Adobe 'Doubling Down' on Lightroom in Wake of Apple's Aperture Announcement

[OS X Dude]

Whilst Logic holds a bigger user-base than Aperture, part of my rationale behind investing in both it and Pro Tools was to cover myself just in case Apple abandon it.

Both are incredibly relevant, powerful and each does certain things more efficiently/better than the other, of course, but that did play a part in my decision. There's a lesson to be learned in all this.

 

[imajez]

Absolutely, I've got my import settings defaulted to Camera Standard. I just mean in general that the camera seems to more accurately capture colors both in JPEG and with the camera profile in Lightroom. I make my money shooting food, so I'm constantly dealing with very color specific fruits and vegetables. I did a book on oranges and it was a nightmare with them consistently going out of gamut, as everything else was perfectly exposed and the proper saturation. Tomatoes are also an issue frequently. Greens I find need a little push of the hue to the right. But hey, I was getting better at shooting, the camera made shooting easier in other ways, and Lightroom is always getting updated... So these kind of things might've just added up to me perceiving a difference. Especially to justify all that money spent!

Then some people [not doing such colour accurate work] prefer the look of the older model. All depends on the job.
I was having trouble with some pics the other day going out of gamut - blues on Swedish roads signs didn't like going to CMYK. Client didn't mind, but it bugged me.

 

[QquegChristian]

Don't be too concerned with the crop factor, features were shot on 35mm film for years and that has a crop factor compared to 35mm stills camera due to film going vertically through camera. S35 [film size] is about the same size as a 1.6 crop camera and if you go to FF then focusing becomes even harder and unless you want DoF that's silly narrow a smaller sensor will do just fine. F2 on m4/3rds is still hard to focus pull.

The only major concern with crop factor would be if you already owned a lot of full frame glass. That was my bummer when I went from video on 5D to c100. I shot most of my movie on full frame on a Zeiss 21mm which both helped with the DOF and helped us film a third of it in the back of a car. In general, I love shooting wide. Sadly my go-to low light lens, a 50mm 1.4 is practically an 80mm now!

Crop lenses tend to run much cheaper though and their clarity is much harder to discern at 1080p than a 5000 pixel photograph. So that's another benefit of a crop cam.

 

[OS X Dude]

(Wrong thread, apologies)

 

[Sin]

Apple are a hardware and not a software company and could [and mostly does] give its software away and would still make obscene amounts of money. You already paid a lot more to use Aperture compared to buying some equally fast PCs that ran LR. So if you are bothered about cost, do not buy Apple computers. Simples.

You keep trying to give me financial advice. Thanks, but I don't need it.

However for the avoidance of doubt, what I care about less is cost, and more about *value*. I'll work that out for myself, I only asked for clarification of the licensing terms (which I looked up, but they're a bit unclear) so I could do so.

I also don't particularly need a comparative review of LR vs Aperture, because I can trial that before buying, should I decide that it might be something I want to do.

So thanks for the patronising attitude, but a simple "yes, the license is more restrictive so you might have to buy multiple copies" would have sufficed...

 

[stockcerts]

I switched from iPhoto to Lightroom about a year ago. I was looking for something with more powerful editing features. I bought the license from Amazon. I took the time to learn the program and I really enjoy using it!! I'm also not a fan of monthly fees to use software, which is why I bought the stand alone license.

There are some great tutorials on YouTube and Lynda.com.

 

[Renzatic]

That $10 is for the first year right?

I thought that at one point, but apparently it's not. I'm still not 100% sure of the availability of the photographers package after December, but I do know that once you're subscribed to it, it's $10 a month for as long as you keep your sub active.

 

[zioxide]

I thought that at one point, but apparently it's not. I'm still not 100% sure of the availability of the photographers package after December, but I do know that once you're subscribed to it, it's $10 a month for as long as you keep your sub active.

I know they started the Photographers package as a "limited time offer", but didn't Adobe just make it a permanent offering with the new CC 2014 update?

 

[laurihoefs]

You keep trying to give me financial advice. Thanks, but I don't need it.

However for the avoidance of doubt, what I care about less is cost, and more about *value*. I'll work that out for myself, I only asked for clarification of the licensing terms (which I looked up, but they're a bit unclear) so I could do so.

I also don't particularly need a comparative review of LR vs Aperture, because I can trial that before buying, should I decide that it might be something I want to do.

So thanks for the patronising attitude, but a simple "yes, the license is more restrictive so you might have to buy multiple copies" would have sufficed...

Some parts of Adobe licensing are really difficult to figure out. When I was looking into purchasing some CS6 licenses for a non-profit organisation recently, I had to dig through the terms of the different licensing programs, all written in legalese, of course, and not available in my native language. That took a while

If you are thinking of getting more than two licenses (as that might be required in your case), you might want to contact Adobe customer service, and see how some of their volume licensing deals would work. There are licensing programs for both subscription and perpetual licenses.

Here are the different licensing types listed: Business software licensing

I know they started the Photographers package as a "limited time offer", but didn't Adobe just make it a permanent offering with the new CC 2014 update?

Yes, they did

They extended the deal a couple of times already, and now it's a permanent program.

 

[QquegChristian]

You keep trying to give me financial advice. Thanks, but I don't need it.

However for the avoidance of doubt, what I care about less is cost, and more about *value*. I'll work that out for myself, I only asked for clarification of the licensing terms (which I looked up, but they're a bit unclear) so I could do so.

I also don't particularly need a comparative review of LR vs Aperture, because I can trial that before buying, should I decide that it might be something I want to do.

So thanks for the patronising attitude, but a simple "yes, the license is more restrictive so you might have to buy multiple copies" would have sufficed...

Email Adobe and explain how you currently use Aperture on XX devices but not concurrently and they may sell you a volume license at the price of 1. They are actively trying to court Aperture customers after all.

 

[Kavier]

Already has.

I agree. Apple has really lost its focus in my opinion. Slowly killing off all of the "pro" products is just driving away the very customers who made Apple a success.

 

[cube]

Email Adobe and explain how you currently use Aperture on XX devices but not concurrently and they may sell you a volume license at the price of 1. They are actively trying to court Aperture customers after all.

That would be Creative Cloud for Teams, in Lightroom form.

 

[imajez]

You keep trying to give me financial advice. Thanks, but I don't need it.

However for the avoidance of doubt, what I care about less is cost, and more about *value*. I'll work that out for myself, I only asked for clarification of the licensing terms (which I looked up, but they're a bit unclear) so I could do so.

I also don't particularly need a comparative review of LR vs Aperture, because I can trial that before buying, should I decide that it might be something I want to do.

So thanks for the patronising attitude, but a simple "yes, the license is more restrictive so you might have to buy multiple copies" would have sufficed...

You expressed concerns about cost, several times and then say you are not bothered about it. People have tried to give you helpful advice, but you throw it back in their face. What you are asking is very, very simple and you've been informed several times. 1 licence=2 computers.

And as for 'value' LR is infinitely better than Aperture for me because I wouldn't use Aperture if it was free. In fact even when Apple were almost giving it away, people still didn't want it. So a very poor value programme in most people's minds and hence it's axing.

 

[dysamoria]

Stop using stupid meme phrases!

There's even LESS reason for Adobe to work on Lightroom, now that their primary competitor for that app has abandoned its product. Adobe now has less competition. This is why Adobe sucks now. They've been dominant for so long. They've saturated the market and are doing everything possible to grow an already saturated and stagnant business by playing games with licensing games, rather than allowing consumers freedom of choice (the same thing Microsoft did once it was in a dominant position with Office and Windows). The "free" market... The only freedom is that of unfettered abuse of consumers by big corporations.

 

[Renzatic]

I know they started the Photographers package as a "limited time offer", but didn't Adobe just make it a permanent offering with the new CC 2014 update?

Seems that way. Adobe isn't saying it's a limited time offer anymore on the Photography page (though the google search says it still is), and I've heard a bunch of people say it's a permanent thing now, but there hasn't been any big announcements over the change. That's why I can't say I'm 100% on it. I've looked, but can't find jack about it.

 

[ChrisA]

I agree. Apple has really lost its focus in my opinion. Slowly killing off all of the "pro" products is just driving away the very customers who made Apple a success.

Apple figure they don't need those people any more. Apple maybe e right. There are FAR more people who shoot photos with a cell phone then with a dSLR. Apple wants that larger market.

But there is an effect Apple will loose. You can see Canon using it to advantage. Canon paints all their pro lenses white. This makes them easy to spot. So "Joe Consumer" goes out to buy a camera and says "The pros all shoot canon, so I'll buy one of those $500 Rebel SLRs and be just like them." Joe does not know that is Canon is COMPLETELY different from the Canon the guys on the sidelines of the football filed are using. The logic is wrong. It's like Joe said "Corvetts are really fast cars, So I will buy a Chevy." But this logic wrong as it is "works"

So I think Apple needs the creative pros using Apple equipment so that the "want-a-be" types will also buy Apple equipment. This statigy has worked 100% perfect for Adobe. They must sell a zillion copies of Photoshop to people who really have no use for it.

Do't thnk for a minute tha Apple will not abandon the other software. I suspect Logic is next to go. As soon as they replace Garage Band with some new Music app that runs on IOS, then they kill off both Logic and Garage Band.

LISTEN to what Apple says. They say "we will continue..." but they never put a time frame on that statement and say "we will continue the others for 10 years" or "we will continue the others for six months". They leave their options open.

 

[imajez]

There's even LESS reason for Adobe to work on Lightroom, now that their primary competitor for that app has abandoned its product.

Aperture has not been that for many years, even if it ever was. Capture 1 is the main rival.

Adobe now has less competition. This is why Adobe sucks now. They've been dominant for so long. They've saturated the market and are doing everything possible to grow an already saturated and stagnant business by playing games with licensing games, rather than allowing consumers freedom of choice (the same thing Microsoft did once it was in a dominant position with Office and Windows). The "free" market... The only freedom is that of unfettered abuse of consumers by big corporations.

Equally factual.

----------

But there is an effect Apple will loose. You can see Canon using it to advantage. Canon paints all their pro lenses white. This makes them easy to spot. So "Joe Consumer" goes out to buy a camera and says "The pros all shoot canon, so I'll buy one of those $500 Rebel SLRs and be just like them." Joe does not know that is Canon is COMPLETELY different from the Canon the guys on the sidelines of the football filed are using. The logic is wrong. It's like Joe said "Corvetts are really fast cars, So I will buy a Chevy." But this logic wrong as it is "works"

Definitely, I've been saying this for a long time. They are loosing the halo effect of pros using Macs. The tardiness of producing a new MacPro, then producing a supercharged Mac Mini with a rat's nest of cables to connects all the internal that are now outside, the abandoning of PC users when they took over Logic, the FCPX fiasco and now dumping Aperture after marketing it for years as a pro application are all signs of a company not to be trusted for pro work. I've made sure that I can swap to a PC without much hassle for that very reason.

 

[scottsjack]

As I understand it, the only way to preserve these edits if I were to switch to LR would be to export the versions in TIFF or some other format that LR can accommodate.

Not a LR user (yet) but doesn't LR have the ability to save edits as xmp files like Adobe Camera Raw in Photoshop? I like that ACR never resaves my cr2 files. When I want to backup my latest edits copying new xmp files to the backup drive is a snap.

 

[imajez]

Finally recalled the other programme that could be an Aperture alternative for those who don't like Adobe.
ACDSee - I used this on the PC some years back and it was quite good, now there's a Mac version. Not sure what it's like now but check it out and see what you think. It's a file browser and not a database, so will work a bit differently from LR/Aperture management wise.

And if you want a non-Adobe Photoshop style programme, some people like Photoline

 

[Mambain]

Well, personally I think that Pixelmator is by far the best image editing software for Mac

 

[imajez]

Not a LR user (yet) but doesn't LR have the ability to save edits as xmp files like Adobe Camera Raw in Photoshop? I like that ACR never resaves my cr2 files. When I want to backup my latest edits copying new xmp files to the backup drive is a snap.

Saving to xmp is an option in LR catalogue settings [enable it!]. ACR and the the Dev module are the same tool, albeit one wrapped differently for each app.

 

[nwcs]

Being prepared.

The newest is but the other version is Mac ready. When I read that it isn't available for Mac I took that as at all or PPC only. Both were not true. It is a version behind at the moment, though, true.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Apple seems to be abandoning their "Pro Apps" in favor of IOS. They are following the money. I can understand the market is tiny and they may as well give it to Adobe.

I suspect they will eventually dump Logic because people can just use Garage Band on an iPad. And they can dump FCPX because there is a video edit for the iPad too.

That's what Apple wants. It's "Beats for Software" now too (i.e. cheap crap at high prices or at least high price when you consider the price of hardware to run it). Crap sells. Good software does not, I guess. Just look at all the $1 apps that sell away on iOS. THAT is what is replacing quality software in the world and so I guess the world can go to hell right along with Crapple (yeah I'm bringing that '90s nickname back for Apple because lately they just plain suck).

Adobe looks to be in this market for the long haul and really is better at it then Apple ever was. The trouble for Apple is that Adobe's software runs the same on Windows as it does on the Mac, so there is little reason to buy a Mac. I means really, Web browsers work the same on PCs or Macs, MS Word is close to the same and Adobe is the same. Why bother with Mac OS X?

You've got a point. I bought my Macbook Pro for ONE reason and ONE reason ONLY and that was Logic Pro 9. It wasn't available for Windows so any idea of getting a Windows machine was out the Window and at the time the only Mac I owned was a used PPC model to try OSX out. I decided I liked what I saw and I was pretty happy with the MBP and eventually bought a Mac Mini as well. But if the software just keeps going down the toilet, WTF am I going to pay a premium for a Mac for? I've already been disgusted with the poor GPU and gaming options (yeah you can boot into Windows to get around OSX driver limitations, but that won't help the garbage GPUs they include on most models. Sorry, but an $1100 computer (what I paid for my Mac Mini Server with twin 1GB drives RAIDed and 8GB ram) should not have just a crappy Intel GPU in it. You can build a gaming monster for $1200 with a PC that also does everything else well.

The ONLY thing that makes me NOT want to go back to Windows is rampant Malware inherent to the platform. I'm not crazy with Windows 8.1's GUI but I could live with it. I don't like having to run Virus/Malware Checkers in the background 24/7 that always want updated, etc. M$ is known for CONSTANT UNENDING updates as well that annoy me (for security reasons, mostly since their platform is the absolute pits of Hell for malware). Yeah, I've got a few reasons to not go back to Windows, but if Apple keeps being Crapple instead of Apple, who knows. I'm sick of Apple dumping their best products in favor of mass market JUNK.

Back in the day, the best software run only on the Mac. Looks like those days are gone.

I guess Apple never heard of the Halo effect (and I don't mean M$'s stupid game that has gone on too long) or they would have thought twice about some of these boner decisions to dump Pro software and hardware.

 

[cflem]

I guess Apple never heard of the Halo effect (and I don't mean M$'s stupid game that has gone on too long) or they would have thought twice about some of these boner decisions to dump Pro software and hardware.

Then sell your machine and leave.

Logic and FCPX aren't going anywhere - you guys are acting like spoiled children. I have over 120,000 photos in Aperture - BUT I'm not belly aching on some silly message board.

I look forward to trying Lightroom... and probably the Photos app... get over yourselves, people. You are getting quite embarrassing.

 

[NY Guitarist]

I use Aperture mostly for cataloging with metadata and basic editing, mostly just proofing with trial cc and cropping etc. I'll export to PS as needed to dig into serious editing.

Can those who have used both compare how they use LR vs Aperture for managing photos? Maybe point me to a favorite link?