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
I use dial-up in 2006
Its 2006 but I use dial up because i don't have broadband facility here. Anyways I am feeling great to be here and I expect I will gain knowledge having a look at the postings over here.Thankyou.
Its 2006 but I use dial up because i don't have broadband facility here. Anyways I am feeling great to be here and I expect I will gain knowledge having a look at the postings over here.Thankyou.
iGary said: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.
Right you are.
Though with public comment on the public beta, there may be hope that if enough users comment - that Adobe might be able to provide a utility to transfer the work you already have done in Aperture. Though if you love stacking you may have to stay the course.
Chip NoVaMac said:
I like the stacking from an organization aspect when I am first bringing in a ashoot, but don't use it much past that.
Aperture's main strength IMO is its organizational aspect. I have found nothing else that allows me to go through two to three hundred images and cull out the BS anywhere as fast as Aperture.
Thi image editing has worked very well for me, especially Aperture's sharpening algorithm and WB controls. Anything elese is s simple flip over to PS.
Abstract said:Hopefully it's better than Aperture. Competition is good for all of us, and that'll mean Apple will have to make Aperture better than it is.
And it's not like Adobe is copying Apple's idea, either. They were both working on this project at the same time, obviously. I just don't wanna hear "Adobe copied Apple" at any point.
the fact that the thing doesn't need to be on uber hardware to run
pretty much assures that.Am I the only one who thinks that the reason there is no Windows version yet is probably due to the fact that Windows XP cannot do all the fancy effects that Lightroom requires?
Adobe are probably working on a Windows Vista version, but as Vista isn't due out until Christmas, Adobe needed to test Lightroom to get all the bugs out... especially before Apple's Aperture gains too much ground.
Adobe are probably working on a Windows Vista version, but as Vista isn't due out until Christmas, Adobe needed to test Lightroom to get all the bugs out... especially before Apple's Aperture gains too much ground.
PPC only now - there are no (commercially available) intel-based macs yet, you know...chibianh said:
There will be a Universal Binary out when the intel-macs are out (26 hours from now? )
I don't think there is anything especially Mac specific in there. Actually, Lightroom looks quite a bit like the parts of PS Elements that were left out of the Mac version.ebally said:
So far Lightroom looks really nice. It needs crop and rotate and some sort of easy way to tie things in with Version Cue, but it really looks as though they're on the right track.
Abstract said:Hopefully it's better than Aperture. Competition is good for all of us, and that'll mean Apple will have to make Aperture better than it is.
And it's not like Adobe is copying Apple's idea, either. They were both working on this project at the same time, obviously. I just don't wanna hear "Adobe copied Apple" at any point.
Oh, who knows. Companies like Apple and Adobe compete for very high stakes, so I'm sure the intel they get on each other is pretty good.
iGary said:
Good feedback from a man who stares at photos all day!
I'll be anxious to hear more feedback - I want to download this on my machine at home after work to give it a try.
Abstract said:Hopefully it's better than Aperture. Competition is good for all of us, and that'll mean Apple will have to make Aperture better than it is.
And it's not like Adobe is copying Apple's idea, either. They were both working on this project at the same time, obviously. I just don't wanna hear "Adobe copied Apple" at any point.
Actually, I'd like to take a pot shot at Apple, not Adobe. If Apple knew that Adobe was working on such a product (doubtful they didn't) they should have left it to them.
I completely support Apple making products that software vendors seem unable or unwilling to make, but I don't like it when they steal marketshare from the very software developers that feed the platform. They could have worked with Adobe to ensure Lightroom was integrated into the other pro apps the way that Aperture is.
Competition IS a good thing... between two separate third party vendors. Not between the hardware manufacturer and one of it's developers.
Sean
ibook30 said:
Yep, I am devouring feedbacks and reviews for Aperture and will start with Lightroom from today before I take my decision.
I have a feeling, though, that the loud noise made by those who never miss a chance to slam Aperture is making us overlook the great features this application has implemented.
I'm not saying Ap is perfect as it is (lol... very far from it, as I understand it) but I am not so sure that Lightroom will be the magic wand that those disappointed by Ap are expecting it to be.
Anyway, as iGary stated, it will be very interesting to watch and see how it all develops.
Very Good News
I was so excited when Aperture was announced. Only to find out it won't run on my G5 iMac. I did download a "hacked" version that did run on my computer. It seemed really nice, but I didn't play with it that much. Being used to Adobe's Camera Raw, I wasn't too comfortable with the image editing tools. Maybe I just needed to try it for longer.
Either way, I cannot wait to get home and download this to try it out. The things I really want out of this tool are:
1) Good RAW support (Adobe probably beats Apple here)
2) Non-destructive editing (this is probably at best a tie. Lightroom doesn't require a "library" so it might be better -- not sure, though)
3) Organization (Apple probably wins here, but I'll find out when I try it)
4) Runs on my computer (Obviously, Adobe wins here)
So, on paper, it looks like a winner. I guess I'll find out tonight!
--t
I was so excited when Aperture was announced. Only to find out it won't run on my G5 iMac. I did download a "hacked" version that did run on my computer. It seemed really nice, but I didn't play with it that much. Being used to Adobe's Camera Raw, I wasn't too comfortable with the image editing tools. Maybe I just needed to try it for longer.
Either way, I cannot wait to get home and download this to try it out. The things I really want out of this tool are:
1) Good RAW support (Adobe probably beats Apple here)
2) Non-destructive editing (this is probably at best a tie. Lightroom doesn't require a "library" so it might be better -- not sure, though)
3) Organization (Apple probably wins here, but I'll find out when I try it)
4) Runs on my computer (Obviously, Adobe wins here)
So, on paper, it looks like a winner. I guess I'll find out tonight!
--t
Abstract said:Hopefully it's better than Aperture. Competition is good for all of us, and that'll mean Apple will have to make Aperture better than it is.
And it's not like Adobe is copying Apple's idea, either. They were both working on this project at the same time, obviously. I just don't wanna hear "Adobe copied Apple" at any point.
It looks to me as though Macromedia (notice where it's hosted) were working on it and Adobe were worried enough to have two competitors that the merged with one of them.
It's always good to have competition to move things forward.
Let's not be so dense here. If you hadn't noticed, Apple is one of the major competitors in Multimedia Creation software. With FCP being second in the marketplace only to Avid (if they're not first actually) and they probably lead the pack in DVD with DVD Studio Pro.
They have always made software because they were always the underdog to Windows based machines. In the last 5 years or so they had to truly become a software company BECAUSE they are a hardware company that software developers were quickly not fully supporting. Companies like Avid, which used to only run on Apple, were fully switching to Windows and actually toying with the idea of leaving Apple. Apples chip manufacturers were doing squat, and Apple had to create reasons for loyalty.
Now, they are a software, hardware, and of course gadget company. And I'd argue they do all 3 better than companies that only do 1. With the success of FCP, DVDSP, and Aperture I'd say Apple can compete in the Software biz alone just fine. They're poised to do it to. All their apps run on intel. Jobs loved pointing that out, almost as a threat. If Apple hardware and OSX goes down the tubes as a platform, Adobe and Microsoft will be faced with FCP and Aperture running on Windows.
etc, etc, blah blah blah
They have always made software because they were always the underdog to Windows based machines. In the last 5 years or so they had to truly become a software company BECAUSE they are a hardware company that software developers were quickly not fully supporting. Companies like Avid, which used to only run on Apple, were fully switching to Windows and actually toying with the idea of leaving Apple. Apples chip manufacturers were doing squat, and Apple had to create reasons for loyalty.
Now, they are a software, hardware, and of course gadget company. And I'd argue they do all 3 better than companies that only do 1. With the success of FCP, DVDSP, and Aperture I'd say Apple can compete in the Software biz alone just fine. They're poised to do it to. All their apps run on intel. Jobs loved pointing that out, almost as a threat. If Apple hardware and OSX goes down the tubes as a platform, Adobe and Microsoft will be faced with FCP and Aperture running on Windows.
etc, etc, blah blah blah
thirdwaver said:
that's probably the reason it doesn't use core graphics so that the program can be ported between systems more cost effectively.
i think the move to make it more portable friendly is definitely smarter. maybe Apple will counteract with an Aperture Express version for that purpose. or maybe the new Apple portables will be awesome enough to handle it.
Adobe could definitely have the upperhand with any special Photoshop integration they could possibly add.
i think the move to make it more portable friendly is definitely smarter. maybe Apple will counteract with an Aperture Express version for that purpose. or maybe the new Apple portables will be awesome enough to handle it.
Adobe could definitely have the upperhand with any special Photoshop integration they could possibly add.
iGary said:
I've been using Aperture for over a month now and I just downloaded the Lightroom beta out of curiosity. Initial reaction is that it looks like a clunkier version of Aperture. But I haven't tested Lightroom with any files yet.
It may be awhile before Lightroom is finished with the performance/polish that Aperture exhibits; quite a head start for Apple.
But that's not to say that Lightroom won't be a great app. It could be, I suppose. Unless it ends up dead in the water.
PS - Noticed it has options for Flash slideshows. Why didn't Apple build that into Aperture? Legal issues? Missing the boat?
First look at Lightroom
Taking a quick look at Lightroom I can see the following pluses and minuses:
On the plus side:
The file browser and image editing tools are better than iPhoto.
System requirements are considerably less than Aperature.
On the minus side:
Printing is not as flexible as iPhoto or Aperature. You cant select standard print sizes.
No photo book support.
Very basic slideshow. No transition effects. Does not support Quicktime export.
As is, it doesn't yet offer a compelling enough reason to use. It's a good first start, but I don't think, as is, that it is a serious competitor to Aperature and not even iPhoto yet. I'll wait and see what the final version brings and how it will compare with the new version of iPhoto.
Taking a quick look at Lightroom I can see the following pluses and minuses:
On the plus side:
The file browser and image editing tools are better than iPhoto.
System requirements are considerably less than Aperature.
On the minus side:
Printing is not as flexible as iPhoto or Aperature. You cant select standard print sizes.
No photo book support.
Very basic slideshow. No transition effects. Does not support Quicktime export.
As is, it doesn't yet offer a compelling enough reason to use. It's a good first start, but I don't think, as is, that it is a serious competitor to Aperature and not even iPhoto yet. I'll wait and see what the final version brings and how it will compare with the new version of iPhoto.
Filemaker Merger
I wonder if Apple will fold Apperture in w/Filemaker at some point in the future.
I worked in a stock photo library years ago and the image managing software was truly an exercise in pain. I looked into Cumulus, iphoto and Apperture and will wait it out a little longer I think. So far I have filled a 160gig drive with images, so I hope it sifts out quick.
I wonder if Apple will fold Apperture in w/Filemaker at some point in the future.
I worked in a stock photo library years ago and the image managing software was truly an exercise in pain. I looked into Cumulus, iphoto and Apperture and will wait it out a little longer I think. So far I have filled a 160gig drive with images, so I hope it sifts out quick.
just downloaded and played around with it for the last 15 minutes. imported 2000 photos from iphoto library folder, choosing to keep everything there for the time being. running pretty well on my ibook (specs in sig)...haven't tried aperture yet, but this seems to be pretty good. initial thoughts:
- startup was quicker than any adobe app i've ever used (please, please don't bog down startup in the final release)
- there is rotate right and left (in response to an above comment that there wasn't)
- loupe view isn't as nice as aperture's (from what i've seen in demos), but works fine.
- scrolling through grid view is a little sticky, but a faster processor should help load the thumbnails faster (or a faster graphics card?)
- the filmstrip view on the bottom slides smoothly. like it.
'sall for now, more playing to do.
- startup was quicker than any adobe app i've ever used (please, please don't bog down startup in the final release)
- there is rotate right and left (in response to an above comment that there wasn't)
- loupe view isn't as nice as aperture's (from what i've seen in demos), but works fine.
- scrolling through grid view is a little sticky, but a faster processor should help load the thumbnails faster (or a faster graphics card?)
- the filmstrip view on the bottom slides smoothly. like it.
'sall for now, more playing to do.
This puts some huge pressure's on Apple to make Aperture a better product. I find it to be good, and the best at what it does, but apple needs to implement some things to not loose to Adobe. Basically they need to copy all the Adobe Camera Raw features not already in aperture specifically things like Chromatic Aberration, and better sharpening. Color could be better, though I haven't found the really wacky false contouring that some people have found.