Welcome to Macbytes potential switcher. I think you will learn a lot from reading the posts on Macbytes forum.barunpaudel said:
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
iBS23 said:
Photoshop is still the best at what it does and compliments Aperture nicely. Most Pro's will be able to take pictures that don't need much in the way of pixel manipulation (Photoshop) but do need post processing or a digital darkroom (Aperture/Lightroom).
iPhoto and Aperture are worlds apart! Try working with both products within an intensive raw workflow and not much comes close to Aperture.
jrhone said:
I've found the opposite. Raw conversion is excellent within Aperture, better than dng/photoshop. You really need to spend much more than an hour with Aperture. I would recommend at least a couple of days before you can start getting the best out of it. There are also fundamental ways of working within Aperture that take a bit of getting used to but once you are used to them they really are the best tools out there.
From one pro to another, I would recommend you spend more time with Aperture. I don't compromise with anything when it comes to producing images, especially raw conversion.
Here's the dreaded quote from the Luminous Landscape quick review:
"A Word of Caution
Give some thought to where you want your Library to be located. This applies both to Libraries containing imported files as well as ones that simply reference external ones, and therefore only contain thumbnails. Even these can grow quite large, quite quickly. Thumbnails of high-res raw files can be well over 1MB each."
1 MB "thumbnails"! OUCH. This is what always drove me CRAZY with integrating the Adobe Bridge solution, even for quick culling of images before I imported them into Cumulus, as it ate up my HD space just for thumbnails.
So with the 100,000's of images that some power users are complaining that Aperture can't handle (due to it's use of the Aperture library), how are they going to be happy with needing 100 GB just to store "thumbnails"??
Here's hoping that Apple allows multiple Libraries, on multiple HD's, to be open at once in Aperture 1.5 / 2.0.
"A Word of Caution
Give some thought to where you want your Library to be located. This applies both to Libraries containing imported files as well as ones that simply reference external ones, and therefore only contain thumbnails. Even these can grow quite large, quite quickly. Thumbnails of high-res raw files can be well over 1MB each."
1 MB "thumbnails"! OUCH. This is what always drove me CRAZY with integrating the Adobe Bridge solution, even for quick culling of images before I imported them into Cumulus, as it ate up my HD space just for thumbnails.
So with the 100,000's of images that some power users are complaining that Aperture can't handle (due to it's use of the Aperture library), how are they going to be happy with needing 100 GB just to store "thumbnails"??
Here's hoping that Apple allows multiple Libraries, on multiple HD's, to be open at once in Aperture 1.5 / 2.0.
Iroganai said:
Yes. Anyone who develops in the toolkits knows this. What's your point? I was speculating on what "type" technically this is classified as a Cocoa Application. It's the thinnest level of Cocoa there can be.
bigandy said:
I'm with you on this, very satisfied with Aperture and can't see what everyone's winging about...
no action support
Gee, I thought at least Adobe will give like photoshop an action support. I think both apps are nice. Apple is still my interface fav.
I am very disapointed in both apps however that none of them give action support. When retouching many images I like what photoshop offers with their actions.
Dave
Gee, I thought at least Adobe will give like photoshop an action support. I think both apps are nice. Apple is still my interface fav.
I am very disapointed in both apps however that none of them give action support. When retouching many images I like what photoshop offers with their actions.
Dave
This is the biggest Aperture rip off ever. Everything about the interface looks the same. Oh well, we'll see what happens.
Some people whine about anything - it's a first release, for crying out loud!phonic pol said:
I loved one review that complained about the Unsharpen mask feature, using the newly implemented Unsharp features in PS CS2 (version 9!!) as an example of how backward Aperture was! So were PS v.1-8 unusable?
For me, I love the Stacking feature (not what I purchased it for), and the ability to cull 300-400 images to send off for CMYK/print (conversions via PS) out of my larger library. If it saves me tons of time selecting the images, I can never "get" why everyone is complaining about how "RAW conversions" make it unusable for in a pro workflow.
I tried this beta out. So far, so good. But I prefer Aperture's workflow and UI. I'm sure Adobe will improve it for Final release, but I'm a bit skeptical about Adobe lately. Their other products just have been 3rd rate software. I can't believe how unstable CS2 is, just seem to be getting software out a little quickly to make money. They need to focus on stability before new features!!! I guess that can be said of Apple as well though (with Aperture, Tiger, etc). I hope Aperture and Lightroom both mature into a great app and competitor.
It looks as though Lightroom may be a lot more interesting than it appears on the surface. The about box mentioned the Lua language, and sure enough the program embeds a Lua interpreter and a fair bit of the program is written in it. Adobe haven't yet released an SDK (they say it's coming), but it's looking as though Lightroom may be more of a framework than a simple image sorter.
ktb53 said:
Um, right... Except that they started development of Lightroom way before Aperture came out. Lightroom was ironically code named shadowland and development on that had been going on since years.
I love apple as much as the next guy here, but FWIW most of apple's software isn't unique either, and just because one company is able to get its software out on the market earlier doesn't make it the paradigm that no one else is allowed to follow.
ktb53 said:
Perhaps they would have not released a beta (if at all?) that soon if it hadn't been for aperture but that doesn't change anything. Its called market strategy.
As you will find if you use google, or follow this link: http://photoshopnews.com/2006/01/09/the-shadowlandlightroom-development-story, lightroom hasn't just been thrown together last week in order to compete with aperture.
ktb53 said:
Apple did its fair share of ripping off. I don't know all the details all to well but it has something to do with Xerox and thats a whole other story.
The file browser / bridge are very different from lightroom. Lightroom is supposed to optimize a professional photographers or serious amateur's workflow from importing from the camera to, selecting images, simple editing , more advanced in Photoshop, and then finally printing. Remember its for photographers. Graphic artists probably won't be able to benefit that much from it if at all. They have the file browser / bridge.
Truth of the matter is, Apple's Aperture and Adobe's Lightroom are probably overkill for the average person/photographer. I'm by no standards a professional photographer. Perhaps close to a serious hobby photographer and dabble a bit in graphic design. After having imported to lightroom, having made a selection from a bunch of similar images, to editing in PSCS2 and then printing, I must say Lightroom made it a lot easier. I wish we had this for my high schools yearbook back in the day, where we'd often have more than 400 photos on days with big sporting events and such.
TreeHugger said:
wasn't sure if you were being sarcastic, but, just in case...
Xerox, at PARC, developed the first Graphical User Interface, in 1973. (Well, the second, but it was really a completion of the work started at SRI).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerox_Alto
This was the basis for all GUIs. Apple didn't rip it off completely, it was 'inspired' by Alto. There is a difference. Imitation is the biggest form of flattery, as we all know (See below, section 8, Microsoft Windows.
).http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_graphical_user_interface
bigandy said:
nope wasn't being sarcastic
just wanted to point out that we apple zealots often overlook apple's own faults as well 
I hope this "threat" to aperture enchourages apple to improve aperture and if prossible allow it to work on slower machines. Competition is (in most situations) good, so here comes Aperture 2!!! lol
Competition is (in most situations) good, so here comes Aperture 2!!! lol 
I downloaded this last night and I have to agree that it doesn't feel as advanced as aperture. But the truth is that Aperture is a Motion like beast in that it demands ridiculous amounts of processing power. For people like me who do not have the processing power (yet) Lightbox is superb.
One thing I love that I wish iPhoto did is that it opens in a album (can't remember the term they use) that is not the main library which means that it doesn't kill the processor when loading and closing.
I say well done Adobe, this may be for me!
One thing I love that I wish iPhoto did is that it opens in a album (can't remember the term they use) that is not the main library which means that it doesn't kill the processor when loading and closing.
I say well done Adobe, this may be for me!
sjk said:
I missed it when I posted but a lot of the parts sound familiar from way back when. Kai's Photo Soap was certainly a bad memory--good ideas wrapped up in a constantly crashing application.
I downloaded and worked with the Lightroom earlier. It could have potential but it's going to have to go much further from the current beta.
Closest I came to that, I guess, would be a copy of Kai's Power Goo I ran a couple times on my wife's old PC.bousozoku said:
I watched the video (which mentions a few unfinished things that have drawn criticism here) and downloaded the beta last night but haven't tried it yet. Aperature is out of my league (both hardware/software-wise) but Lightroom (if affordable enough) might eventually be tempting as an iPhoto replacement if iPhoto '06 is disappointing.
. . .
Btw, I liked benpatient speculation.
Whether Aperture has stolen enough of a lead already is probably open to debate (read: 'wild speculation'), but I ordered Aperture in November (admittedly not from Apple) and it still hasn't arrived.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.
Last night I downloaded the LR beta and cancelled my order. It's a pity Apple don't offer a downloadable trial version for us to make up our own minds prior to purchase.
But for me, and I guess others, it's no longer the one-horse race that I thought it was late last year.