Adobe Launches Lightroom 5.7 with Built-In Migration Tool for Aperture and iPhoto

[Glassed Silver]

I'm unfamiliar with Lightroom. Some people say the software is better but what about actual results using a range of common editing tools? Is there any difference or is it so minor as to be insignificant and impossible to detect?

As long as Aperture does what I need I can't see too much need to move over and pay Adobe for the priviledge but then I tend to only use the basic tools in Aperture.

Compatibility with Aperture will probably soon be broken with a new major OS X version, so eventually, at latest with a new Mac you'll likely find yourself forced to find an alternative.

Glassed Silver:mac

 

[John.B]

Compatibility with Aperture will probably soon be broken with a new major OS X version, so eventually, at latest with a new Mac you'll likely find yourself forced to find an alternative.

Or a new camera body. RAW support for the Canon 7DMkII and Nikon D750 will require Yosemite.

 

[Glassed Silver]

Or a new camera body. RAW support for the Canon 7DMkII and Nikon D750 will require Yosemite.

Perks of free, annual major version upgrades.

The old ones are simply forgotten about and denied any substantial support beyond important security patches.

Glassed Silver:mac

 

[bretm]

+1

I use both, each has it's own strengths and weaknesses for me, I just choose depending on what I'm doing at the time. Lightroom won the early battle for me as Aperture wouldn't allow you to rename easily in its first iteration, other wise I'd have probably chosen it.

But my main use for lightroom is just as a library manager, I rarely do any post work in it. (or in anything, I'm old school 'get it right in camera'!)

That's amazing. Even Ansel Adams couldn't get it right "in camera."

 

[jms969]

+1

I use both, each has it's own strengths and weaknesses for me, I just choose depending on what I'm doing at the time. Lightroom won the early battle for me as Aperture wouldn't allow you to rename easily in its first iteration, other wise I'd have probably chosen it.

But my main use for lightroom is just as a library manager, I rarely do any post work in it. (or in anything, I'm old school 'get it right in camera'!)

'get it right in camera' 🙄

There is NO way to get it right in the camera, even Ansel Adams used post processing in the darkroom...

Here is a good video that shows what working, productive, professional photographers do with their images...

http://vimeo.com/94461187

Ps. I am not affiliated with Macphun in any way...

 

[spunkybart]

'get it right in camera' 🙄

Agreed.

I didn't roll my eyes...but my eyebrows furled up in a question...

I mean, RAW image colors are kinda muted, so you're right -- you have to edit -- if for no other reason than to bring out the contrast, do some noise reduction, etc.

Now maybe if the OP shoots in JPG, I could possibly understand the comment.

 

[jms969]

Agreed.

I didn't roll my eyes...but my eyebrows furled up in a question...

I mean, RAW image colors are kinda muted, so you're right -- you have to edit -- if for no other reason than to bring out the contrast, do some noise reduction, etc.

Now maybe if the OP shoot in JPG, I could possibly understand the comment.

Excellent points, he may shoots in jpg only. But a jpg straight from the camera will never be as good as a post processed raw image...

I used to shoot in raw +jpg and dropped the jpg altogether a few years ago.

 

[peterh988]

'get it right in camera' 🙄

There is NO way to get it right in the camera, even Ansel Adams used post processing in the darkroom...

I managed pretty well with the hundreds of thousands of transparencies I shot over the years (professionally, for publication in magazines worldwide)

I don't decry post processing work or people that do it, but a lot of it is to cover up shoddy camera work rather than enhance the image.

----------

Excellent points, he may shoot in jpg only. But a jpg straight from the camera will never be as good as a post processed raw image...

I used to shoot in raw +jpg and dropped the jpg altogether a few years ago.

I shoot RAW, and in the same way as I worked with film, the RAW file goes off to the client, where they can fiddle with it to the hearts content. The stuff I shoot will never need to have the white balance or exposure altered in post, that's all taken care of by me, at the moment of exposure.

I'm not trying to cause an argument here, I'm just explaining that for some of us, shooting transparency film meant there was no second go at it on the computer, we had to 'get it right in camera' or we didn't eat, and some of us have carried that across into our digital workflow, where we try to produce a file where the only post processing needed is to correct the inadequacies of the capture procedure.

I have no problem with people who choose to spend hours in photoshop, but there does seem to be a trend these days to look down on old school methods of getting it as good as possible at the moment of capture.

 

[jms969]

I managed pretty well with the hundreds of thousands of transparencies I shot over the years (professionally, for publication in magazines worldwide)

I don't decry post processing work or people that do it, but a lot of it is to cover up shoddy camera work rather than enhance the image.

----------



I shoot RAW, and in the same way as I worked with film, the RAW file goes off to the client, where they can fiddle with it to the hearts content. The stuff I shoot will never need to have the white balance or exposure altered in post, that's all taken care of by me, at the moment of exposure.

I'm not trying to cause an argument here, I'm just explaining that for some of us, shooting transparency film meant there was no second go at it on the computer, we had to 'get it right in camera' or we didn't eat, and some of us have carried that across into our digital workflow, where we try to produce a file where the only post processing needed is to correct the inadequacies of the capture procedure.

I have no problem with people who choose to spend hours in photoshop, but there does seem to be a trend these days to look down on old school methods of getting it as good as possible at the moment of capture.

Peter no argument at all about getting as good as possible at the moment of capture, the point I am trying to make is that the very best of what was shot out of the camera as 'get it right in camera', is no where near as good as decent prosumer photographer today with a good knowledge of Lightroom and post processing techniques and simply pales in comparison to what a pro can do. If you take more than about 5 minutes in LR to pp an image you are taking way to much time..

Times change (and I am an old fart btw)

Cheers...

PS. There are valid reasons to alter the "correct" white balance and exposure in post.

 

[dolphin842]

I suppose I'm an outlier, but I'm a fan of the $10/month Photoshop+Lightroom subscription. I think it's a fair price to charge for what the software does.

One benefit of Lightroom I just became aware of: When you convert to DNG format, each photo gets a checksum that can be used to verify the integrity of the image data in the future. Given the lack of any file corruption detection in HFS+, I think this is a very important feature.

But my main use for lightroom is just as a library manager, I rarely do any post work in it. (or in anything, I'm old school 'get it right in camera'!)

If you only use Lightroom for library management, you can use it perpetually for free under the Creative Cloud program. The paid CC subscription enables the Maps and Develop module; everything else can be used without paying.