Yes, and this is the feature I love most about Aperture: most things I need are literally only one push of the button away (some things like your view toggles, so it could be two).
Uh, not sure what you mean as you seem to be 'agreeing' with something that I think is missing.
And things in LR are normally a mere click away too.
Not with my version of Aperture. Or any of the previous ones I've used. Create a new Webpage/Web Journal from the menu, add pictures and hit export. Yes, there is also an export to Mobile Me button, but so what? The result
looks something like this. Took about 30 seconds to create. Of course, it contains just one picture, but I hope this is sufficient as a proof of concept. And you can customize it, too. Perhaps not to your liking, but that was not the argument. I have never had a .Mac/mobile me subscription.
As I said above
web gallery, not
web page, a subtle but important distinction. Quickly creating something I don't want, is not a solution.
Show me how to create a web gallery in Aperture without .Mac. i.e. a series of images viewable sequentially or via thumbnails on a
single web page.
Just because the functionality is there, doesn't mean it doesn't feels limiting to some: for example, I don't get along with Canon dslrs. No matter what features they have, unless they change their UI paradigm, I won't buy one, period. However, I do have great respect for their craftsmanship, because I still think they make great cameras. They have all the functionality I need just like my current dslr, yes. But it's not about features. And yes, there are some who can't work with, say, Nikon or Olympus for the same reason and love their Canon.
But that's normally because it's different, therefore it simply seems wrong and it is only because of what you are used to, not because it is any worse. When testing a new version of PS or a keyboard for example, somethings will feel awkward as they are different, but then when going back to the old version, the old way now seems wrong and you realise it did need improving. Though some PS 'improvements' get reversed as they didn't work as well as Adobe thought.
LR seems more different from the normal than Aperture, which is fundamentally very traditional in its UI. So LR needs time to start with, but is well worth groking. Sometimes with programmes it's handy to see someone who is fluid with it and learn how they use it.
It's about taking great pictures, not the brand of your camera.
Very True.
Lightroom has always felt restrictive in the same way Canon's dslrs have felt unnatural in my hands. (I've tried Lightroom 1 beta, Lightroom 1 Demo and Lightroom 2 beta, but it has always been the same story.) Me and my Nikon get along just fine. I have never needed to read the manual.
But is that because you already know how they work? I found Canon's easy to use and that Nikons hid things away or did things different to everyone else simply for the sake of it - and that was after years of using neither Canon or Nikon stuff. I was using a D3 the other day and had to ask some questions about how to do very basic things. But - and this is the important bit, sometimes after reading the manual and having a play, you realise the odd/different way is actually quite neat.
Perhaps I could get used to it, but why should I if there is something that feels right to me?
Because once you get over the 'Oh my god it's different' phase, you may appreciate there is good reason for the difference and can then work faster.
I currently use Canons, simply as Nikon did not make a FF camera until recently - a purely practical decision. If buying a fresh after say a theft of all my kit, I'd spend time with both and also the Sony, before deciding which to buy. I also use a Mac and a PC, both seem odd if I've been using just the one for a while.
Since Lightroom does not have equivalents for two very important features, books and vaults (for offsite backups), I don't feel the need to reconsider.
The lack of books is indeed a silly oversight and why I also have a copy of Aperture. LR works differently from Aperture and Vaults are not needed in the same way. I back up my images independently of LR and I can also view the developed images in Bridge no problem - a huge advantage. Theoretically, as all the edits are stored with the image, not in the software, other software can view the developed file. This fundamentally is my main reason for not using Aperture. I do not like being tied to anyone.
The paradigm of modules is just not the way I think, I'm very spontaneous.
Me too. Don't find it an issue.
But if you like an example: no matter if I edit a book, a website or an album, if I select an image and press H, I can immediately tweak it and then continue with whatever I'm doing.
I press 'D' instead. And then the apposite shotcut key to go back. LR has more features in the adjustment section therefore it woudn't actually fit on a single panel like in Aperture.
This is consistent throughout all of Aperture
As 'D' is in LR.
If I'm editing a book, I can see the result on the book page -- live. Perhaps I want to tweak the colors so that they suit the rest of the pictures on the page? Changing modules would mean tweak, change back and check, tweak, etc. My brain doesn't switch modes (you call 'em tabs) and I don't want to have to get used to doing that in my photo management app.
And I thought you were spontaneous.
But at last a good example, though sadly LR doesn't have a book mode
, so not so applicable, but yes being able to alter image whilst looking at it on page could be useful [though only on very rare occasions I'd say]. But with slideshow and web most people will get images correct before going into the web/slideshow tab. Though if LR gets a book section, no reason why it cannot go on second monitor like other modes do.
I was playing with Aperture earlier and discoved a very annoying feature. The adjustments tab's optional adjustments vary on an image by image basis. So you end up having to add all the extra adjustments you want to each specific image it seems. Is there a way around this as that is soooo annoying. Not even sure why they are hidden in a menu anyway, as some of them I use all the time. Plus the lack of solo mode for each section makes for a lot of clicking or scrolling.
Why are you so zealous over your image editing app, if you're a photographer, I'll judge you by your pictures, not your preferred image editing app
Not zealous, I simply like LR and find Aperture extremely lacking as a RAW developer and dreadful for File management. I prefer to have a very good filing system independent of any software or OS. So I like to use both File Managers [Bridge/Pathfinder/DirectoryOpus] and a Database to manage my files. Plus I'm know I cannot do some of my images with Aperture and most certainly not as quickly, due to the lack of presets and localised editing. So my preferred editing app does very directly affects my output. My website is linked on my profile I believe, if you want to see my images.
The power and features of ACR, mean I now spend very little time in PS compared to previous years and I now use PS just for the compositing or textural work on images.
I just spent some time working on images in Aperture today and what surprised me most, is how amateurish and unfinished it feels in places. Reminiscent of, but nowhere near as bad as Hasselblad's Flexcolour. But I got a nice look to an image I'd also played around with in LR. Not the same but still nice. A real shame you can't record develop presets like in LR. Lift + Stamp is not the same. So I duplicated the look in LR and saved a preset, now one click and it's applied.
And how on earth do you get JPEGs to import when you also have DNGs/other RAW files with same name in a folder?
