Adobe Shipping Lightroom 1.0

Discussion in ' News Discussion' started by MacRumors, Feb 19, 2007.

  1. macrumors bot


    Apr 12, 2001

    Today, Adobe announced that they are now shipping Lightroom 1.0.

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

    Lightroom 1.0 is being offered for $199 until April 2007, and will then cost $299. Lightroom requires Mac OS X 10.4, 1GHz G4/G5 or Intel Core Duo processor, and 768MB of RAM.
  2. macrumors 68020


    Feb 20, 2004
    Could someone please post a side-by-side comparison of Lightroom and Aperture?
  3. macrumors P6


    Feb 3, 2005
    Right side of wrong
    i would like to see that as well. i like Aperture, but maybe Lightroom is better?
  4. macrumors 6502a


    Oct 31, 2004
    That there big London
    Or US$246 + VAT if you live in the UK (£147 incl VAT)

  5. macrumors 6502

    Jul 18, 2002
    The are different in many ways.

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

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

    Thats my assesment so far. I've been using LR for the entire time and aperture for a couple months. Essentially it comes down to this...if you want the better program for one image at a time...Lightroom. If you work with many images at a time (and have a large database) aperture is better. For me its between iView for file management, then PSCS 3/ACR for processing or Aperture and PS CS3. Lightroom is not a contender because its file management is so weak compared to Aperture and very poor vs iView.
  6. macrumors 6502


    Jul 17, 2001
    a year after the "beta"

    Geesh, that took a long time. I hope it's better. Of course, Apple will release Aperture 2.0 and crush it like a bug.
  7. macrumors 6502


    Sep 16, 2005
    Being a software geek, I found Aperture's 'versioning' system confusing... Does lightroom have anything better? (or anything at all?)
  8. macrumors 6502a


    Jan 12, 2006
    They have a 30 day demo download of Lightroom so you can try it out. They've updated it here and there over the last Beta. Give it a try and see if you like it.
  9. macrumors G3


    Apr 30, 2004
    my thoughts exactly :rolleyes:

    i'm love Aperture, to be honest, and don't see any need to move, personally....
  10. macrumors 65816


    Sep 17, 2005
    I've been using Light Room since it came out in Beta 1, and prefer it way over Aperture.

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

    Also, Lightroom is very tightly integrated with the other Adobe products, and that makes it #1 in my book
  11. macrumors 6502a

    Aug 14, 2003
    What do these products do that Photoshop doesn't. Please excuse my ignorance.
  12. macrumors 68030

    Oct 31, 2006
    They are geared toward serious photographers. They offer a way to catalog photos. Also, they are powerful editors. The main feature is RAW support.
  13. macrumors newbie

    Feb 10, 2007
    Lightroom vs Aperture: A Changing Landscape

    Lightroom has many of the Aperture benefits in the final release version:

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

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

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

  14. macrumors 6502a

    Aug 14, 2003
    Somewhat like iPhoto catalogs photos only with better editing features and RAW support? I never liked iPhoto's method of cataloging. I'd rather just keep photos in folders by date and description. I suppose this is not the place to be asking questions. I need to do some research. Have heard of Aperture and supposed it was kind of like a competitor to Photoshop, which I use nearly every day.
  15. macrumors 6502a


    Jan 12, 2006
    Well, honestly...and I may get lynched for saying this...but Lightroom is mainly just Bridge on steroids. Being a photographer, I can't use Lightroom as a stand alone product because it ignores a few very crucial aspects...namely sharpening and noise control. Lightroom has controls for both of these aspects, but they're very rudimentary.

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

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

    What I'd like to see is Lightroom become the new "bridge" for Photoshop.
  16. macrumors 6502a

    Sep 19, 2003
    Montréal (Canada)
    I used to use Aperture for everything but I never liked the way it process RAWs. LR white balance gives much better results, at least in my case. The problem might be with my screen which need upgrading but still...

    Also, LR is wayyy faster than Aperture.

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

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

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

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

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

    Edit: Also LR handle the DNG format much better which is one of my big deception from Aperture
  17. macrumors 68030

    Jul 25, 2002
    I do the same (not dust on the sensor, but we bought a new cheapo but tiny camera that had an abnormality in the lens and shot a whole weekend with it before noticing and replacing it) using Apertures lift/stamp. Set up the healing tool jelly blob, then shift-command-C to copy it, then bring up the stamp tool to remove all mods aside from the healing blob, select all the images shot with the camera that weekend, stamp (shift-command-v). Saved me tens of hours of editing and/or decades of spousal bellyaching about the lost weekend of photos!

    Of course, it's better just to make sure you don't get dust on your sensor or a scratch on your lens in the first place :)
  18. macrumors 601

    Westside guy

    Oct 15, 2003
    The soggy part of the Pacific NW
    I will have to try out 1.0 - it's great that both companies are providing free fully-functioning trial versions of their software.

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

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

    Non-destructive raw processing is HUGE.

    Likely a stupid question, but - have you calibrated your screen (using a real calibration tool, not the built-in Mac software)?
  19. macrumors 6502

    Feb 7, 2007
    nowhere fast
    Overall I'm just quite glad that there's healthy competition in the market. If photoshop had real competition, CS3 would have been out in November with even more new features. That said, pscs3 is nice, runs fast on intel and has some new features I already miss when on cs2 at work.

    my take on Lightroom vs. aperture:

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

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

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

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

    On a last note, ideally i'd like to have both aperture/lightroom and photoshop open simultaneously, so I can quickly toss a photo to photoshop for more advanced editing. However without more than 2gb of ram, it's awfully tough to achieve quick results with larger files (aperture was worse at this).
  20. macrumors 68030

    Jul 25, 2002
    Aperture lets you have "unmanaged" (ie, externally managed) photos as well as "managed" (ie, copied in to its catalogue package) photos. I personally prefer the fully-managed way of life as it's just less hassle, but I know many people moan about not being able to find their pictures in Finder. That having been said, you'll find when using Aperture that if you make changes to the image in Aperture that the original file will remain unchanged. This is by design (the change list is stored separately from the file so you can back up to start at any time without losing anything). In contrast, Lightroom, I believe, will store the changelist also in a separate file, but that file (XSD sidecar) either lives next to the original file or can be exported alongside it (not sure which). So that might be an advantage for Lightroom if you rely on Finder access to your photos.

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

    Aperture adds:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Any time I want a different take on a picture, or want to print it, I go back to Aperture. I find my rate of iPhoto growth is about 1/50th what it used to be, plus I'm not faced with forever losing the other 49 pictures in order to get there.
  21. macrumors 6502a

    Jan 13, 2004
    Amazon is selling it for £135, though I don't know how long that will last.

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

    Apr 18, 2006
    Whether an Aperture fan or Lightroom, I'd buy it now just to save $$:D More money for more memory;)
  23. macrumors regular

    Jan 10, 2006
    Lightroom vs Aperture

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

    Feb 15, 2007
    Boston, MA
    Capture NX

    How would you guys compare Lightroom and Aperature with Capture NX? (at least for you Nikon shooters out there)
  25. macrumors 68020

    Jul 8, 2006
    Are there people who are actually using Aperture and/or Lightroom?

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

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

Share This Page