Yeah, but in all honesty how much marketshare are we talking about. I think we Aperture users are very much in the minority. Most photographers already moved to LR
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
Yeah, but in all honesty how much marketshare are we talking about. I think we Aperture users are very much in the minority. Most photographers already moved to LR
That is not how it works !
----------
Very. You simply deactivate/activate your software and that's it.
----------
Except you have all your collections available in the Dev and the other modules and because collections are much like how Aperture's organising worked, you are making up a problem where none existed.
LR's organising is definitely way better than Aperture as you have more options in how to organise your work. A one size fits all method [Apple's] fails when it comes to such things as organising because people do these things very differently and all equally validly. Apple's 'do it our way' organisation paradigm was the main reason it failed.
----------
Yet again another myth.
This is not true as all, because Adobe provide a free DNG convertor to sidestep this issue.
True, but even if the current active Aperture base is only 50K and Adobe can get even a few % of those to sign up for PS/LR CC @ $10/mo that's a few extra million in annual revenue for basically no effort at all. It's literally like free money for Adobe even if a couple million is a blip on the income sheet. (Not to mention the likelihood those that don't sign up for CC will probably get the offline version -- though I'd bet that isn't long for this world so those users would eventually have to sign up for CC too to continue using a current version compatible with the latest Mac OS.
Utter nonsense. Buy a box version or upgrade for £95/£58 respectively and you are both sorted until you next decide to upgrade. A copy works on two computers so that is all you need.
But be aware that LR6 is imminent
I think what really sucks is people's inability to use Google and find out what things really cost, how they really work, how you are not trapped in the cloud and so on.
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
It seems that this needs to be done from the computer you are deactivating, which means that if I grab one of my laptops but another one is currently activated, I'd have to ring them up to get it sorted?
I assume at least that there's no limit to how often I can do that.
But it still looks like double the cost for two users, even though we overlap on the machines we're using it on?
Still seems like extra cost and a lot of faff.
Can you post the link to the $79 version? Many people have said that, but I can only bring up the subscription model on Adobes website.
Thanks.
I was going to ask the same thing...I see the $10/month for PS and LR (not a bad deal) but where's that mythical stand-alone version?
Replacing add-ons might be difficult...or expensive.
Aperture was very unlikely LR's biggest competitor (that's probably DXO Optics Pro or CaptureOne Pro) - it's been clear for a while that Apple would eventually cancel it and there really weren't that many photographers using it anymore. The problem with the ones mentioned is that Adobe will eventually buy them and close them down, just like they did with Raw Shooter (which eventually emerged as Lightroom) back in the day.
Except that it's not 2002 anymore. With OS X now free Apple is rapidly convincing major devs and device makers to only develop s/w compatible with the last couple of OS versions. It's easier for devs plus more lucrative because it forces consumers to upgrade sooner than they previously did with OS versions dropping annually.
So you can say you are happy using older OSes but that really isn't practical now. And, of course, you may actually do it, but most consumers, consume so eventually they'll run into s/w or h/w that requires the latest OS, which is also not compatible with some of their older s/w.
I don't like the new "rental" scheme either. I'm old school, fondly remembering the 50 page s/w MacConnections catalogs, but "rental" is the future whether we like it or not. Saying "never" possibly means stop using your computer all together 5-10 years from now.
Okay, then how about Dropbox?
Nearly every other app on iOS except for the ones that use Dropbox for the reasons you mentioned.
Actually, it does. Pixelmator supports CMYK and 16-bit-per-channel color. It supports most or all of the layer effects. Last I checked, it was missing most of the new features past about CS2 or so, and it doesn't have the 3D modeling stuff that 99% of users don't need or care about, but it does a remarkable job for the 99% case.
Because Elements won't do CMYK. It is watered down to the point of being useless for prepress work.
Photoshop files? I've never seen any others that handle 16-bit color channels or CMYK, though I'm not saying that they don't exist....
What you mean by "now"? They've always been doing that. Lightroom costs some 50% more here than in the US, the same goes for Photoshop. I'm amazed the EU hasn't opened anti-trust investigations against them yet.
The increase in image quality of LR5 over LR2 is amazing. If you shoot raw, it's like upgrading your cameras to a much better model for a bargain price - no exaggeration. Not to mention the many, many other improvements.
Here's a screenshot of a flawed image [underexposed cat] I use to demo some of the big improvements in process versions, with from left to right the untouched raw file, process version 2003 [LR1 + 2], Process version 2010 [LR3] and Process Version 2012 [LR4+5]. Only the last one looks like the scene as I saw it, when Idiot Cat no. 3 wandered into shot as I was shooting some cloudscapes for my image bank.
This particular shot does not demonstrate how well PV2012 handles highlights compared to previous versions, but it's also very impressive.
Attachments
It's on Amazon as a download or retail box... Cheaper than Adobe.
Oh and can we settle one last thing for everyone? This is from Adobe's official FAQ on Lightroom 5:
Q. Will Lightroom become a subscription only offering after Lightroom 5?
A. Future versions of Lightroom will be made available via traditional perpetual licenses indefinitely.
Ever heard of Google, it's this neat little website that can do searches for you and there' this wee website called Amazon, they might have a copy for sale....
Except that this isn't allowed in the license terms, and in any case doesn't match our current usage of Aperture.
You may be happy working within (or ignoring) the licensing conditions, but for me there would be extra cost and/or a lot of lost flexibility.
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
Thank you for posting that! I was going to say something to the same effect. Adobe worked some kind of voodoo magic on RAW processing since LR1+2. It was a much bigger upgrade to my images than replacing my Canon 5D2 with a $3500 5D3.
Your comparison was even more dramatic than I remembered. Now I really want to go back to some of my older photos.
That is the upgrade price. The full version is like $130.
I don't know if it's possible to find the full version at the Adobe site, but the only way I saw to reach the upgrade there was by going through the US pages first.
----------
But you can buy 2 copies. I don't know where you got your pricing from or what are your licensing problems.
Why would they bother with DB? Same potential issues as Apple.
Now seeing as we are talking about OSX and not Apple's locked down mobile OS, not really relevant.
You seem to confusing what you require and what others actually need. The vast majority of PS users are not photographers, it was down to less than 10% 3-4 years back and LR, Capture 1 etc have improved enormously since then. Quite possibly, more 3D people use it than photographers these days. LR does the majority of what most photographer's need now.
And if you think Pixelmator is comparable despite missing most of the features past CS2, then your dafter than a box of frogs.
Every version of PS has been a big improvement on prior ones when it comes to workflow and power. I wouldn't go back one version of PS, let along 6 versions due to the vast time savings they made. And that's speaking just as a photographer, for other jobs there are amazing differences, I can now grade video using ACR in PS which is simply brilliant.Well duh! It's not a pro programme. Any pro using that is a bit amateurish and should be using the proper tools for the job. And if you can't afford PS, particularly at $10 a month, you are in the wrong business.
Lots of programmes open PSDs, but TIFFs are recommended over them even by Adobe.
Pretty sure two copies costs twice as much. Replacing one license of Aperture for me requires between two and four licenses for LR, depending on how much faff I want to put up with, regardless of whether it's standalone or cloud.
This bleating about "oh, just get this stand-alone version" is completely missing the point. The payment model is not the issue. The issue is the number of copies I'm expected to buy to replace a single copy of Aperture.
I haven't bothered with a Mk III as the difference for the much bigger price was marginal. A couple of new L lenses or a new laptop make more business sense.
There have been a few images where older cameras 5D I weren't up to the low light conditions or a flash failed to fire and PV2012 has made them look good when revisited. Yay!
This was a shot on a pocket camera [Canon S60] of the actor Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje [Mr Eko in Lost, Thor etc] in bugger all light and had dreadful banding and ickyness when first processed. But it looks OK now.
