The history of Lightroom (aka Shadowland) http://photoshopnews.com/2006/01/09/the-shadowlandlightroom-development-story
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 Announces Lightroom Beta, Aperture Competitor
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
liketom said:
Blatant rip off...I would disagree. I believe they started this project 18 months ago, and it seems that Adobe and Apple had the same idea to start.
They'll probably price it a lot less than $500, as they are in competition with Aperture. One thing that Adobe has as an advantage is the huge negative feedback of Aperture to help them sway the consumer.
It's lightweight, runs a whole lot faster on a laptop than Aperture, and gets the job done with the same RAW capabilities that you'd expect from Adobe. I'd say Adobe has a slight, if not growing, advantage over Apple, as their beta is free, undercutting Aperture and showing how solid it is already in a beta state.
It leaves much to be desired from Aperture.
I´ll definitly have a look at this. Aperture is too system heavy and expensive for me as a non proffesional.
This will even run on my ibook!! Great
This will even run on my ibook!! Great
And this is based on....? Except for system requirements, Aperture isn't too bad. Haven' t taken a look at Lightroom yet and will do that shortly. Competition is good at this front, but to state a huge negative feedback for Aperture is just not correct. In the Pro market Aperture is received fairly well. So, please explain.skidknee said:
Downloaded and installed
and deleted one hour of intensive usage later.
I don't see how ( for me ) either aperture or lightroom can be what I might want in a photography package. I use photoshop for hours on end in an average work day, and I guess part of it is I am used to it. I go through hundreds of pictures in a week, and I appreciate the concept of having this formatted layout for working on multiple files.
iPhoto is more powerful than this release beta of lightroom, where as Aperture is like iPhoto on steroids, it still doesn't have the features I would want.
No doubt they will bundle this with cs3 as a value add, but for my money, photoshop is all I need for what I do. Utilizing actions along with channels and curves is all this is.
Trés Light-weight.
and deleted one hour of intensive usage later.
I don't see how ( for me ) either aperture or lightroom can be what I might want in a photography package. I use photoshop for hours on end in an average work day, and I guess part of it is I am used to it. I go through hundreds of pictures in a week, and I appreciate the concept of having this formatted layout for working on multiple files.
iPhoto is more powerful than this release beta of lightroom, where as Aperture is like iPhoto on steroids, it still doesn't have the features I would want.
No doubt they will bundle this with cs3 as a value add, but for my money, photoshop is all I need for what I do. Utilizing actions along with channels and curves is all this is.
Trés Light-weight.
Nice to see Adobe releasing a Mac only beta-and it seems to have lower requirements than Aperture. Also I like the interface a lot.
They mention Cocoa Application, but don't discuss language used.
My instincts tell me this is an ObjC++ wrapped in Cocoa interfaces to leverage the minimum necessary Cocoa qualified label and their graphics routines are just C++ so they can port it to Windows with C# Interfaces for Vista. Makes sense for their markets.
It definitely isn't what one calls a Pure ObjC Cocoa App leveraging Core Data and Core Imaging plus Foundation/AppKit solely.
Sounds like they want to re-use their core apis and just leverage the necessary interface toolkits where they need to do so.
Hell they could have written it with Qt 4 mostly and just exposed enough with Cocoa interfaces to get the label, "Written in Cocoa."
My instincts tell me this is an ObjC++ wrapped in Cocoa interfaces to leverage the minimum necessary Cocoa qualified label and their graphics routines are just C++ so they can port it to Windows with C# Interfaces for Vista. Makes sense for their markets.
It definitely isn't what one calls a Pure ObjC Cocoa App leveraging Core Data and Core Imaging plus Foundation/AppKit solely.
Sounds like they want to re-use their core apis and just leverage the necessary interface toolkits where they need to do so.
Hell they could have written it with Qt 4 mostly and just exposed enough with Cocoa interfaces to get the label, "Written in Cocoa."
Brundlefly said:
Your signature says you are a graphic designer not a photographer and I think these apps are more workflow for photographers than editing for designers...
Having purchased Aperture, the main thing I'm disappointed in is the lack of EXIF/IPTC metadata in exported images and the sluggish performance. I still use it because there's nothing else out there like it and the organisational aspects are great - far better than iPhoto. Having said that, there are a lot of very rough edges so it would be good to see some improvements!
The announcement of Lightroom is fantastic news for all photographers because competition will spur Apple into improving Aperture and Adobe will aim high to topple Aperture.
Well, there are quite a few unhappy bunnies on the Apple discussions boards. But I guess that's just the nature of discussions boards, thet're hardly representative.MarcelV said:
The ironic thing is the more you use Lightroom the more you realise it does all the essential Aperture things but a lot more smoothly. It doesn't look as neat and I miss the ability to spread stuff over two monitors but it just works and does so really well. Aperture 1.0 and even 1.0.1 is an expensive beta, its RAW support is less than perfect, it isn't quick, export quality is not great and there are countless smaller bugs. Adobe has gone and provided something in the form of this beta which for me so far has been stable, smooth and if nothing else will make Apple pull there finger out.
One killer feature about Lightroom which is so simple is the ability to add files without having to import them into a new library. Why Apple didn't allow Aperture to reference files regardless of there location on the hard drive is beyond me.
One killer feature about Lightroom which is so simple is the ability to add files without having to import them into a new library. Why Apple didn't allow Aperture to reference files regardless of there location on the hard drive is beyond me.
When you go to download the public beta it says Macromedia. Your Adobe ID will not work. Could this be something that Macromedia had in the pipeline? It's on the Macromedia site not Adobe.
Lightroom is "based on" Adobe Camera Raw. which is i think version 3.x. i don't think it is fair to compare it with Aperture 1.0.
Why
This looks great! I'm using iView Media Pro with Photoshop CS2/Camera Raw at the moment so this could be sweet! Lightroom might become the leader if:
a.) It is multi-platform
b.) It is faster than Aperture
c.) It doesn't cost $500 (the final version)
d.) It runs all all modern Macs (like my iBook and Mac Mini)
e.) It intergrates with BOTH Adobe CS and Apple stuff like Finder
I am really looking forward to trying this!
Seb
This looks great! I'm using iView Media Pro with Photoshop CS2/Camera Raw at the moment so this could be sweet! Lightroom might become the leader if:
a.) It is multi-platform
b.) It is faster than Aperture
c.) It doesn't cost $500 (the final version)
d.) It runs all all modern Macs (like my iBook and Mac Mini)
e.) It intergrates with BOTH Adobe CS and Apple stuff like Finder
I am really looking forward to trying this!
Seb
chubad said:It's a beta alright. Two crashes in two imports. Aperture really does have competition now!
No crashes for me after referencing 3000's pictures. Least Adobe tell us their software is beta
sebpayne said:
I totally agree, that I would prefer that it remain an Mac only program. Hey, any reason to get more Mac market share is good IMO.
I am really happy to see that Adobe hasn't thrown in the towel on the Mac platform. I thought with Aperture that we would see Adobe get pissed off at Apple and do less for the Mac. Witness the Elements 4.0 only being PC based so far.
Even better still, Adobe getting users' input on development at an early(ish) stage.nagromme said:Adobe showing signs of being able to develop software quickly? Best!
Truffy said:Even better still, Adobe getting users' input on development at an early(ish) stage.
Add to that, they have assured that as long as it does not cost more than Aperture, they will be able guaranty many users will pay the piper when the program does go on sale.
I read the Luminous Landscape "review". Pretty impressive. In some ways a better iPhoto for those that don't need integration in to the rest of the iLife suite.
Now is there an easy way of exporting files out of iPhoto's library structure?
Truffy said:Well, there are quite a few unhappy bunnies on the Apple discussions boards. But I guess that's just the nature of discussions boards, thet're hardly representative.
i believe a good point was made. with my links to the professional community, and a huge interest in the world of computing, i have noticed that there were a few people mildly unhappy with Aperture, but these were mainly reviewers. most people i know who actually (a) use it, and (b) have a good reason to use it, such as being a professional photographer, have been happy with it, for they rarely touch a version 1.x of anything.
so, i ask, as have one or two others, for some proof that there have been so many unhappy users.
People who are already using Aperture and have the time invested in setting up their library, along with keywording and metadata tags will most likely have no interest in Light Room.
That's me.
People who haven't adopted Aperture will obviously be interested in Light Room. Adobe was smart to get it out, but if the beta sucks really bad, it could be disasterous.
It will be interesting to watch.
That's me.
People who haven't adopted Aperture will obviously be interested in Light Room. Adobe was smart to get it out, but if the beta sucks really bad, it could be disasterous.
It will be interesting to watch.