Likely
Very likely, yes, but the competition Adobe brings to the table
makes development that much greater.
Very likely, yes, but the competition Adobe brings to the table
makes development that much greater.
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 Shipping Lightroom 1.0
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Why import the best photos into iPhoto? Aperture does the same thing as iPhoto, but better and in a more "useful" way.
marco114 said:
Who cares if it took a long time. The beta was available for so incredibly long, allowing usage for free. At least they didn't charge users for their beta (ie: every version of Aperture before v1.5), which is pretty much what Apple did with every version of Aperture before v1.5. Everything before that was worse than Lightroom Beta 3 and 4, and slow as a dog.
ksgant said:
Lightroom and Aperture was never meant as a standalone product. Being required to go to Photoshop or PS Elements for more powerful editing tools was always a part of the plan.
As I said above, imagine Lightroom to be the Bridge on steroids. It is MUCH more powerful than the Bridge and actually can replace it...at least in my workflow. The images come into Photoshop just about ready to go...with the exception of noise filtering and sharpening.
My screen is old and even with the brightness set at maximum, it is still too dark when watching DVD, etc... So I guess my screen should be at fault.
I am thinking about getting two Dell 20'' wide screen or an Apple 23''.. havent decided yet
Or buy a Canon 5D...
I wonder if Adobe will add to Photoshop Lightroom's tone adjustment features, particularly dragging in the image to adjust parts of the curve and limiting changes to the "safe" range.
I have been almost exclusively using Aperture (mostly since 1.5 came out) for processing and managing my digital photos. The only time I use Photoshop now is when I need to do some of the more complex tasks that aren't strictly photo-related - combining multiple images, using any of Photoshop's various styles/effects, etc. I don't need Photoshop for photo editing at all.
I'd say if you're happy with Photoshop and Bridge, though, there's no particular reason you have to migrate. I was never a fan of Bridge, and personally I have found I work much faster in Aperture than I ever did with Photoshop (IMHO Aperture's editing interface is just light-years ahead of Photoshop's). I also think non-destructive editing is the wave of the future. I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that Photoshop will go down that road soon (Your dollars, my doughnuts of course
).Edit: I haven't had to do much noise cleanup, I must admit - I can see that as a compelling reason for using Photoshop (for now, until Noise Ninja and the like start hooking into Aperture and Lightroom).
No, Apple has a bit to learn about image processing. Also Aperture's target market is small. It only runs well on the newest Apple Macs. It is unusably slow on anything but a fast Mac. LR runs no only an older G4 Macs but under MS Windows too. LR is usable by a larger group.
Both Aperture and Lightroom are availabble as a free download that you can try out for 30 days. Why not download both and see for your self?
One is not better than the other. They each will have their fans. I think LR streamlines your raw workflow while Aperture has better UI and cataloging. But Aperture needs some high end hardware so many people will not be able to use it. LR will run on "anything"
To me, if you dhoot Nikon and RAW, Capture NX is ESSENTIAL....it gives me the best conversion, with the least tinkering and by far the PUNCHIEST colors....then I import into Photoshop for editing, printing, converting to jpg, etc...i shoot with a D2x and there are lots of little things I like because it ties in perfectly with the camera and its options, like the B&W mode and its filters available at RAW conversion, custom curves, etc....In my opinion, for what I do (lots of fashion stuff, and auto images) I need Photoshop, but I HATE its RAW conversion, so NX to me is the best for Nikon, and then import into Photoshop...I have Aperture and I used it for a while, but I found my colors were less punchy and I had to do more tweaking. The one thing I cant live without is NX's color booster function which boosts color, put can also protect skin tones...so you can get REALLY punchy colors, but not have horrible looking skin...If you ever shot film, its like having Velvia for the scene, and if there are people in it, Astia for JUST the people, all in the same frame....i have YET to be able to duplicate this in Aperture, hours in photoshop, whatever....
The velvia and astia is the best exlanation i've heard yet =)
Thanks for the input! I think I've come to decide to put in my effort to get proficient in using capture nx. Are there any online/free resources you would recommend?
I really do hope nikon goes FF sometime in the future though. I start working after graduating college in July... my disposable income will be itching for it =)
Thanks for the input! I think I've come to decide to put in my effort to get proficient in using capture nx. Are there any online/free resources you would recommend?
I really do hope nikon goes FF sometime in the future though. I start working after graduating college in July... my disposable income will be itching for it =)
This is about the same conclusion that I have arrived into.
Working as a prophotog, I run some quick testes on Aperture and LR.
Ended up using the LR beta for,what,6 months now?
Theese programs definately have their place in the professional enviroment.
One suprising thing that came up with collegues,was that how little people use the central library in both programs.
Seemed that of the about then photogs, 8b]1[/b] used the library, others disabled it or skipped it..
For me,it only uses space and slows down in the long run (I shoot from 5-50GB a week).
Because everyone of us has a personal archiving system (me:year,date,client,case) with several backups, and with minimal re-use of shot pictures, the library is quite futile. I can find the pictures as fast from the archive than the LR takes to wind up,let alone aperture.
And the central library thing is confusing, it doesnt create transparency to the user,what stuff are backed up,and what isnt.
Especially the apertures central library has a very,very disaster prone aura around it... No one that I know trust it and they treat it with great suspicion.
So, in short, for many pro-photographers LR or Aperture is just a sorting+raw converter tool with no use to library
Wich is okay,because LR in my example has speed up my workflow tremendously compared to Canon Raw or Adobe bridge.
AND I get way better results.. Canon raw,and especially Bridge is inferior in developement quality of RAW pictures. But Lightroom has its own flaws too,especially with tungsten lighter pictures. I propably will try out the PhaseOne wich supposedly is a bit better on that area.
Both are flawed and have their quirks, but are getting slowly there.
I just see it as getting the program that suits ones workflow better.
Or wich one runs on ones machines better...
Aperture is a hog with its library,but LR (beta 3,4) have problems running in G5s and MBPs...
It is just for the people to use both and then decide wich one suits their workflow best.
Simple.
Check out O'Reilly's Aperture and Lightroom sites, they both just started parallel week long head to head comparisons...
http://digitalmedia.oreilly.com/aperture/
http://digitalmedia.oreilly.com/lightroom/
I have been playing with the Aperture 30 day trial for the last few weeks, and spent all day yesterday with Lightroom 1.0 (I never tried any of the betas). I just recently switched to Mac, getting a 2.66 Mac Pro with 4 gigs of RAM a few weeks ago.
My impression is that I overwhelmingly, unquestionably prefer Lightroom. Here is the executive summary:
To cut to the chase, Aperture's raw conversion is not acceptable. Lightroom's is. In particular, Aperture can not do decent highlight recovery. I have been using Bibble, which IMHO, is the gold standard of raw conversion in terms of power, flexibility, and quality. However its interface is annoying and wonky (no undo, for example). Lightroom has about 95% of the power of what Bibble has, with about 10x the usability.
Aperture does seem to have more powerful asset management (in particular the smart folders). But the reality for me is that Lightroom has everything I would need. I also prefer Lightroom's approach of being much more tied to your folder structure.
It looks like Lightroom has more powerful and flexible printing. I have been using QImage on Windows, which again, is the gold standard. There is no way I would use Aperture's printing instead of that. It is possible I will be able to use Lightroom's -- I still need to look more closely at that.
The web gallery generation on both are unacceptable for me, I will stick with JAlbum for now.
In general, I like Lightroom's interface, and I found Aperture's to be annoying. But that is very subjective -- I am sure many people will have the opposite take on that.
My understanding is that Lightroom has an open API, and so will have more third party plugins/extensions. And the fact that so many more people will be using it, because there is also a Windows version will make it a much more desirable platform for third party developers.
http://digitalmedia.oreilly.com/aperture/
http://digitalmedia.oreilly.com/lightroom/
I have been playing with the Aperture 30 day trial for the last few weeks, and spent all day yesterday with Lightroom 1.0 (I never tried any of the betas). I just recently switched to Mac, getting a 2.66 Mac Pro with 4 gigs of RAM a few weeks ago.
My impression is that I overwhelmingly, unquestionably prefer Lightroom. Here is the executive summary:
To cut to the chase, Aperture's raw conversion is not acceptable. Lightroom's is. In particular, Aperture can not do decent highlight recovery. I have been using Bibble, which IMHO, is the gold standard of raw conversion in terms of power, flexibility, and quality. However its interface is annoying and wonky (no undo, for example). Lightroom has about 95% of the power of what Bibble has, with about 10x the usability.
Aperture does seem to have more powerful asset management (in particular the smart folders). But the reality for me is that Lightroom has everything I would need. I also prefer Lightroom's approach of being much more tied to your folder structure.
It looks like Lightroom has more powerful and flexible printing. I have been using QImage on Windows, which again, is the gold standard. There is no way I would use Aperture's printing instead of that. It is possible I will be able to use Lightroom's -- I still need to look more closely at that.
The web gallery generation on both are unacceptable for me, I will stick with JAlbum for now.
In general, I like Lightroom's interface, and I found Aperture's to be annoying. But that is very subjective -- I am sure many people will have the opposite take on that.
My understanding is that Lightroom has an open API, and so will have more third party plugins/extensions. And the fact that so many more people will be using it, because there is also a Windows version will make it a much more desirable platform for third party developers.
Sort of -- you can hide all the controls/menus etc away but you still get a slight border around your image, so you get about 90% of full screen. I have not seen a way to get full full screen editing like Aperture has.
But in Aperture's full screen I have not figured out a way to stop the film strip from popping up any time your cursor gets near the bottom, which just irritates me to no end. So I still prefer Lightroom with 90% of full screen, but nothing popping up until you actually want it.
Also see the latest fotoespresso -- http://www.fotoespresso.com/
They have a very comprehensive write-up of Lightroom 1.0, with many points of comparison with Aperture.
What he said!!
Capture NX color management is incredible. You got these little control points that let you change saturation and other stuff to the colors you want while leaving the rest untouched.
It also has lens correcting tools if you shoot nikon.
I use Aperture for cataloguing and minor correction, Capture NX for some pictures that need color retouches and Photoshop for dust removal and other tricks.
I shoot a lot of film and Capture NX is great for that too.
I have been on the fence between LR and Aperture...but have leaned towards LR due to the lower hardware requirements. I use a G4 mini with several external drives for the photos...and until I upgrade, I cannot use Aperture. I have been waiting for Apple to update the mini to C2D, and now it makes sense to wait for Leopard as well...summer time seems likely. Since LR will work in either case, the decision may be made for me as I don't want to miss the intro pricing. Any advice?
I currently use iPhoto for my 10,000 or so photos, but most of those are jpg...maybe 1000 or so are RAW, but iPhoto does not allow for batch mods or a number of other features that LR does well.
I take about 500 photos per month on average (family mostly), ranging from kids sports to vacation, etc. I don't feel the need for Photoshop (elements is plenty for what I do), but iPhoto falls short in a number of areas. Which of these would you recommend?
I currently use iPhoto for my 10,000 or so photos, but most of those are jpg...maybe 1000 or so are RAW, but iPhoto does not allow for batch mods or a number of other features that LR does well.
I take about 500 photos per month on average (family mostly), ranging from kids sports to vacation, etc. I don't feel the need for Photoshop (elements is plenty for what I do), but iPhoto falls short in a number of areas. Which of these would you recommend?
with lightroom my 1Gb memory macbook is very happy (no sluggish response, no jet engines), my wallet is happy and i find user interface very friendly ..
aperture is good, but its better suited to pro machines i think .. for not-so-prfessional photographers with entry-level portables> lightroom fits the bill.
aperture is good, but its better suited to pro machines i think .. for not-so-prfessional photographers with entry-level portables> lightroom fits the bill.
I heard an interesting podcast on O'Reilly's "Inside Aperture", where Ben Long - a Canon shooter - talked about round-tripping between Aperture and Capture NX (as opposed to the usual choice, Photoshop). He sounds quite impressed with what Nikon is doing software-wise (must be, for a Canon guy to use a Nikon-developed program).
Why import the best photos into iPhoto? Aperture does the same thing as iPhoto, but better and in a more "useful" way.
Was three reasons, now two:
1. Interactions with the rest of iLife and iWork. This is sorta-kinda fixed, but Aperture still seems to be a second-class citizen.
2. Ability to share photos across our LAN. Sometimes the kids want to use one of our pictures in a report for school or such. Often my wife wants to show a slideshow of recent vacation pics in the downstairs living room while the G5 remains under my desk upstairs.
3. Not necessarily an Aperture/iPhoto thing, but having the libraries separated allows me to have quick-access JPEG images sitting in iPhoto and let an age-10 someone sit down there and know they won't be able to modify the real images. I view iPhoto as the "dummy mode" kiosk for Aperture.
True, however everyone who bought Aperture 1.0 got Aperture 1.5 for free (and got a $100 refund off the original price).
IMHO, having seen more of the final LR app, I have to say the killer feature is the point-and-drag image adjustments (I want that color more saturated). The "Colors" adjustment in Aperture has let me do some really amazing fixes, but I still feel like I'm groping around in the dark trying to decide which color to adjust for the area I'm wanting to change. LR's interactive adjustments gray-donut whatever is an awesome feature. If it doesn't make it to Aperture 2.0 I'll be incredibly disappointed!
Aperture!!
I'm really not that excited about this release. I don't have either product nor have I tested either of them, but I just feel better giving my hard earned money to Apple rather than Adobe, but you can't live without Photoshop.
I'm really not that excited about this release. I don't have either product nor have I tested either of them, but I just feel better giving my hard earned money to Apple rather than Adobe, but you can't live without Photoshop.
posting
I was just coming here to post this, but ya beat me to it. After having used the betas since b1, I decided I would just buy lightroom. the code made it 167.00$ I think, go figure, no tax, downloaded both versions to Mac and PC.
I was just coming here to post this, but ya beat me to it. After having used the betas since b1, I decided I would just buy lightroom. the code made it 167.00$ I think, go figure, no tax, downloaded both versions to Mac and PC.
I use Aperture. Learning photoshop has nothing to do with Aperture (perhaps bridge, but I don't have that). When I shoot, I often take 500+ photos. I need a way to store, sort, and backup these images, sometimes in the next hour. I used to use iPhoto to review images and create albums of the ones worth bothering with in PS. After 25,000 photos, iPhoto really begins to bog. With Aperture, I can download the images, sort through them all and even edit with photoshop inside of Aperture. I can do this quickly and without issue. Sometimes I need to download the photos, sort through themn all to find the five worth printing, burn them to CD, and pass it off before people leave the studio and Aperture is the easiest way I've found to do that so far.* Still learning the features but the backup looks like a dream. The time it saves me with reviewing and organizing images has already made it worth it. As I change over to RAW workflow, I expect it to do it again simply due to color balance issues.
*Full disclaimer: I have not tried Lightroom or any other image management software. They could very well be better.