental of software when they decide they have got enough former Aperture users locked in enough to pull that stunt.
 

throttlemeister

macrumors 6502a
Mar 31, 2009
550
63
Netherlands
Perhaps I wasn't clear.

It's doubtful that there will be an perpetual-license Lr 6, but a subscription-based Lr "CC" is a given.

I personally think there will be a standalone version of LR6, but after that. I'm not a betting man, but if I were I wouldn't like the odds.

Then again, there hasn't been as much as a somewhat credible rumor about LR6 and normally one would have expected at least some scuttlebutt or even a beta by now. I'm thinking LR6 is going to be a big release, probably together with CameraRAW 9 and PS2015 and that would make it very tempting for Adobe to have that as a CC release.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.