alphaod

Contributor
Feb 9, 2008
22,181
1,234
NYC
Lightroom is a great piece of software; tried it in beta, but I can't use all the features.
 
Comment

bobbleheadbob

macrumors 6502a
Feb 6, 2007
653
0
Massachusetts
So far I've been very happy with the new Aperture software from Apple. But competition is good! Hopefully Abode and Apple keep pushing each other to continue to make their products better.
 
Comment

F/reW/re

macrumors 6502
Dec 30, 2001
306
0
Norway
YES!
And thank you Apple for pressuring Adobe (by making Aperture) to make Adobe’s best app to OS X ever!
 
Comment

noodle654

macrumors 68020
Jun 2, 2005
2,066
19
Never Ender
I think I will stick with Aperture...there is no way that I am dropping $300 on software when I can get one that is basically the same for $100.
 
Comment

digitalbiker

macrumors 65816
Apr 24, 2002
1,374
0
The Road
Lightroom 2 has Aperture 2 beat hands down.

I love the model for Adobe where you are able to save the entire history and alter any step at anytime. It is also very useful to be able to save different versions without having to output a large file like Aperture does.

Only downside is price. It's definitely better than Aperture but is it $100.00 better. I don't think so.
 
Comment

Kebabselector

macrumors 68030
May 25, 2007
2,915
1,436
Birmingham, UK
Frustrating thing was the beta version didn't work with existing libraries so I didn't have much of a play. I will update, hopefully it'll still run fine on my Mini.
 
Comment

thestaton

macrumors 6502
Jan 19, 2006
478
0
Lightroom 2 has Aperture 2 beat hands down.

I love the model for Adobe where you are able to save the entire history and alter any step at anytime. It is also very useful to be able to save different versions without having to output a large file like Aperture does.

Only downside is price. It's definitely better than Aperture but is it $100.00 better. I don't think so.

I was thinking the same thing. LR2 is a huge performance improvement over the initial release. I qualify for the student price, so this is getting purchased as soon as the trial runs out.
 
Comment

CReimer

macrumors member
Oct 24, 2006
63
0
Silicon Valley
Lightroom 2 Still Fast Mac Mini PPC?

Does anyone know if Lightroom 2 runs as well as Lightroom on a Mac mini PPC with Leopard? No sense in upgrading if I'm going to take a performance hit.
 
Comment

OreoCookie

macrumors 68030
Apr 14, 2001
2,713
82
Sendai, Japan
I love the model for Adobe where you are able to save the entire history and alter any step at anytime.
For what kinds of manipulations?
I think this is only (read: very) useful for local manipulations (e. g. dodge and burn).
It is also very useful to be able to save different versions without having to output a large file like Aperture does.
This is incorrect. Versions in Aperture are small text files, essentially, and calculated in real time. They don't take up much space.
Aperture does create large files if you export it to an external editor (you can choose between different formats) or if you use a plugin.
 
Comment

milo

macrumors 604
Sep 23, 2003
6,888
518
So now adobe has released a 64 bit OSX app (this is probably the most mainstream one so far, right?).

When are we going to start seeing 64 bit from apple? It's a bit ridiculous to keep hearing Apple hype 64 bit OS when they don't even take advantage of it with their OWN apps.
 
Comment

ltcol266845

macrumors regular
Aug 25, 2006
217
0
Elgin, IL
Lightroom 2 has Aperture 2 beat hands down.

Yup! I have been a big fan of LR since 1.0 hit the streets. Tried Aperture (granted about a year ago, before Apple's more recent imporvements), but LR has me hands down. LR2 I have been waiting for since the beta a while back. Now I have less and less a reason to open up Photoshop!
 
Comment

digitalbiker

macrumors 65816
Apr 24, 2002
1,374
0
The Road
For what kinds of manipulations?
I think this is only (read: very) useful for local manipulations (e. g. dodge and burn).

This is incorrect. Versions in Aperture are small text files, essentially, and calculated in real time. They don't take up much space.
Aperture does create large files if you export it to an external editor (you can choose between different formats) or if you use a plugin.

Tweaking past versions are useful for general and local manipulations. It is nice to go back at a later date and take a sequence of manipulations apply them to other source files and then slightly tweak the history.

I don't think it is incorrect. I have not been able to save multiple verions of the same source file without exporting or copying the source file. For example if I have one raw source file and I want to save a b&w version, a full color version, a sepia version, a cropped version, and a vignette, I need to either export each version or make copies of the original source and apply different operations to each copy.

Lightroom on the other hand, allows me to have multiple saves at different points in the history and saves the entire history for each version of the same source file and doesn't require exporting.
 
Comment

ChrisA

macrumors G4
Jan 5, 2006
11,837
624
Redondo Beach, California
I love the model for Adobe where you are able to save the entire history and alter any step at anytime. It is also very useful to be able to save different versions without having to output a large file like Aperture does..

The above is not correct. 1) "History" does not mean much with Aperture because the order that you do things is not important. There is not step one, step two and so on so Aperture has not history to keep. It only remembers what you've done, what adjustments were made and so on and does let you change them whenever you want. That's the whole point of non-destructive editing. 2) Aperture allows you to save any number of versions and does not write out another copy of the file. Aperture always keeps the oraginal file un-touched and a small file that contains the adjustments creating another version means you copy only the small file that contains the adjustments.

The exception to the above is when you use a external editor like Adobe Photoshop or one of the Aperure plug-ins. Then the image file is copied and passed to the other program

Lightroom and Aperture work pretty much the same way except for matters of style. Apple's software (iTunes, iPhoto and Aperture) like to keep the data in a library and have the concept of virtual folders and smart albums and the idea that a image (or song) can exist in many folders or albums but still takes up only one physical spot on the disk. Adobe products tent to use "normal folders" that may be easier for many people to understand and use. Adobe also seems to impose a workflow while Aperture just provides tools you can use in any order. Overall Lightroom is more structured.

But in the end they both do more of less the same job.
 
Comment

OreoCookie

macrumors 68030
Apr 14, 2001
2,713
82
Sendai, Japan
Tweaking past versions are useful for general and local manipulations. It is nice to go back at a later date and take a sequence of manipulations apply them to other source files and then slightly tweak the history.
Right. Practically, I usually create several versions anyway and compare the result afterwards. How do they show the history, in a tree?
I don't think it is incorrect. I have not been able to save multiple verions of the same source file without exporting or copying the source file. For example if I have one raw source file and I want to save a b&w version, a full color version, a sepia version, a cropped version, and a vignette, I need to either export each version or make copies of the original source and apply different operations to each copy.
You create versions by pressing option + G (version from Master) or option + V (creates a duplicate version from the one you have selected). Both definitely do not increase the size of your library (substantially, they are small text files). To do what you want, you can create a version which is in full color, sepia, cropped, b&w, etc. and they will not take much more space than the original file (could be RAW, jpg or any other format Aperture can read). It does not require exporting.

Practically, I don't use option + G all that often, I almost exclusively use option + V (duplicate version, i. e. you create a duplicate based that includes all previous edits that have been made to the master file): I would make some tweaks to an image and then `branch off' some edits, e. g. making a sepia version and compare it to a b&w version. Practically, I would make several (sometimes temporary) versions with different sepia intensities and choose the one I like best. Then I can cycle quickly back and forth to choose between them.

It sounds to me that you haven't used Aperture correctly (no offense, it's a complicated software package), you don't (rather: shouldn't) export anything -- unless you want to/need to use an external editor.

The concept of versions has been part of since Aperture 1.0.
Lightroom on the other hand, allows me to have multiple saves at different points in the history and saves the entire history for each version of the same source file and doesn't require exporting.
With the exception of having to make `manual waypoints' in history, Aperture can do that, too. Having the history sounds handy, though, but I wouldn't know how to implement this nicely (in a tree perhaps?) without bloating the whole UI.
 
Comment

digitalbiker

macrumors 65816
Apr 24, 2002
1,374
0
The Road
You create versions by pressing option + G (version from Master) or option + V (creates a duplicate version from the one you have selected). Both definitely do not increase the size of your library (substantially, they are small text files). To do what you want, you can create a version which is in full color, sepia, cropped, b&w, etc. and they will not take much more space than the original file (could be RAW, jpg or any other format Aperture can read). It does not require exporting.

Practically, I don't use option + G all that often, I almost exclusively use option + V only (duplicate version, i. e. you create a duplicate based that includes all previous edits that have been made to the master file): I would make some tweaks to an image and then `branch off' some edits, e. g. making a sepia version and compare it to a b&w version. It sounds to me that you haven't used Aperture correctly (no offense, it's a complicated software package), you don't (rather: shouldn't) export anything -- unless you want to/need to use an external editor.

You are correct that I have not had a lot of experience with Aperture but I have a question, when you save a version isn't it saving the original + the text file of edits.

Therefore if I save a b&w version, a color version, and a cropped version. Isn't aperture saving an orignal + text file for each version? Or is it saving just the text file of each version. In other other words, do I end up with 3 saved orignals each with a text file or do I have one original and 3 text files?

Also, if I have a b&w saved version and later I want to crop it and save that version. Does Aperture allow me to select the old version, crop it, and then save a new version without saving another source copy.

Just curious because I always got the impression that aperture was saving an original with each version.
 
Comment

ajbgmex

macrumors newbie
Nov 6, 2007
10
0
Mexico City, Mexico
Hi guys,

After downloading the trial version I can tell you it really doesn't show as a 64-bit app. I checked with Activity Monitor and it shows as Intel, not Intel (64-bit), could it be that the trial is not 64-bit?

AJ
 
Comment

OreoCookie

macrumors 68030
Apr 14, 2001
2,713
82
Sendai, Japan
You are correct that I have not had a lot of experience with Aperture but I have a question, when you save a version isn't it saving the original + the text file of edits.
Nope, just text file + thumbnail.
Therefore if I save a b&w version, a color version, and a cropped version. Isn't aperture saving an orignal + text file for each version? Or is it saving just the text file of each version. In other other words, do I end up with 3 saved orignals each with a text file or do I have one original and 3 text files?
No, you will end up with one original file (the Master that is never, ever, ever touched) and 3 small text files that describe the edits. Aperture may generate thumbnails, though, which may be large, depending on the quality and resolution you have chosen in the Prefs. Typically, these are of the order of a few tens of kB at most (the previous are typically generated at half the original resolution as mid-quality jpgs).

In the non-preview mode, all photos and versions are rendered (which is why Aperture is often perceived to be slower). Apple has given Aperture a Preview mode that uses only thumbnails which would speed things up tremendously if you are just browsing through your photo archives.
Also, if I have a b&w saved version and later I want to crop it and save that version. Does Aperture allow me to select the old version, crop it, and then save a new version without saving another source copy.
Yes, but in a different order: you would generate a duplicate version (e. g. via option + V) and then make the changes to the file. There is no `saving' involved. The concept of versions has a few pleasant advantages: you can `uncrop' at any point in time, because everything you do is non-destructive. Don't like the way you've cropped your image? Hit C and change the crop the way you want to. Don't like that you've made the image black and white? Undo that change (e. g. by unchecking the proper checkbox). And so forth. That's why a history wouldn't be as useful with Aperture -- mostly, because there is usually no clear concept of `before' and `after'.
Just curious because I always got the impression that aperture was saving an original with each version.
Nope. That only happens when Aperture needs to render a file and send it to an external editor (e. g. Photoshop or Pixelmator). Typically, Aperture will create a .tiff file (16 bit by default), so these files tend to get large.

This is where Lightroom 2 (as far as I understand) has an advantage: it knows how to generate DNG files and edits are in Photoshop are non-destructive as well. That's also why Dodge & Burn is non-destructive in Lightroom and destructive in Aperture.
 
Comment

kugino

macrumors 65816
Jul 10, 2003
1,119
109
i already have the education version...i wish they offered a cheaper upgrade price for education licenses...oh well.
 
Comment

digitalbiker

macrumors 65816
Apr 24, 2002
1,374
0
The Road
This is where Lightroom 2 (as far as I understand) has an advantage: it knows how to generate DNG files and edits are in Photoshop are non-destructive as well. That's also why Dodge & Burn is non-destructive in Lightroom and destructive in Aperture.

Thanks for the info. I was never very clear on how to do this from the beta period. Apple's design tends to hide the inner operations of the software.

Adobe's lightroom tends to be a lot more transparent as to how the internal operations are being performed.

I still like Adobe's product better as it seems to work faster and it is clearer to me what I am actually doing. I also like the histogram controls and curves option better than Aperture.

However like I said before I don't see a $100.00 difference. $199 for Aperture, $299.00 for Lightroom.
Aperture wins hands down in the price/performance test.

I also like the vault capabilities of Aperture where as Lightroom requires more user attention to assure safe backups.
 
Comment
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.