Most people tend to update or upgrade programs they like to use. So, for those clients, its pay me now (monthly fee) or pay me later (upgrade cost).
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 'Doubling Down' on Lightroom in Wake of Apple's Aperture Announcement
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Most people tend to update or upgrade programs they like to use. So, for those clients, its pay me now (monthly fee) or pay me later (upgrade cost).
I never update anything until I have to (the vendor force me to update). Most people I know are like me, or even more resistant to upgrades. Business tends to be this way because they don't want to create software/hardware incompatibility problems by upgrading.
Look, I don't have the time to babysit you through setting up something like JRiver. Go to their website and forum; they have some of the best documentation and support people anywhere. But I'll make a few comments.
Its main preferences are under tools-->options not player. Of course, JRiver plays .mp3 files; for god sakes it plays native DSD files not to mention FLAC and a host of others! Your problem is most likely your own setup and you haven't taken any time to understand how JRiver works. (Again, see above.)
As to its look vis-a-vis iTunes, that is a rather odd comment coming from someone who prefers the look of LR over Aperture on looks alone; but who cares - I interact with JRiver mostly through their iOS app JRemote which again is much better than Apple's remote.
If you don't like something, that's fine, but you should first try and understand it before making a judgment.
That is basically true. I guess it irks me when people pretend that there was nothing comparable prior to Apple's solution simply because they didn't bother to look. Adobe started with Bridge. Extensis and a few others had other applications. I can't remember a couple of the names.
Ooh, not at all patronising.
I should not have to go through websites and forums just to get a music player to play music. I have no issues using new complex software [that has been designed properly] and and jriver is not even close to being complex software. It plays music from a library that you can organise via dumb and smart playlists. And I certainly do not need to research anything to tell it is a poor port to OSX as the interface says that straight away looking like something from Windows 98 and basic stuff such as this....
Still in the wrong place and still not called preferences. In OSX Prefs are usually Cmd+, or under 'Menu/App Name/Preferences.
In fact there are three separate 'options' under two different menus and DSP Studio is another set of prefs.
It's a very recent port of a Windows app to OSX and it really shows. Help menu is missing search as well.
No it wouldn't play mp3 or anything else for that matter and if I have to configure a music player to do something that basic it was designed by idiots or incompetents. It simply threw up error messages, whenever I tried to play music from the library. I have a large variety of music playback tools that I have tested all worked fine no issue. I also have audio editing software and several DJ software systems and they ALL play my files no problem. So it would seem jriver is either badly designed or a buggy piece of crap, I had to reboot several times to even use it as it's interface would behave oddly and switch me onto other apps as well as simply crashing when trying to re-order files. So certainly buggy.
Three things:
That makes no sense. Prefering the look of something due to it's looks. ?!? Well duh!
How those two programmes look relative to each other is not even germane.
I didn't compare it's appearence to iTunes, it's just really ugly and nasty to look at, all on its own.
I did. I spent more time on it than it was probably worth considering how awful it was. I really want to find something better than iTunes, so I have a vested interest in seeing if other apps can do the job. This didn't.
Last edited:
I've been playing with Lightroom 5 and I found one area where Aperture shines - slideshows.
Adobe's mistake with slideshows is you can use only 1 sound file. If you want to use 2 or more songs, you must combine them into one file which also means changing the music order involves even more hoops.
Adobe's mistake with slideshows is you can use only 1 sound file. If you want to use 2 or more songs, you must combine them into one file which also means changing the music order involves even more hoops.
Yep very true, probably helps them gear it more and more towards online apps and cross compatible with the IOS coding..
Considering Aperture was stagnant as far as development goes, it wasn't providing much competition in this arena. Capture One Pro and DxO are arguably providing more competition to Lightroom. Remember, these products work on both Windows and Mac, unlike Aperture.
Here's a Macrumor's discussion about Capture One showing just how much better it is at highlight recovery, shadow recovery, noise reduction, sharpening, etc than Lightroom and Aperture.
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1542274/
The slideshow module is generally very feature limited. The weakest part of LR.
Last edited:
Except the thread starter begins to change his mind about some of these things after getting some feedback and actually learning how to use programme. For example...
"Ok, now I get it. Now I get why everyone's so enamoured with the noise reduction in Lightroom. Moving the Luminance Noise slider in LR to the far right, has this amazing effect... it completely melts your noise away. It leaves a buttery smooth finish where noise once lived and it does an amazing job at preserving detail that sharpens up well (albeit with a bit of artifacts). Lightroom has no real competition when it comes to creating buttery smooth images from high ISO noise."
I just did some testing of Ap Vs LR and also got a more experienced Ap user to try and get the best results out of a file that was tricky and Ap fell way short of LR.
Maybe the reason you find it so amazing that you keep hearing this "rubbish" is that Adobe has numerous customers who are NOT professionals. We are NOT getting paid for our photography work. We are enthusiastic amateurs who might be willing to shell out hundreds of dollars for software that we will use for several years (I don't need the latest and greatest update every 18 months) but aren't interested in what amounts to a lifetime subscription lock in that Adobe and others are pursuing.
Now, point raised by others is fair enough, that LR is still available as a standalone version purchase... i was under the impression that LR had also gone to a cloud only model.
So you were told repeatedly that it it is available as a standalone version, fixed price version and you deliberately ignored it? Even I told you that. I stand by my comments. You were spouting uninformed rubbish.
Last edited:
Sadly so many people seem to be wilfully ignorant and not in the slightest bit interested in the truth/facts. They have a bias and they are going to stick to it regardless.
Glad I read this article. I was getting ready to buy Aperture. Thanks for the input.
I already own Lr (Adobe Lightroom) and have been very happy with the way it works, the ability to export and avoid Br (Adobe Bridge) for naming the export files and for the most part and very happy with Lr. Lr is a cinch over Ps (Photoshop), the latter of which is a nightmare learning curve.
Guess, I'll just keep what I have and HOPE Adobe doesn't wreck the ownership idea on Lr.
I already own Lr (Adobe Lightroom) and have been very happy with the way it works, the ability to export and avoid Br (Adobe Bridge) for naming the export files and for the most part and very happy with Lr. Lr is a cinch over Ps (Photoshop), the latter of which is a nightmare learning curve.
Guess, I'll just keep what I have and HOPE Adobe doesn't wreck the ownership idea on Lr.