Could someone compare the healing brushes of Lightroom, Aperture and Pixelmator and tell us which one is better? Ta in advance.
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 Releases Photoshop Lightroom 5 With New Healing Brush, Radial Gradient, and Straightening Tools
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Buy now, before Adobe makes you rent it!
When I can no longer use the Adobe software I've bought on the latest hardware/OS, I'll be looking for alternatives. I will not get locked into the protection racket that is the Creative Cloud.
(Sorry, kind of off-topic, but there's not much love for Adobe right now.)
When I can no longer use the Adobe software I've bought on the latest hardware/OS, I'll be looking for alternatives. I will not get locked into the protection racket that is the Creative Cloud.
(Sorry, kind of off-topic, but there's not much love for Adobe right now.)
Got Camera Raw 8.1 this morning from the Adobe updater. Still not listed in product updates at adobe.com/downloads/updates
I find Photoshop CS6 to be noticeably faster than CS5. To me that's one of thee big features of the CS6 version.
Yet it's not full photo editing, it's importing RAW data and organizing shoots into projects with basic editing features, the interface needs streamlining and support for more current formats. iPhoto is not professional grade.
Features Adobe and others have that Apple lacks:
- Layers
- Masking
- Filters and professional effects
- Multi-format support (lacking in iPhoto's basic editing set)
- History list to revert to an edited point or removing selected changes (akin to layers)
- Cloning, rubber stamp
- Fine, professional adjustments beyond basic "saturation" and hue/color values
- Smart Object Support
- 3D scene panel/effects
- Content aware editing
- Vector support
- Multi-layered documents with multi-shape and path selection
- More camera RAW and layer support
- Free transform, ability to reshape images/layers in every possible way on the fly
- Professional typeface editing
- Import colors directly from HTML, CSS and SVG files
- Camera photo stability (such as iMovie/Final Cut Pro)
- Movie editing integration using photo filters, akin to iMovie and helpful for post production projects
- Support for tablets (a must for professionals, allows for smooth, fast post production work)
Aperture allows for basic editing in an app designed for organizing/importing RAW data and minor edits such as exposure, brightness, color values, etc. Advanced work requires a professional editing application such as Photoshop, which requires exporting the files into Photoshop for complete work, and iPhoto is consumer related. Lightroom and Photoshop are smart combo's, Aperture needs a Photoshop grade app or adding such features into Aperture, producing an all-in-one solution.
Last edited:
A friend of mine makes very good money* doing wedding and portrait Photography and according to him Facebook really increased his business.
Almost everyone is on Facebook and people constantly tag him and word of mouth spreads which helps him get more clients. He's even told me many of his senior portrait customers found him via facebook.
I wouldn't be too quick to rule out Facebook.
*By very good I mean its his full time job and he has a huge house and lots of nice stuff. He's definitely a pro not a hobbyist.
If you export "versions" then the edits are applied. But of course you will never be able to back those changes out, like you can now. So you may have to export twice, that will double the numbers of images in the library.
Last edited:
Betcha the reason Lightroom (sorry, Photoshop Lightroom) still has the latest version available as a proper standalone product is because:
A) It has actual competition, unlike the virtual monopoly Adobe has with PS, AI, and ID.
and
B) They're still actually upgrading things that might entice people to buy the latest version.
I maintain that the biggest reason Adobe went CC (and the biggest reason I hate it) is that they ran out of new features (or got so lazy they stopped bothering) in what are very mature pro products, so they simply couldn't entice people to reliably upgrade, and the situation was only going to get worse.
Their brilliant solution was, of course, to just force everyone to pay a monthly tax, and if you aren't happy that they haven't added anything substantial to your app of choice (say, Dreamweaver) in years and want to punish them... you can stop paying and instantly lose the ability to use it. Basically it removes all impetus for them to actually improve their products, so long as they maintain a monopoly position.
Lightroom, however, is NOT in a monopoly space, and DOES still have new features getting added... and, surprise, surprise, it's still available standalone.
A) It has actual competition, unlike the virtual monopoly Adobe has with PS, AI, and ID.
and
B) They're still actually upgrading things that might entice people to buy the latest version.
I maintain that the biggest reason Adobe went CC (and the biggest reason I hate it) is that they ran out of new features (or got so lazy they stopped bothering) in what are very mature pro products, so they simply couldn't entice people to reliably upgrade, and the situation was only going to get worse.
Their brilliant solution was, of course, to just force everyone to pay a monthly tax, and if you aren't happy that they haven't added anything substantial to your app of choice (say, Dreamweaver) in years and want to punish them... you can stop paying and instantly lose the ability to use it. Basically it removes all impetus for them to actually improve their products, so long as they maintain a monopoly position.
Lightroom, however, is NOT in a monopoly space, and DOES still have new features getting added... and, surprise, surprise, it's still available standalone.
Aperture does this from Day One. It keeps the previews in the library even if the raw files are off-line. That is one of Apertures best features that some of the library could be on a notebook computers, and some on the larger desktop but the previews were all in one place.
holy dramatic and impatient.
Apple just released Aperture 3.4.5 this week which shows they clearly haven't abandoned the product.
They're definitely working on Aperture 4. I doubt we'll see it tomorrow but I'd bet we see it before the end of 2013.
No **** it lacks the features of Photoshop. So does Lightroom. You're comparing apples to oranges. Aperture & Lightroom are digital asset management apps with basic adjustments. Photoshop is a full photo editing program.
It's either getting late and I'm tired, or you edited your post. Or maybe both...
I don't use iPhoto as it doesn't have everything I need so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up. Sure, Aperture could implement a lot of the things you mention, and maybe they will. I think it does have some of the features you list, maybe in a limited capacity. If you need a lot of those features, I'm not sure why you just don't use photoshop.
That's definitely a rarity amongst the industry, especially in NY and LA. I have yet to meet or know of any professional who brings in a decent revenue from Facebook (well, until now
). Most of us gave up, and we're not hobbyists, been in the industry for a long time. There are threads in the forums between us and many others, you'd be surprised. The other issue relates to copyright infringement and requiring clients to sign off on head-shots if that part of your industry is your main focus for Facebook pages (far easier on your own business site). Unfortunately, I wish Facebook offered more.
Last edited:
Elements, by far. Not even a close contest. Elements has almost all the features of the full Photoshop that a photographer would need.
I use Aperture for organization and adjustments. But in one of the preference dialogs inside Aperture, you can specify a "default editor". I specify "Adobe Photoshop Elements" and then Aperture has very seamless integration with Elements. A double click moves the image into Elements and then it comes back to Aperture. The down side is that now you have a duplicate image but it is easy and seamless.
Elements is the best deal Adobe offers. It's free if you buy some versions of the Wacom tablet too. Makes it an even better deal.
When you combine Aperture and Adobe Elements you get Aperture's good cataloging and workflow but also access tothe Photoshop tools and layers and so on. You don't have to choose on or the other.
Last edited:
My point to the person I addressed was that Apple does not have a professional editing app such as Photoshop. I stated that Aperture isn't a full editing app, but merely a conduit akin to database management. This relates as Apple should up its ante with a professional editing app instead of relying on Photoshop, etc. What's the point in Aperture when it's a conduit for professional editing that Apple lacks? They're just giving business to competitors for that lacking segment in addition to letting it slack on v3.0 for too long.
Apologies if my comment(s) came off strongly. I just dislocated and fractures my right ankle, spent the day in the ER and trying to keep my foot up dealing with the pain. Pain meds keep me awake, been a bad day and ticked I'll be bedridden for the MacRumors threads during WWDC tomorrow.
Last edited:
I just see Aperture as a nice Prosumer organization/manipulation app. I just assumed all Pro's would probably use Photoshop.
It will be interesting to see if Apple steps it up and tries to give Photoshop a little bit of a run. I wouldn't cross my fingers though.
Sucks about your ankle. My 1 year old daughter broke her arm a couple weeks ago, so I feel your pain (even though I really don't). Feel better.
----------
well I'm gonna have to do some research how to do that. Thanks for the info.
It will be interesting to see if Apple steps it up and tries to give Photoshop a little bit of a run. I wouldn't cross my fingers though.
Sucks about your ankle. My 1 year old daughter broke her arm a couple weeks ago, so I feel your pain (even though I really don't). Feel better.
----------
well I'm gonna have to do some research how to do that. Thanks for the info.
Amen, agree and sorry if I came off harshly.
Ugh, sorry about your daughter, hope she's recovered and doing well!
(and sorry again for my tone, I got carried away which I never do, edited out anything I thought may seem rude).
\
Attachments
Yes another one. They are completly DIFFERENT. They do not address the same needs or issues.
Both Aperture and Lightroom are for cataloging photos, stores thousands of them. And also for making "adjustments" to color, exposure and other minor "tweaks".
Then we have programs like Photoshop, Gimp, Pixelmator, and Adobe PS Elements that are for making rather major changes. These have feateurs alike layers and masks and selection tools.
In an ideal world you would have one of each of these two groups.
Exactly. I'm surprised Apple never released a pro-App for photo editing or at least added advanced editing in Aperture. A bit odd to have a pro-grade photo database manager without an accompanying professional editing app.
I'm surprised too. There's a lot of old hacky stuff left in photoshop specifically where if you use it enough, you just remember what works, much like a lot of other applications. It doesn't really improve the application though. With a lot of software aimed at professional markets by marketing and price points, I'm often happier to read about legacy bug fixes than new features.
I've compared digital to analog versions of things before. You run into some interesting things. As an example if you've ever dealt with a graphics tablet, outside of cintiqs the size of the average working display has greatly outpaced graphics tablet sizes, so not only is your hand in a different place than your eye, but the cursor moves at a different rate than your hand. It messes me up. Having tested both ways I'm just a bit more accurate if I set them 1:1 and grab anything out of range with my mouse. I tried it simply because I never experienced such a problem sketching on paper. I've found that kind of comparison to be helpful in tracking down problems.
Adobe has a lot of weird things in their software. They have several old buggy blending modes that wouldn't be implemented in their current form if photoshop was designed today with current computing power levels (screen is a prime example). There are a lot of weird things in their software. An example would be how blending modes are applied in general where adjustment layers have a built in "apply image" as opposed to the blending mode being applied to the deviation only. After Effects is a little more sane in its logic.
I noticed the number of auto tools. I never liked those very much for a specific reason. Here it uses the example of perspective. That means a trip through bicubic interpolation and chopping off a certain portion of this image to accomplish the "faked" reprojection. Of course it's algorithmic so it has to try to determine what to straighten and provide a means of resolving conflicts. I suspect it has tools to help make the choices when they are less evident, but I hope they still provide a strong ui for manual tuning.
They're different things where many people will use both.
Last edited:
Amen, agree and sorry if I came off harshly.
Ugh, sorry about your daughter, hope she's recovered and doing well!
(and sorry again for my tone, I got carried away which I never do, edited out anything I thought may seem rude).
\
If you can't handle an a******* on the internet, you shouldn't be here. That said, I had no problem with anything you said. And if I did, you get a pass for the ankle anyway, and for your avatar for one of the greatest films of all time.
No on figured it out yet? Apple made a corporate decision some time back not to invest in (All) their ''Pro'' Apps. Apple make hardware and have their own Operating system, they no longer make Apps as they let others who specialise in Apps do it instead.
If you have legacy Apps such as Aperture they want you to go away and use someone else's, hence the long gap between major updates. Then after a a period they will just quietly drop it.
Do you want the full list of Apps they have stopped in recent years?
If you have legacy Apps such as Aperture they want you to go away and use someone else's, hence the long gap between major updates. Then after a a period they will just quietly drop it.
Do you want the full list of Apps they have stopped in recent years?
Remember when Apple used to make Aperture? There was a time people were discussing on which of the two programs are better. Now Aperture is not even contemplated and the few people that are still using it are transferring all their work to Lightroom. Apple's lack of news and updates has been a betrayal to their customers, which were never informed of Apple's intentions of doing nothing when they purchased the program, and also a betrayal to professional photographers.
Healing Brush and clown second rate
I agree. Why no give us the basic Photoshop tools rather than tees us.
1. Fix area you are sampling from so you can paste this to multiple other areas.
2. Content Aware tool.
Shame only reason upgrading is so I get offline mode.
I agree. Why no give us the basic Photoshop tools rather than tees us.
1. Fix area you are sampling from so you can paste this to multiple other areas.
2. Content Aware tool.
Shame only reason upgrading is so I get offline mode.
Last edited: