Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Other Raw Converters => Apple Aperture Q&A => Topic started by: martin archer-shee on April 30, 2014, 07:38:54 am
-
I recently became a partial convert to mac when I got a MBPro with 500ssd and 16ram.( many thanks Lawrence, for the thoughts and guidance). So far I still have my desktop PC. I have used LR a bit but am not fluent with it. Often I use Photoshop to finalize and then print.
So my question is " Which is the better/easier/more useful program to use LR or Aperture?" Posting in this forum probably will have some bias ;D but will also have more knowledgeable respondents on the Aperture side.
Pros and Cons and experiences are most welcome.
Thanks
Martin
-
I can only speak for the ease of use of Aperture, and the fact that it gives me some great results with both Nikon & Fuji cameras. I also use the Nik software plug-ins, mainly Viveza & Silver Efex 2.
Aperture is also a simple download for about £55 - https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/aperture/id408981426?mt=12
Obviously US price will be different, but for comparison, the cheapest way of getting the latest version of Lightroom is through Adobe's creative cloud, and essentially a rental agreement of about £9 per month, on-going. That makes Aperture significantly cheaper.
-
I do have a bias ... after using Lr from the very first public beta until a little more than a year ago, I moved my entire RAW workflow from Lr to Aperture. The superior capabilities Aperture offers in the areas of books and multi-media slideshows was very important for me as both products are popular with my clients and sell rather well. No longer did I have to export mountains of images to use in other software for those products ... I could work directly with my RAW images from import to finished product. To some, this may not seem important as it is rather easy to export images from Lr .... but I am talking tens of thousands of images over the course of a year. That is a huge savings in time and effort for me.
Secondly ... Support for new cameras and tethering support. With Lr, if you purchase a new camera and it is on the cusp of a new version release (assuming you are using the perpetual license version of Lr) You may be forced to upgrade Lr just to have it be able to convert your files without using the free DNG converter because Adobe does not offer updates to RAW support for past versions ... RAW support for Aperture is actually OS based in Core Image and is updated very frequently at no additional charge to the end user. Apple supports nearly twice as many cameras for tethering ... and usually adds tethering support on the same day they add RAW support. Adobe supports fewer cameras for tethering and adds support often many, many months after offering RAW support.
I much prefer the cloning/healing capabilities in Aperture over Lr ... it is much more Ps like in that respect. Though, Lr does have much more detailed and refined lens correction. So comparing item for item, each have their benefits ... you just have to discern if certain features are more important for you.
I have to say, that Aperture is quite likely the best bargain I have ever made for a software purchase. At $80, you really can't go wrong.
-
You should really test both. There are pluses to each. I do most of my work in Lightroom but agree with Butch about books, they are much better in terms of creation and output in Aperture. I don't find it difficult to move my finished images from LR to Aperture for book production. I love the Print module in LR.
-
They are each excellent, wondrous programs. The differences between them have remained the same since LR 3 and Ap 3 came out:
Aperture has better image organization features.
Aperture has a better UI (modeless).
Aperture is much more tightly integrated to other Apple programs.
Lightroom has a much larger installed user base.
Lightroom has more, and more readily available, learning materials.
Lightroom is more frequently, and faster, updated to include new cameras.
Lightroom is more up-to-date.
If none of those pushes you on one direction, my suggestion -- seriously -- is to use the one that looks good to you.
-
Aperture has better image organization features.
No, its smart folders are certainly much better, but Aperture's organisational structure is only more "in your face" than Lightroom's equivalent features. You're forced to use virtual folders (projects, albums, "folders") and Aperture's UI hides your photos' folder locations, while Lightroom's UI shows your hard drive folders and only also offers virtual folder ("collections") organisation.
-
No, its smart folders are certainly much better, but Aperture's organisational structure is only more "in your face" than Lightroom's equivalent features. You're forced to use virtual folders (projects, albums, "folders") and Aperture's UI hides your photos' folder locations, while Lightroom's UI shows your hard drive folders and only offers virtual folder ("collections") organization.
Hi John,
Could you be specific?
The difference, as I see it, can be summarized generally as: Aperture is an Image-manager, whereas Lightroom remains a image-format file manager. The hiding of the (created-for-use-in-Finder, "logical"*) location of your files is deliberate, clever, and neatly matched to the image-centered design of Aperture. Since Images exist only in memory while the program is running, it makes little sense to use a file manager to manage them. (Images are rendered on-the-fly from the imported file and the text file of instructions on how to change the appearance and metadata of that file. As an aside, "photo" has no exact meaning in Aperture. IME, its use is ill-advised.)
*Your files are no more "in" the virtual folders shown to you by Finder than your Images are in the equally-virtual folders you create in Aperture.
More specifically, the virtual folders and Image containers (in Aperture, Folders hold containers; they do not contain Images that are not in another container) that Aperture provides constitute the organizational advantage that Aperture has which Lightroom (afaik) does not. Contrary to your claim, there is nothing equivalent in Lightroom (again, as far as I know). I find this "upper layer" of organization extremely useful. It is one the reasons I elected to use Aperture instead of Lightroom.
I don't what you mean to emphasize by "in your face". Aperture is delightfully modeless (unlike Lightroom). It's organizational features are always available. I count this as a significant advantage. If this is more "in my face", then "more of that, please".
-
I disagree that Aperture is an "image-manager" and Lightroom supposedly an "image-format file manager", whatever that distinction may be, Kirby. They perform the same role, just Aperture obscures where your files are. Deliberate as that may be, it still leaves the user with only virtual organisational bucket structures compared to Lightroom offering control over both physical and virtual organisation. Although Lightroom lets some people try to use folders to categorise their images, most don't, and you can have the same project-style organisation. I even know of one guy who hides Lightroom's folder panel and has an Aperture-like experience only using collections. Really, there's little to choose between the organisational strengths of the two apps.
As for "in your face", what I mean there is that Aperture's organisational aspects - projects/albums etc - are much more part of users' experience of the app. In Aperture you must put images in projects, and all the other buckets go into that structure, so you're continually thinking in terms of categorising your images in projects. Aperture's UI is all about this organisational hierarchy. By contrast Lightroom's two organisational features, OS folders and virtual buckets, mean there isn't a single way in which users perceive or experience its organisational aspects. The "better organisation" of Aperture is apparent rather than anything real.
John
-
Lightroom is more frequently, and faster, updated to include new cameras.
I disagree ... While Adobe may offer new versions of Lr more frequently, Apple routinely adds new camera support in about the same time period as does Adobe for ACR/Lr ... the two constantly leap frog each other in this respect with neither capable of claiming a defining title to timeliness for offering new camera RAW support.
One distinct difference though, Apple does not charge Aperture users for new camera support ... whereas, if Adobe offers the new camera support on a time cycle that coincides with a new version release of Ps/ACR or Lr ... users are compelled to invest monetarily to receive that new camera support.
On the matter of "organization" .... I think that is a wash as well. In terms of quickly accessing specific images by searching various metadata criteria, both apps do a good job of offering up the desired results. It's also a matter of six of one, half dozen of the other in applying said metadata. They are different, but not so much as to enable the claim of superiority for either. If you use Aperture with referenced libraries, I have experienced no difference in performing my daily tasks. Both are equally useful and efficient.
-
I disagree ... While Adobe may offer new versions of Lr more frequently, Apple routinely adds new camera support in about the same time period as does Adobe for ACR/Lr ... the two constantly leap frog each other in this respect with neither capable of claiming a defining title to timeliness for offering new camera RAW support.
Agreed about the leapfrogging (is that a word?). The new camera support bit of this is a huge hassle for both companies and completely due to the camera manufacturers. Apple can update the OS to support newer cameras and as they have to update their OS often, they do it there. Adobe has to update the DNG converter such that there is no cost to their customers for this updated support. I don't see this as a viable area to compare the two due to the main reason this issue occurs in the first place. It's possible a DNG converter update will land prior to an Apple OS update for camera support and vise versa. It's a mess neither company nor their users should have to deal with.
One distinct difference though, Apple does not charge Aperture users for new camera support ... whereas, if Adobe offers the new camera support on a time cycle that coincides with a new version release of Ps/ACR or Lr ... users are compelled to invest monetarily to receive that new camera support.
Adobe doesn't charge either unless there are new features added. I think that's important to emphasize. And the free DNG converter is another option. But again, it's a mess no one should have to deal with.
-
Aperture supports DNG. So say you have a brand new camera. IF Apple updates their camera support, advantage Aperture. But if Adobe updates the DNG converter first, I'd suspect you could use it to convert those new camera files to DNG and use them in Aperture. So in that respect, Aperture gives you two possible routes to use the new camera files.
Now if Apple would just better support/fix some issues with DNG (like the lack of previews in the Finder).
-
Agreed about the leapfrogging (is that a word?). The new camera support bit of this is a huge hassle for both companies and completely due to the camera manufacturers. Apple can update the OS to support newer cameras and as they have to update their OS often, they do it there. Adobe has to update the DNG converter such that there is no cost to their customers for this updated support. I don't see this as a viable area to compare the two due to the main reason this issue occurs in the first place. It's possible a DNG converter update will land prior to an Apple OS update for camera support and vise versa. It's a mess neither company nor their users should have to deal with. Adobe doesn't charge either unless there are new features added. I think that's important to emphasize. And the free DNG converter is another option. But again, it's a mess no one should have to deal with.
I agree on the DNG converter ... it is free, though it can create a slowdown or bottle neck for users when on a tight deadline or working with larger volumes of images to import, sort and organize. Native support creates a much more seamless and efficient workflow. I do appreciate that Apple doesn't charge me for such updates.
I also agree offering new camera support is no fault of third party software developers. Unless or until, those of use who buy these cameras, insist upon a universal RAW file format from the camera makers ... we are all stuck in purgatory for new camera RAW file support.
See Andrew ... and you thought there wasn't much we actually agreed upon. ;)
-
I just got asked the same question in another group, so copied answer.
I am a long time user of Aperture and an occasional user of Lightroom. I have to use Lightroom for some workshops.
Frankly, Aperture eats Lightroom in usability and cost. It wasn't too bad when you could buy Lightroom outright. I am currently on $9 per month with Photoshop but that is likely to change, and as I already owned Photoshop comparatively expensive.
The interface in Aperture was designed by real people. Lightroom, even though it was copied from Aperture, is cumbersome. For instance, if you are in the Library in Aperture, you see the Library but don't fill up your screen with tools you aren't using.
Lightroom does have Lens correction and camera profiles, which Aperture does not. However the Aperture library can be put on a server along with the files, so the same catalogue can be used by multiple computers and backed up by Time Machine overnight. That is a big plus for me. Also the export to books etc is much better on Aperture. You can also use an Aperture library with iPhoto is you choose to.
The hidden secret with Apple of course is how it all goes together. I can share my Apple library to my iPhone or iPad and take it with me or play it through Apple TV for presentations and that is pretty good.
Unfortunately Apple seems to have abandoned Aperture at Version 3.5 and there have been no updates for a while. Keeping my files as referenced means that the same originals can be used by Aperture, Lightroom and Capture One, so I am free to use whatever. However if I leave Aperture it will be to Capture One not Lightroom.
-
Keeping my files as referenced means that the same originals can be used by Aperture, Lightroom and Capture One, so I am free to use whatever.
This is also what I do.
-
It wasn't too bad when you could buy Lightroom outright. I am currently on $9 per month with Photoshop but that is likely to change, and as I already owned Photoshop comparatively expensive.
You still can buy it outright, Bob. But cost shouldn't be a factor - maybe Apple are having to price low? Aperture's cost is artificially reduced because there's not been a proper upgrade, while LR's rental cost includes an elephant too. They're both astonishing value for money.
The interface in Aperture was designed by real people. Lightroom, even though it was copied from Aperture, is cumbersome. For instance, if you are in the Library in Aperture, you see the Library but don't fill up your screen with tools you aren't using.
Apple-eyed there! Don't forget Aperture copied large elements of its design directly from Extensis Portfolio (take a look at where Apple got Aperture's product manager and lead designers). Lightroom was unveiled a month or two after Aperture, which is a bit fast for Adobe's coders to have copied it, and Lightroom had been in development as "Shadowland" at the same time as Aperture. Aperture did have a big role though - its initial welcome being so positive that it convinced Adobe that there was a market for this kind of product.
Lightroom's UI is distinctive, a series of task-oriented workspaces, while Aperture's encourages you to do one thing when you were intending to do something else. So one's good for those who focus on a task, the other for people with shorter attention spans? Not really, the UIs are just different.
Lightroom does have Lens correction and camera profiles, which Aperture does not. However the Aperture library can be put on a server along with the files, so the same catalogue can be used by multiple computers and backed up by Time Machine overnight. That is a big plus for me. Also the export to books etc is much better on Aperture. You can also use an Aperture library with iPhoto is you choose to.
Books and certainly the Slideshow are better in Aperture. Shame one can't say the same about Print, or about adjusting multiple images simultaneously - Lightroom's AutoSync mode is even better in LR5 (http://lightroomsolutions.com/lightroom-5-favourite-no-5-autosync-and-local-adjustments/).
As for using iPhoto, sure that isn't that a sign that Aperture is going to be merged into iPhoto?
The hidden secret with Apple of course is how it all goes together. I can share my Apple library to my iPhone or iPad and take it with me or play it through Apple TV for presentations and that is pretty good.
Or how it goes together as long as you stay in an Apple-only world? Aperture doesn't even work if you want to use a different brand of computer.
Unfortunately Apple seems to have abandoned Aperture at Version 3.5 and there have been no updates for a while. Keeping my files as referenced means that the same originals can be used by Aperture, Lightroom and Capture One, so I am free to use whatever. However if I leave Aperture it will be to Capture One not Lightroom.
It's amusing that the most-visited page on my Lightroom site is consistently the how-to page on Moving from Aperture to Lightroom (http://lightroomsolutions.com/articles/migrating-from-aperture-to-lightroom-where-do-i-begin/)....
John
-
It's amusing that the most-visited page on my Lightroom site is consistently the how-to page on Moving from Aperture to Lightroom (http://lightroomsolutions.com/articles/migrating-from-aperture-to-lightroom-where-do-i-begin/)....
Do you have a page on moving from Lightroom to Aperture?
-
Do you have a page on moving from Lightroom to Aperture?
No, why, would it interest anyone visiting my site? In any case, Lightroom doesn't make it as tricky as Aperture - it saves metadata back to the files in a safer manner, and doesn't let people hide their photos inside the library/catalogue.
-
maybe Apple are having to price low?
LOL. First time I heard anyone say that about Apple.
Lightroom's UI is distinctive, a series of task-oriented workspaces, while Aperture's encourages you to do one thing when you were intending to do something else. So one's good for those who focus on a task, the other for people with shorter attention spans?
Shorter attention spans? That is a really unfortunate comment.
Quite simply, if I am going through the catalogue, I want to see the catalogue, not the adjustments. If I am doing adjustments I want to see the adjustments, not the catalogue. One click clearing the screen works for me. I don't have a 27" screen to cover it with crap I am not doing, but each their own.
-
LOL. First time I heard anyone say that about Apple.
Shorter attention spans? That is a really unfortunate comment.
So is ...
The interface in Aperture was designed by real people. Lightroom, even though it was copied from Aperture, is cumbersome.
I think it is quite reasonable to point out that the engineers that originally coded Lightroom for Adobe are indeed "real people" and living breathing human beings ... and that while Aperture may have officially been publicly introduced first ... it's quite safe to say that Lr (Shadowland) had been in the works long before Apple made the Aperture announcement.
Quite simply, if I am going through the catalogue, I want to see the catalogue, not the adjustments. If I am doing adjustments I want to see the adjustments, not the catalogue. One click clearing the screen works for me. I don't have a 27" screen to cover it with crap I am not doing, but each their own.
Well, if you need to save space on a smaller monitor or laptop screen ... Lr has had the ability (for quite some time) to show or hide end panels and the film strip. I routinely use the "Auto Hide and Show" feature by hiding the panels I don't wish to view full time ... a simple mouse over and they pop up as needed.
Wow ... I hate defending Adobe ... Even though Aperture is my preferred tool of choice, we should be fair about the capabilities of software when we make direct comparisons.
There are plenty of areas where I think Aperture is better ... but I don't think we need to be insulting or making false claims to further the cause.
-
Sorry, but I posted a comment to the op. If others disagree then they should state their opinion to the op, not waste time dissecting the comments of others.
IMHO having to use Auto Hide and Show to cover something that it not necessary in the first place is just bad design. I find the Lightroom interface a dog. If you disagree or don't like Aperture then that is your choice, but why are you here on the Aperture section?
Something I should have added in regards to the Aperture price. It is an App in the App store and by comparison to most Apps, it is not cheap. The reason it should be and is a lot cheaper than Lightroom is that it doesn't need to provide raw converters, because that is all done in the OS, where it should be done. As new cameras come on line then it automatically supports them, without dropping support for older cameras like Adobe does.
-
No, why, would it interest anyone visiting my site?
My point was that you were indicating how popular the page on moving from Aperture to Lightroom is, but it is a pretty meaningless statistic unless we can compare it to those moving in the other direction
-
I have used both for about 3 years each. With Aperture, 3 corrupt libraries over those years. With Lightroom 0.
The corrupt Aperture libraries happened with both 'managed' and 'referenced' files. At least one was due to physical damage/bad sectors on the HDD (this was on a frequently moving-during-use laptop.)
The corrupted libraries cost a lot of hours and, in some cases, the irretrievable loss of original raw files.
Jon
-
I have used both for about 3 years each. With Aperture, 3 corrupt libraries over those years. With Lightroom 0.
The corrupt Aperture libraries happened with both 'managed' and 'referenced' files. At least one was due to physical damage/bad sectors on the HDD (this was on a frequently moving-during-use laptop.)
The corrupted libraries cost a lot of hours and, in some cases, the irretrievable loss of original raw files.
Jon
No backups? No Time machine?
-
LOL. First time I heard anyone say that about Apple.
Shorter attention spans? That is a really unfortunate comment.
No. It was presented as much in jest / rhetorically as the other comment - as you would see if you quoted the whole sentence, noted the "So" at its start and the question mark at its end, and words "Not really" which began the following sentence.
However, there is a grain of truth there. LR's interface is explicitly designed to encourage a more orderly workflow - do your metadata, then do your adjustments, then prepare the slideshow or book. Aperture's allows you to do those tasks at the same time, and that's not necessarily a good thing, but it will have appeal to a certain character type.
-
My point was that you were indicating how popular the page on moving from Aperture to Lightroom is, but it is a pretty meaningless statistic unless we can compare it to those moving in the other direction
Depends on what meaning you infer. The overall direction is obvious anyway, and LR > Ap is sufficiently easy that such a page might not be needed.
-
No backups? No Time machine?
All work was 'archived', though in JPG format and only, eventually, to optical media.
This was when I was a staff shooter on a large metro newspaper in Sydney Australia. They wouldn't archive Raw files due to the volume produced by 20 odd staff shooting 3-4 jobs per day.
I kept copies of my best work, but they day to day chaff I didn't bother with my own backups.
A corrupt library usually meant at least the loss of all metadata & adjustments. I still have folders full of raw files as they came off the camera. Slowly re-organising them.
-
Still, I'm not sure Aperture is more prone to corruption than Lr, or vice versa. In each case, it's pretty rare.
Where you might make a comparison is that Lr can save its adjustments and metadata into xmp, automatically if you want, so you have a method of recovering much of your work. Aperture can't do that automatically, doesn't save its adjustments, and writes directly into proprietary raw files.
-
What about a back up of the Aperture library and of the raw files? This has to be a mandatory routine with every workflow no matter which SW you use. A useful recent copy of your important files , uncorrupted, should be always available. Any file can get corrupted at some time either due to the SW or to the HW.
-
I don't think he wants a solution now - the thread is more about a comparison of Aperture with Lightroom.
-
If you disagree or don't like Aperture then that is your choice, but why are you here on the Aperture section?
I think the answer to your question is quite evident, if you had taken the time to read my initial or subsequent comments in this thread.
For my specific workflow requirements, Aperture satisfies those requirements more fully. I am also honest enough to admit, Lr is not without it's own set of merits. Neither offering can claim perfection or total superiority over the other.
The point is, there are many areas where Aperture is indeed far superior to Lr. There is no need to make false claims to advance that cause.
-
LOL. First time I heard anyone say that about Apple.
Apple give their OS and a lot of their software away for nothing. The reason being they are a hardware company and can afford to give it away as the stuff to run it on is rather expensive.
-
IMHO having to use Auto Hide and Show to cover something that it not necessary in the first place is just bad design. I find the Lightroom interface a dog.
What an odd thing to say. There are tools I personally do not use very much. But that does not mean they are unnecessary as many other users rely on those features and being able to have tools hidden until you need then is in fact very good design as it frees up space and allows you to have a lot more tools in the programme without clutter. Not to mention auto hide/show is one of several ways you can use the interface, it can be turned off if you want. Aperture however feels more like something designed in the 90s with messy floating palettes cluttering up the screen. Wouldn't be so bad if you could collapse or dock them. Calling palettes HUDs doesn't alter the fact that they obscure the image you are trying to work on or other parts of the interface. Moving bits of UI around the place is what we put up with 20 years ago. Things have moved on since then, well for most software.
If you want to talk bad design, a UI where tools you are not using cannot be hidden or need to be accesses via menus or making relocating moved files so painful, it's not worth the effort. And files do need to be moved, before you try and argue they should be left alone, as hard drives fill up/age/fail.
Aperture used to be a nice looking programme but now it's ugly and amateurish in appearance.
Something I should have added in regards to the Aperture price. It is an App in the App store and by comparison to most Apps, it is not cheap. The reason it should be and is a lot cheaper than Lightroom is that it doesn't need to provide raw converters, because that is all done in the OS, where it should be done. As new cameras come on line then it automatically supports them, without dropping support for older cameras like Adobe does.
Adobe add support, they do not drop it.
As for the price, it started out at over £500, but it was such a pile of crap that Apple ended up refunding people and had to drop the price, sharpish. And they keep dropping it to tempt people away from LR, yet it always has had a very low take up amongst pro photographers as it simply isn't a patch on LR. It also seems to have been left to rot and die as it hasn't had a point update for over 4 years, which really doesn't inspire confidence. In fact on the FB page We want Aperture 4 (https://www.facebook.com/WeWantAperture4?filter=2), it's mostly full of posts about people moving to LR.
-
Apple give their OS and a lot of their software away for nothing. The reason being they are a hardware company and can afford to give it away as the stuff to run it on is rather expensive.
Apple are not a hardware company. They are an integrated product company. They design something and then tell an engineer to go and make it. When Apple built the iPod it should have been relatively easy for Sony, who pretty much controlled the music industry with both content and players in the Walkman, to come out with something similar. They couldn't because they were organised in divisions. Apple have a single P&L and each section does not need to make a profit, as long as the whole thing makes a profit. The hardware and the software being made by the same company means that it will usually work and if it doesn't then only one party needs to fix it.
If you buy a PC then the hardware, operating system, applications, content and even the shops they they are sold in all have to make a profit, so quality is a compromise and there is no guarantee that they work together.
As for the stuff to run on it being expensive.
The operating system is free, and an upgrade from any operating system on most machines made after 2007 is also free. Compare that to Windows XP, 7, 8, 8.1. The operating system is also the full version, not a home version. (Companies who bought Windows Server 8.1 have just been told it's not going to be supported and you have like 90 days to migrate your enterprise. Fortunately most never went there.)
The backup system, raw conversion, virus protection if you want it is also free.
Pages, Numbers, Keynote (Word, Excel, Powerpoint like) and a whole pile of other apps like iMovie, iPhoto, Garageband etc are also free.
The most expensive applications I own are from Adobe and Microsoft.
I guess that makes me a fanboy, but one who has been in the IT industry for 40 year and used a PC 8 hours a day since DOS 6.1
Anyway, as I said, it's a personal preference so please do whatever you want, and I'll do the same ;D
-
WOW
I started this discussion because I am truly interested in finding the best solution. There is no best solution but only one that satisfies oneself. I say this as it appears from the many posts that both LR and Aperture have many good points and neither is perfect. Obviously LR has an advantage in being useable in both PC and Apple platforms.I don't know if results from one can be easily moved to the other.
I must say the replies to this thread have been very interesting and informative ( and not too much blood has been spilt). I do not know where I will end up yet but will definitely have a serious shot at Aperture as part of my trying to switch (at least partially) from a PC platform. Who knows I might actually end up dropping the PC.
Thanks again Lawrence for the help when buying my MBPro and all of you for your thoughts on LR and/vs Aperture. I will continue to see what else is said. Thanks to all.
Martin :)
-
Martin, the question is akin to Mac or PC, Nikon or Canon, Pacific or Atlantic ocean ::). In the end, it becomes personal preference and hopefully that preference is based on sound testing of the two possible options. So you kind of have to aim the same group of raw images at both converters and see what you prefer. I know, it's a lot of work. But asking which product to select, as you've seen here is ultimately pointless. What works best for you isn't.
-
Aperture however feels more like something designed in the 90s with messy floating palettes cluttering up the screen. Wouldn't be so bad if you could collapse or dock them. Calling palettes HUDs doesn't alter the fact that they obscure the image you are trying to work on or other parts of the interface.
Eh, what? If you don’t like the HUDs, don’t use them. I don’t.
-
Eh, what? If you don’t like the HUDs, don’t use them. I don’t.
Yup I choose not to bother with out of date software that looks like it was designed in the previous century.
-
Yup I choose not to bother with out of date software that looks like it was designed in the previous century.
Then you must really dislike working in Photoshop. ;D
-
Yup I choose not to bother with out of date software that looks like it was designed in the previous century.
Ah, I see. You’re just here to troll then.
-
Can you change the color space (profile) for an image in either Aperture or Lightroom?
-
Can you change the color space (profile) for an image in either Aperture or Lightroom?
Yes. But there's a difference in the underlying color space used for processing. In Aperture it's Adobe RGB (1998) primaries based on the tests I've done (Apple doesn't say), in LR it's ProPhoto RGB primaries and thus gamut.
-
Then you must really dislike working in Photoshop. ;D
Not at all as PS has updated itself just fine over the years and I have a nice tidy workspace as a result.
-
Ah, I see. You’re just here to troll then.
I'm sorry if pointing out that Aperture is a bit lame due to various reasons upsets you.
If Apple had continued on the path it started with Aperture, it could be quite a good programme by now. Sadly it's become more like iPhoto and not a tool for professionals.
-
Sadly it's become more like iPhoto and not a tool for professionals.
You were doing really well, then had to add that, which is nonsensical. And throws gas onto a fire which further supports the troll statement below.
-
That's how Aperture appears to be to me. And very likely the reason it has a very poor take up with pro photographers.
A shame in my view as Aperture was the programme that first tipped me towards buying a Mac, as if it did what it initially promised then I would have bought a Mac just for that single piece of software. Sadly it never lived up to it's promise. :(
-
That's how Aperture appears to be to me.
And that's fine, you're entitled to that opinion. I don't totally disagree. But to say it's not a tool for professionals doesn't wash. There are professional's who do use it. And do any of us really know the 'take up' with pro photographers? The term 'pro photographer' is a very broad group for one, and I doubt either of us know within that broad group who's purchased and used LR or Aperture.
Do professionals make books from their images? Because IMHO, the module in LR is lame compared to Aperture. However I would never state that LR isn't a tool for professionals, such broad statements don't deserve serious consideration.
-
Not at all as PS has updated itself just fine over the years and I have a nice tidy workspace as a result.
Awww c'mon the Ps UI has changed very little in over two decades ... sure you can define a workspace ... but the visual UI has not ...
-
And that's fine, you're entitled to that opinion. I don't totally disagree. But to say it's not a tool for professionals doesn't wash. There are professional's who do use it. And do any of us really know the 'take up' with pro photographers? The term 'pro photographer' is a very broad group for one, and I doubt either of us know within that broad group who's purchased and used LR or Aperture.
Do professionals make books from their images? Because IMHO, the module in LR is lame compared to Aperture. However I would never state that LR isn't a tool for professionals, such broad statements don't deserve serious consideration.
I agree ... there have been polls in the past that indicate that Lr has seen a much higher adoption rate than Aperture ... even on the Mac OS X platform ... but what percentage of Aperture users actually participated in those polls? We have no way of knowing.
What I do know, even at a low price tag of $80, Aperture is almost always in the top 20 overall of paid apps in the Mac App Store ... and is almost always the top paid app in the Photography category. And while not perfect, it carries a consistent four star rating.
While I agree that Aperture is not all it could be ... or should be at this point in time ... it isn't a total waste either.
-
I know an awful lot of professional photographers - and am in that club - most of the highest regarded professionals in my circle use Aperture.
Aperture is the best tool for managing files, delivery of finished images and more or less everything.
LR is the most popular among wedding photographers and amateurs.
Capture 1 is very popular among commercial photographers.
-
Awww c'mon the Ps UI has changed very little in over two decades ... sure you can define a workspace ... but the visual UI has not ...
A good UI is designed to last a long time.
As a recent 'switcher' I still dread every time I start LR. For me, the ideal program would be Aperture's UI with LR's image processing engine.
-
I know an awful lot of professional photographers - and am in that club - most of the highest regarded professionals in my circle use Aperture.
Aperture is the best tool for managing files, delivery of finished images and more or less everything.
LR is the most popular among wedding photographers and amateurs.
Capture 1 is very popular among commercial photographers.
Well, you're probably right about C1's popularity among commercial photographers.
-
A good UI is designed to last a long time.
As a recent 'switcher' I still dread every time I start LR. For me, the ideal program would be Aperture's UI with LR's image processing engine.
I don't have an issue with the Ps UI ... just pointing out to jjj the UI for many popular apps ... is what it is ...
I too, would appreciate more user adjustable options over the interface ... but I can work with what is there now.
I really do like the nearly unlimited user defined custom keyboard commands ... other developers should offer this more.
-
It's good that we have choices, I guess. Try each and use the one which feels most natural to you.
For me, that's Aperture. LR feels like banging my head on a brick wall every time I do battle with the UI. Modal program operation is something I remember being told was a bad thing back when I was a computer programmer- 25 years ago. I really dislike the way that keyboard shortcuts change meaning from module to module.
It's just my opinion, but I'm the one who has to spend several days a week in this application, so I need the UI to work with me.
Some will say LR encourages a methodical workflow. Personally, I think keyboard shortcuts that change from mode to mode is bad UI design.
If I spot a dust spot that needs fixing, I want to press 'x' and do it right now. Whether I am about to print the picture or organising my metadata. I don't want the program to tell me I can't do it until I press some other button first.
Aperture also has the best retouching tools for my particular purpose: skin smoothing and clone/repair.
Aperture has shortcomings: its image processing engine has a fairly quirky interpretation of Hasselblad RAW files, which isn't ideal. I gather LR has the Hasselblad colour profiles from Phocus built-in. So I end up doing an insane procedure of one-light grade colour pass in Phocus, export to TiFF, fine tune and retouch in Aperture. Which someone is bound to point out is also modal in its way since I'm using two different programs, to which I'll agree. On Canon and Panasonic files, Aperture does just great. And sometimes the Aperture colour correction is a nicer starting point than the Phocus, so I always import both into Aperture and start from whichever I like best.
I'm also tired of the fact that C1 doesn't support arch-enemy Hasselblad's files, or Hasselblad won't licence to arch-enemy C1, or whatever. I don't care- be grown-ups and support each other's cameras! :)
But the main thing is that the UI of Aperture (and most other Apple interfaces eg FCP-X) was designed by someone who thinks like I do and works like I do.
The LR interface was designed by someone who clearly thinks very differently from me, and I plain don't get on with it. Same is true of most Adobe products. To my eyes Adobe interfaces are often scattered with microscopic hieroglyphic buttons of indecipherable function, some of which can conceal flyout triangles about 0.5mm wide on my 30" screen (hard to hit reliably with a graphics tablet pen) which in turn reveal a whole row of additional indecipherable functions.
And you can't just use a keyboard shortcut, because that shortcut probably doesn't work in the mode you're currently in and will end up doing something completely different that you didn't want to do because the program thinks trying to do what you want to do right now is CRAZY TALK.
I agree with previous posters- my hope for Aperture 4 would be LR's processing engine (with manufacturers profiles integrated) with Aperture's interface. About the only functionality missing for me is vector-style gradients and smart fill for local adjustments- doing it by hand with a paintbrush is fine for a lot of things but impossible to do smooth transitions.
Cheers, Hywel
-
Some will say LR encourages a methodical workflow. Personally, I think keyboard shortcuts that change from mode to mode is bad UI design.
If I spot a dust spot that needs fixing, I want to press 'x' and do it right now. Whether I am about to print the picture or organising my metadata. I don't want the program to tell me I can't do it until I press some other button first.
Oh, in Lightroom "If I spot a dust spot that needs fixing, I want to press 'q' and do it right now."
As you grow used to Lightroom, different keyboard shortcuts in different contexts are an advantage. When you're trying to focus on adjustments, you don't need to have half the alphabet tied up to other tasks. Yes, it does encourage a methodical workflow.
-
... I really dislike the way that keyboard shortcuts change meaning from module to module...
Ditto. If one insists on a modular design, browsing and adjusting, sorry, Library and Development should be one module. I hate picking a photo to work on, then have to switch out to pick another photo to work on.
Whining aside, I do need you guys LR guru to help me figure this one out. Say I'm looking at a photo in the 'loupe' view. I decide it's bad and hit 'delete' key to delete it from the library. LR would give me a blank screen. If I then hit left or right arrow key, thinking I can go to the adjacent photo, LR would throw me all the way back to the beginning or the end of the pile, forcing me to go back to the grid view and scroll up and down to get back to where I was. This is driving me crazy. Am I missing something here?
-
Oh, in Lightroom "If I spot a dust spot that needs fixing, I want to press 'q' and do it right now."
As you grow used to Lightroom, different keyboard shortcuts in different contexts are an advantage. When you're trying to focus on adjustments, you don't need to have half the alphabet tied up to other tasks. Yes, it does encourage a methodical workflow.
Except when you run into extreme inconsistencies like the keyboard shortcut for the crop tool in Ps is "C" ... while in the Lr Develop module it is "R" ... If you type a "C" in Lr while in the Develop module, it takes you back to the Library module and invokes the Compare mode.
in my estimation, that really isn't advantageous from an intuitive usability standpoint. Users shouldn't have to remember multiple keyboard shortcuts for the same basic function in different offerings from the same software developer.
-
I might agree about the shortcut's inconsistency between PS and LR for cropping, but is there another? Gradient? After that, hard to think of any where the feature is so comparable. As for C meaning different things in different contexts in LR, there's a benefit to that too - and I'm not sure Aperture even offers an equivalent to Compare. So again one's back to apples and oranges.
-
Ditto. If one insists on a modular design, browsing and adjusting, sorry, Library and Development should be one module. I hate picking a photo to work on, then have to switch out to pick another photo to work on.
A second monitor, locked into grid view, is a real asset. Not perfect, but a big plus.
Jeremy
-
As you grow used to Lightroom, different keyboard shortcuts in different contexts are an advantage. When you're trying to focus on adjustments, you don't need to have half the alphabet tied up to other tasks. Yes, it does encourage a methodical workflow.
Actually, John, I really won't grow to regard different keyboard shortcuts as an advantage. I grew pretty used to LR, admitted several versions ago, when I used it for close to a year for all my production- circa 25,000 published and sold photos.
I have no problem with YOU preferring its workflow. As I said, it is good that we have choices. Because I plain hated LR's UI design. Aperture was like being let out of prison, for me.
Cheers, Hywel
P.S. I'm glad to be corrected on there being a single keyboard shortcut for dust spot removal which works in every module and every mode. The fact is I cannot now remember exactly which keyboard shortcuts were universal, and which were modal. Which summarises my problem with LR's UI in a nutshell.
I also have no problem with half the alphabet being allocated to tasks I don't need shortcuts for. In Aperture, I just reassign them. So I have a universal shortcut for Apply Adjustment-> Quick Brush-> Blur (L) and Skin Smoothing (B - which makes sense for MY workflow methodology*) and Dodge (D) and Burn (N) ... the sort of things I personally need to do to thousands of pictures a month and which Aperture allows me to do in the workflow that works for me.
* I almost always do crop-zoom-retouch-vignette-skin smooth... all of which are together on the keyboard: zxcvb, plus space to pan-and-scan and the left and right buttons on the graphics tablet. One hand on keyboard, one hand holding the graphics tablet pen works just fine and dandy for me and speeds me up by a several precious seconds on every shot, triming several days a year from my working life when added up over all the shots I process.
Can you reassign the universal shortcuts in LR now? I don't believe one used to be able to.
But as I said, I'm happy that LR works for you.
-
...different keyboard shortcuts in different contexts are an advantage...
I agree. It helps prevent Alzheimer's Disease. Car companies should learn from that. When you are in first gear, stepping on the gas pedal makes it accelerate. When you are in reverse gear, stepping on the gas pedal [feel free to fill in the blanks].
-
I agree. It helps prevent Alzheimer's Disease. Car companies should learn from that. When you are in first gear, stepping on the gas pedal makes it accelerate. When you are in reverse gear, stepping on the gas pedal [feel free to fill in the blanks].
Not sure about the analogy. When you are pressing the same pedal, you do expect the same thing to happen. But when the context is different, you don't. I use my left hand to change gear, but when I rent a car in continental Europe or the US I readily learn not to grab the door handle and to use my right. Same thing with Lightroom. When you focus on one task, you don't need half the alphabet to be allocated to other tasks.
John
-
Not sure about the analogy. When you are pressing the same pedal, you do expect the same method. But when the context is different, you don't. I use my left hand to change gear, but when I rent a car in continental Europe or the US I readily learn not to grab the door handle and to use my right. Same thing with Lightroom. When you focus on one task, you don't need half the alphabet to be allocated to other tasks.
John
Never mind. Sarcasm got the better of me. Your UK/US scenario is a good one. Wouldn't it be nice if all countries standardize on the same?
Here's another thing that I need help with: in Library mode, I would look at a photo in loupe view, then swipe left on my mouse to go to the NEXT photo (on a Mac) like you would on a phone or tablet or in other Mac apps, but Lightroom would send me several photos down. Is there any way to make it behave in a predictable pattern? This feature is completely counterproductive. It's worse than doing nothing because then you have to do more work to find your way back.
I know I'm a LR newbie, but sometimes LR seems to ignore common convention (i.e. how rest of the world operates) and forces me to memorize an unnecessary set of commands for no apparent reasons (see above example).
-
Oh, in Lightroom "If I spot a dust spot that needs fixing, I want to press 'q' and do it right now."
The problem, though, is when you do this in loupe view, you get a 2-3 second delay while Lightroom switches to develop and renders the image from the RAW file.
As a long-time user of Aperture, and a many-time-attempter with Lightroom, I can say that this is a HUGELY noticeable thing. For better or for worse, it is VERY common when I'm doing the initial edit (and by that, I mean making picks) of photos, that I will see something that I need to adjust before I can make a decision. It may be healing (to see if I _can_ heal), or straightening, or something else small. With Aperture, it's a tap and immediate tweak and then I'm back to where I was. With Lightroom, you try to edit and it has to SWITCH MODES slowly, then you tweak, and then your grid view or other stuff is gone. It's really, really difficult to get used to the Lightroom way once you're used to Aperture's way, and I'm damned if I haven't tried. To make light of this is really indicating that you haven't spent any time with the freedom on this that Aperture affords.
I do think that a lot of time, most of the criticisms leveled at Aperture are from folks who haven't even spent any real time with it ???
-
A lot of the time, perhaps. but not here. Of course, I could dismiss others' criticisms of Lightroom with the same bland assertion.
Yes, Lightroom does encourage you to focus on the task and not keep flitting to others. I won't shout back, but even if I believed this 2-3 second delay I could point to advantages which you just don't have in Aperture. Dust spotting works this way (in fact all Lightroom adjustments do) but since you mention straightening.... Imagine you have to straighten a series of 5 or 10 or whatever number of pictures. AutoSync in Lightroom means I straighten one and they're all done - nothing more to do. Meanwhile in Aperture that's 5 or 6 clicks lift and stamp, isn't it?
John
-
... since you mention straightening.... Imagine you have to straighten a series of 5 or 10 or whatever number of pictures. AutoSync in Lightroom means I straighten one and they're all done - nothing more to do. Meanwhile in Aperture that's 5 or 6 clicks lift and stamp, isn't it?
Well, you can use keyboard shortcuts so you can lift adjustments, and then stamp the adjustments, so we're talking a couple clicks and a key combination. But true, Aperture does not have Auto-Sync. That said, about 50% of the time I use Auto-Sync I end up doing something REALLY BAD in that I apply an adjustment to a bunch of photos that I REALLY DIDN'T want to apply.
There are a few things I'll freely admit that Lightroom does better (or exclusively) right now:
* Sharpening overall is better. You have more control, and can get better results
* I still like the targeted adjustment tool and how you can use it to operate on the photo itself
* The basic adjustments are better. Whites, blacks, shadows, highlights in LR have more control and give better results
* The gradient tool in LR is great, and there's no equivalent in Aperture. It gives great results for a lot of exposure balancing.
* Lens corrections and auto CA removal. I shoot a number of wide angle landscapes that have curved horizons and this is KILLER
* LR's clarity tool can do more with better results than Aperture's "definition" equivalent can
I find Aperture's file management better (it is more flexible, period), and I tend to get better initial renders with Aperture than I do with LR with the "defaults." I can get good results with LR but it's more work. Aperture does a very, very good job with the defaults, and the "auto" setting that came in with Aperture 3.3 is simply fantastic. The skin-tone based white balance is also incredibly useful. I had to work through 1000 shots of kids playing baseball in a grassy field and there was nary a grey thing in the scene to balance on; using skin tones for this is pretty great (now given they were all in sun I could have fudged and struggled for 5 minutes in LR to get the WB right in one, and then used Auto-Sync to do the rest, but I digress ;))
-
Well, you can use keyboard shortcuts so you can lift adjustments, and then stamp the adjustments, so we're talking a couple clicks and a key combination. But true, Aperture does not have Auto-Sync. That said, about 50% of the time I use Auto-Sync I end up doing something REALLY BAD in that I apply an adjustment to a bunch of photos that I REALLY DIDN'T want to apply.
It's about 5 clicks to AutoSync's 1, because lift and stamp means you have to select which adjustments to include and exclude. And you soon learn from your AutoSync mistakes and stop making them (I advise leaving it on all the time). Even if you didn't notice an error immediately, Lightroom retains your history steps, ie an undo feature which is available no matter how many times you close the program.
-
I find Aperture's file management better (it is more flexible, period)
In what way?
-
The problem, though, is when you do this in loupe view, you get a 2-3 second delay while Lightroom switches to develop and renders the image from the RAW file...
Also when you go from normal to 1:1 view. To me, LR is not necessarily slow in anyway, but it stutters, a lot.
Some would say these are all little things, and it's true. But it's the little things that drives one crazy, isn't it?
-
But it's the little things that drives one crazy, isn't it?
Absolutely ;)
Both are great tools, and they both do pretty much the same thing. But Lightroom is better in some ways, Aperture is better in others, and both tools have their share of quirks. The only way to know which you like, and which of the "quirks" are annoying enough to want to use another tool, is to use them both.
-
Now if Apple would just better support/fix some issues with DNG (like the lack of previews in the Finder).
Andrew,
I have no trouble with DNG Finder Previews in 10.9.3 (and going back many versions ... I can't remember how many). The DNGs are created with Sinar software. Choosing 'icon view' in the Finder and resizing the icons shows that the previews are re-built fast and without issues. However, the Thumbnails remain as they were when originally imported, which is as you would expect, but it would be better if they were also generated from the DNGs themselves in the same way that the Previews are. Consequently, the Thumbnails may show, as for example in my case, over-exposed areas in red, which is how they arrive in Sinar Capture software. But as I say, the Finder will re-generate the Previews directly from the DNGs themselves so become 'out of step' with the Thumbnails.
-
I have no trouble with DNG Finder Previews in 10.9.3 (and going back many versions ... I can't remember how many).
10.9.3, issues seem fixed (I can see all DNG icons now).
-
Wow
Looks like I started a bit of a discussion... re Lightroom and Aperture. Saw a number of good points and was willing to have a shot at Aperture. Now it seems that Aperture is to be no more, at least as a supported program, app, or whatever they are called now days. Same result, lots of people left in the lurch after years of support and belief.
Looks like LR "wins" by default. I moved, at least partway, to Apple , based on the commitment to quality and development etc. Did I make a mistake? I like my MB pro but is that enough?
Sad to see any software/ hardware company drop out. Mind you there have to be business reasons to keep going..... Makes me think of Beta which was by far a superior system, but not as well promoted and accepted.
Cheers.... see you on the LR page in the fall??
Martin
???
-
Did I make a mistake? I like my MB pro but is that enough?
No, all is still well.
So far, the only thing we know for sure is the application known as Aperture has reached an end of life. However, if you do some further research on what Apple has in the works for handling RAW images at the system level, and the new tools they are offering developers that can extend upon that foundation ... I'd say the future of RAW image handling on the Apple platform has a distinctly bright future that holds much potential ... there just won't be a typical monolithic application at the core.
For me, this announcement has done nothing to hamper my daily workflow in Aperture. It works the same as it did a few days ago and Apple has said it will be supported for at least through Yosemite. I'm holding off making any move away from Apple until this all moves a little further along so I can really get a better handle on how it is going to work.
-
there just won't be a typical monolithic application at the core.
And apparently Apple now want us to believe that's no longer a good thing.
-
And apparently Apple now want us to believe that's no longer a good thing.
Maybe it isn't going forward. We'll have to wait and see how this all works to have a better idea of what Apple has in mind.
-
We'll have to wait and see how this all works to have a better idea of what Apple has in mind.
You know, I'm coming around to that idea. Part of my initial reaction is just a reluctance to be forced to change my habits workflow; I’d rather spend my time making images than learning new software. But change is inevitable, and who knows, it may end up better.
-
Remember, this doesn't have to be a question of Aperture or Lightroom. Neither are perfect, both are excellent.
There is also Capture One Pro. It, too, is not perfect. But it is excellent.
And it's somewhat more Aperture-like in that it does not switch modes as does Lightroom and has a more custom interface. It's library features are not as well developed and it's short on output choices, especially built-in books.
But its adjustment tools are very powerful; arguably more powerful than Lightroom giving better results in RAW conversion.
Check the reviews and check the software. You can get a 60-day free fully functioning trial.
I'm making the switch to Capture One Pro after using Aperture from version 1.0 and Lightroom on and off since version 3.
I'll be blogging about my experiences over at www.bobrockefeller.com.
-
And it's somewhat more Aperture-like in that it does not switch modes as does Lightroom and has a more custom interface.
I've always found the complaint about that some people have about modules in LR a bit odd. You click on a Develop or Adjustment in LR/Ap and it changes part of the interface to show you image tweaking tools, you click on Faces or Places in Ap and the interfaces changes to display those tools, just like if you go to the maps/web module in LR. I don't really see any practical difference, particularly if the top panel of LR that tells you what module you are in is not showing [I hide it]. To my mind that's the thing that makes people think it's more different than it really is.
Though I do wish LR's interface was a bit more customisable like C1's is.
-
How will the iCloud Photo library work? It smells like subscription :o
-
How will the iCloud Photo library work? It smells like subscription :o
It sounds like it will work very similar to the way Photo Stream works now. Each user will receive a free base amount of space but you can purchase more space if you desire. It is a subscription, though it is not mandatory that you purchase more space.
-
The thing about the modules is not so much about the context switch between the Library and Develop modules. But that's what you hear most about - probably due to Lightroom's lag in switching (it should be seamless).
It's more about the pervasive non-modalness of Aperture. For example, if you are making a book and you see a photo that's not cropped right, you can crop it right there in the book tool. Does it need to be a little brighter? Fix it right there.
You can use the loupe over a thumbnail in the light table. And so on. Almost all the tools are available almost all the time, regardless of what tool you're working with. THAT's what's really different between the two.
-
Or to put it another way, Lightroom offers dedicated full-screen workspaces so you focus on the task you're performing. Aperture makes everything available all the time, so you don't need to focus.
-
Or to put it another way, Lightroom offers dedicated full-screen workspaces so you focus on the task you're performing. Aperture makes everything available all the time, so you don't need to focus.
Or to put it yet another way, Aperture has a load of irrelevant features taking up space on your monitor :P
-
It's more about the pervasive non-modalness of Aperture. For example, if you are making a book and you see a photo that's not cropped right, you can crop it right there in the book tool.
If you can even work out how to use the crop tool. Never been stumped by such a basic tool before. And as for all the stupid pallets that clutter up the workspace, dear me. What is the point of 2 crop UI sections, one in the adjustments tab and one obscuring the image. I guess the Ap interface must appeal to those whose monitors look like this.....
-
On another thread, someone was espousing how uncluttered Ap was compared to LR Yet hard to get any less minimal than LR without removing all the tools. And yet Ap still has those floating pallets that are so last century. Calling them HUDs doesn't change that.
-
Or to put it another way, Lightroom offers dedicated full-screen workspaces so you focus on the task you're performing. Aperture makes everything available all the time, so you don't need to focus.
Well I think that's a bit reductive ;-)
As someone who started with Aperture, I can't overstate how frustrating the "modal" workflow can be. It is EXTREMELY common when I'm in LR's Library module to look at a photo and to not be able to make a decision on whether it's a keeper until I level a horizon or something. In Aperture, it's G + rotate + A and I'm done in less than a second. In LR I have to hit D or R, then wait a second for the image to re-render, and then switch back. It's at least 3x as long and it's a mess. And I have never, ever gotten used to it. "Don't have to focus" isn't really a fair characterization; it's just the clunkiness is continually thrust in my face when doing just a few simple things I want to do.
-
Well I think that's a bit reductive ;-)
Or nail, Head. Hit. :P
As someone who started with Aperture, I can't overstate how frustrating the "modal" workflow can be. It is EXTREMELY common when I'm in LR's Library module to look at a photo and to not be able to make a decision on whether it's a keeper until I level a horizon or something. In Aperture, it's G + rotate + A and I'm done in less than a second. In LR I have to hit D or R, then wait a second for the image to re-render, and then switch back. It's at least 3x as long and it's a mess. And I have never, ever gotten used to it. "Don't have to focus" isn't really a fair characterization; it's just the clunkiness is continually thrust in my face when doing just a few simple things I want to do.
Why not simply stay in Dev module and rate/flag/cull there? ??? Sounds like you are the one making things complicated.
Nearly every criticism I've come across of LR from Ap users is solved by their learning to use LR correctly and I'm sure the reverse is also quite likely. Not that LR is without flaws, certainly plenty of places where LR could be improved.
-
Well I think that's a bit reductive ;-)
As someone who started with Aperture, I can't overstate how frustrating the "modal" workflow can be. It is EXTREMELY common when I'm in LR's Library module to look at a photo and to not be able to make a decision on whether it's a keeper until I level a horizon or something. In Aperture, it's G + rotate + A and I'm done in less than a second. In LR I have to hit D or R, then wait a second for the image to re-render, and then switch back. It's at least 3x as long and it's a mess. And I have never, ever gotten used to it. "Don't have to focus" isn't really a fair characterization; it's just the clunkiness is continually thrust in my face when doing just a few simple things I want to do.
In Library mode, you hit R and you are in crop mode where you can rotate, level, crop, etc. Hitting G E brings you back. I don't see this taking 3X longer. Getting familiar with Lr shortcuts will help.
-
I guess with Apple's recent announcement to discontinue development of Aperture, this old debate can now be retired. Long live Lightroom! Hoorah!
Although I own and use both programs, but for different reasons, I'm now very happy that I have always used Lightroom for my "serious" photography.
Cheers.
Bud
www.budjames.photography
-
In Library mode, you hit R and you are in crop mode where you can rotate, level, crop, etc. Hitting G E brings you back. I don't see this taking 3X longer. Getting familiar with Lr shortcuts will help.
He is using LR shortcuts, but you don't actually need to switch back, which is one thing that needs learning. Plus if you render all your previews on import then switching back and for between modules is instant. No different from switching tabs in Ap.
-
He is using LR shortcuts, but you don't actually need to switch back, which is one thing that needs learning. Plus if you render all your previews on import then switching back and for between modules is instant. No different from switching tabs in Ap.
I read his complaint to mean he wanted to round trip to Dev mod to Library mod and thought it was too slow. I have never used Ap, been using Lr since its inception.
-
I read his complaint to mean he wanted to round trip to Dev mod to Library mod and thought it was too slow. I have never used Ap, been using Lr since its inception.
Ok, all you LR experts here, can you help me with this: in the Library mode, I would look at a photo, perhaps clicking at it to zoom in and out, then swipe my mouse (on a Mac) thinking I can to go to the next photo (since my hand is already on the mouse). Instead, LR would advance some random number of photos rather than going to the next photo. Is there a way to fix this?
Here's another question, in Library mode, I would look at a photo, decide that I don't like it and hit the 'delete' key to delete it. If I then use the arrow key or mouse swipe to go to the next photo, LR would toss me all the way to the end of the library. I would then have to browse my way back to where I was. This doesn't seem to make any sense. What am I doing wrong here?
-
...Getting familiar with Lr shortcuts will help.
Sure. And that is one of my gripes with Adobe software products. User interfaces should ideally let you do what you want fast and intuitively. Shortcuts fixes the "fast" part, but hardly the "intuitive" part.
Lightroom is the most intuitive Adobe product that I have used (and the only that I have been satisfied with), but there is still a disconnect between the hints and feedback that the interface gives you, and the actual operations that you want to do. People spending many hours with the product will develop variable degrees of skills that allows them to work around UI warts, but I am guessing that they would prefer to be more productive from day#1. That is probably one reason why Microsoft Word "won" over Word Perfect.
I am not claiming that designing a UI is easy.
-h
-
Ok, all you LR experts here, can you help me with this: in the Library mode, I would look at a photo, perhaps clicking at it to zoom in and out, then swipe my mouse (on a Mac) thinking I can to go to the next photo (since my hand is already on the mouse). Instead, LR would advance some random number of photos rather than going to the next photo. Is there a way to fix this?
I think you need to use a very small finger movement instead of a full swipe (think of it more like scrolling). If I'm not careful it's easy to advance too far.
Here's another question, in Library mode, I would look at a photo, decide that I don't like it and hit the 'delete' key to delete it. If I then use the arrow key or mouse swipe to go to the next photo, LR would toss me all the way to the end of the library. I would then have to browse my way back to where I was. This doesn't seem to make any sense. What am I doing wrong here?
Not sure what's going on here. When I delete a photo, LR automatically advances me to the next one without any additional actions.
-
Or to put it another way, Lightroom offers dedicated full-screen workspaces so you focus on the task you're performing. Aperture makes everything available all the time, so you don't need to focus.
John, I'm sorry to go all ad hominem on you... but why do you hang around Aperture boards making snarky comments about software you plainly don't like?
I don't hang around the LR5 boards doing likewise.
And why can you not accept that some people demonstrably do find the modal nature of Lightroom fecking annoying? It's not like the modality is up for discussion.
Kindly stop preaching at me and telling me how I should want to do what is both my artistic vision and my job.
Regards,
Hywel Phillips
-
John, I'm sorry to go all ad hominem on you... but why do you hang around Aperture boards making snarky comments about software you plainly don't like?
I don't hang around the LR5 boards doing likewise.
And why can you not accept that some people demonstrably do find the modal nature of Lightroom fecking annoying? It's not like the modality is up for discussion.
Kindly stop preaching at me and telling me how I should want to do what is both my artistic vision and my job.
Regards,
Hywel Phillips
Maybe you should ask yourself why you take my comment so personally? You look after your posts, I'll look after mine.
-
Maybe you should ask yourself why you take my comment so personally? You look after your posts, I'll look after mine.
I just wonder at the apparent need to tell other photographers how ill-disciplined their preferred workflow is, that's all.
I most certainly shall look after my posts.
Hywel Phillips
-
I just wonder at the apparent need to tell other photographers how ill-disciplined their preferred workflow is, that's all.
Sure, I said Aperture allows a less disciplined workflow, and I feel the different approaches appeal to different personality types. But if you want to infer it the way you do, that's not my problem.
-
Aperture is the only truly reliable professional data management tool available.
Expect that the new "Photo" app from Apple will be head and shoulders above.
-
Said with a straight face, too.
-
Apple and Adobe are both going cloud/mobile. Don't get so worried . Probably both be dumbed down but open to third party.
-
And why can you not accept that some people demonstrably do find the modal nature of Lightroom fecking annoying? It's not like the modality is up for discussion.
The perceived 'modality' of LR compared to Ap is mostly bollocks as switching tabs or switching modules is just a click of a mouse. There's no more of less effort to do either and certianly less than digging through a menu to do something. But what gets demonstrated time and time again is that nearly every criticism I've seen about LR in this respect is done by those who haven't learnt to use LR correctly. Such as in the comment above about switching back and fore between modules for flagging.
I have plenty of LR criticisms, but they are based on knowing how to use the programme, not through misunderstanding it.
-
Sure. And that is one of my gripes with Adobe software products. User interfaces should ideally let you do what you want fast and intuitively. Shortcuts fixes the "fast" part, but hardly the "intuitive" part.
There's an awful ot of nonsense talked about programmes that are intuitive or not. When people say this they more often mean works like something else I know. This is why PCs are not intuitive to a Mac user and vice versa, despite both being pretty easy to use in their own ways.
Lightroom is the most intuitive Adobe product that I have used (and the only that I have been satisfied with), but there is still a disconnect between the hints and feedback that the interface gives you, and the actual operations that you want to do.
Such as?
People spending many hours with the product will develop variable degrees of skills that allows them to work around UI warts, but I am guessing that they would prefer to be more productive from day#1.
I've come across so many people who stick with say PS over LR or Ap all because there is some relearning involved with using such different software. But once you have learnt the new software and how best to use it then you will be far more productive. Thinking that because one is not immediately more productive with unfamiliar/new software, the programme has failed/got a bad UI is naive. Which I seem to recall was your attitude to PS which was 'too difficult to use'. Yet I find it really easy to use and very well thought out.
-
The perceived 'modality' of LR compared to Ap is mostly bollocks as switching tabs or switching modules is just a click of a mouse. There's no more of less effort to do either and certianly less than digging through a menu to do something. But what gets demonstrated time and time again is that nearly every criticism I've seen about LR in this respect is done by those who haven't learnt to use LR correctly. Such as in the comment above about switching back and fore between modules for flagging.
I have plenty of LR criticisms, but they are based on knowing how to use the programme, not through misunderstanding it.
There is no "perceived" modality. It is modal. Some work well with that, some don't. It doesn't mean they don't understand the software. It means they prefer another approach. No harm.
It's modal because:
- It's not simply a click on a tab; it's a click and a wait. The shift from Library to Develop is not instant. At all.
- You can't use some tools in some places. That's what modal means. You can't make a curves adjustment from the Library, for example.
- You can't add a piece of metadata in Develop, either.
Now Aperture has it's own modes, too. The print dialog is an obvious example. But you can use the loupe tool there, anyway.
Can one program be used and the other not? Of course not. Can one intelligent person prefer one over the other? Sure.
-
And Aperture certainly does have its modes - the full screen view with black palettes, and the standard grey view with the tabbed Inspector? Two different interfaces in one app, and yet Aperture users criticise LR for being modal?
Again, you have to see LR's modules as task-dedicated workspaces. It's a shame that Adobe didn't call them this because they are more akin to the workspaces in Photoshop and other CS apps than to the nasty "modal" word.
Your definition of modal is loose and perhaps self-serving, confusing modularity for modal. Modal just doesn't mean having every tool available all the time. Where Aperture does score over LR is in the absence of modal dialog boxes - for instance renaming projects/albums or in the smart album definition. Just another example of where Aperture users' criticism of LR is so often off target and misses genuine advantages....
-
Why not simply stay in Dev module and rate/flag/cull there? ??? Sounds like you are the one making things complicated.
Nearly every criticism I've come across of LR from Ap users is solved by their learning to use LR correctly and I'm sure the reverse is also quite likely. Not that LR is without flaws, certainly plenty of places where LR could be improved.
Because it's slow as a dog? Because you can't add a couple keywords if you think of some?
The fact is that you must "learn to use LR correctly" and there are MANY frustrations for me in the workflow. It's a simple fact of life for me that I may be rating/culling images and want to rotate or crop one a bit so I can compare it with the next before I can make a decision. And I may decide to add a keyword or two to an image while I'm doing it. I guess I just can't fit into a "I'm ONLY going to rate or keyword images for the next 1000 images" mode or "OK now I've made my selects I can go edit those 30 images for the next 2 hours" mode. I do some combination of rating/culling AND minor adjusting as part of the rating/culling process and it is VERY COMMON for me to come upon keywords that don't work, or get the "change modes + wait 2 seconds to do a RAW render/Adobe Camera RAW cache update" thing, and I notice.
-
He is using LR shortcuts, but you don't actually need to switch back, which is one thing that needs learning. Plus if you render all your previews on import then switching back and for between modules is instant. No different from switching tabs in Ap.
Switching back and forth between modules is NOT instant. A trip to the develop module does a demosaic on the RAW file and shows the file itself. It does not show the preview. Yes, the switch BACK to the Library module is nearly instant, but again it is swapping the RAW file back to the JPEG file. And of course the panels change, and the image may move (if you don't have both panels open all the time, and I don't to save space). In Aperture you are not switching "modes" at all. The sidebar switches but there is NO re-render. It is a marked difference (it appears you haven't tried it.). To say they are effectively the same is just flat out wrong.
-
I guess I just can't fit into a "I'm ONLY going to rate or keyword images for the next 1000 images" mode or "OK now I've made my selects I can go edit those 30 images for the next 2 hours" mode.
And that is the key. Lightroom's task-oriented workspaces reward a more orderly working style, Aperture allows you to do all tasks at any time.
I do some combination of rating/culling AND minor adjusting as part of the rating/culling process.
And that's why the Quick Develop panel is in Library so you can make the kind of broad adjustments that you often need when you're deciding whether to cull or keep. With one click you can pull back the highlights or open the shadows for lots of images simultaneously.
John
-
And yet, they haven't taken that to the logical conclusion by allowing you to make the adjustments YOU want to make to the image whilst going through and deciding whether to cull or keep. Just the ones that the library mode allows you to do. Not, say, curves. Which are always my go-to tool for highlights and shadows. Why not allow you to have the full set of tools in that mode? What's the harm, if they let us do SOME adjustments, why not all the adjustments?
Or if making those adjustments is "wrong" in library mode, why are you allowed to do any of them?
This is why library vs. develop strikes some of us as so cumbersome. In Aperture, there's one suite of tools, and the designers have bent over backwards to make the tools consistent... and the keyboard shortcuts used to invoke them equally so.
The full screen view isn't a separate module from the "normal" tabbed view: the same tools are available to you. The same keys do the same things. You don't have to look to see what mode you are in first before hitting a keyboard shortcut. You decide what you want to do and hit the key, and Aperture makes it so.
THIS is what seems so much more streamlined and user-friendly to those of us who find LR objectionably modal. It's the division between Library and Develop modules, specifically, and the patchy and partial implementation of functions between the two modes where it should be seamless.
My feedback to Adobe since beta testing of LR1 has been to remove the division between Library and Develop modules and make the toolset and interface consistent. I'm not alone in that wish.
Hywel
-
Aperture's full screen and tabbed view are two different interfaces for one program, as if they couldn't decide which to choose.
Making all tools available just isn't the logical conclusion though. The Quick Develop tools are the ones most people need at that stage in the typical workflow when you're supposed to be making those keep / cull / rate decisions, organising or adding metadata. Instead of putting all the tools there, Lightroom presents a workspace that's dedicated to the relevant task. And at that point, you just don't need to be playing with Curves - or to start loading the full image data - since the Highlights and Shadows sliders are the go-to tool for blocks of contiguous shadows or highlights. I might agree if you had suggested cropping and straightening though.
-
And Aperture certainly does have its modes - the full screen view with black palettes, and the standard grey view with the tabbed Inspector? Two different interfaces in one app, and yet Aperture users criticise LR for being modal?
Again, you have to see LR's modules as task-dedicated workspaces. It's a shame that Adobe didn't call them this because they are more akin to the workspaces in Photoshop and other CS apps than to the nasty "modal" word.
Your definition of modal is loose and perhaps self-serving, confusing modularity for modal. Modal just doesn't mean having every tool available all the time. Where Aperture does score over LR is in the absence of modal dialog boxes - for instance renaming projects/albums or in the smart album definition. Just another example of where Aperture users' criticism of LR is so often off target and misses genuine advantages....
You don't really know what "modal" means, do you, John? Hint: "mode" as in Full Screen Mode, is not the same thing as "modal", as in modal workflow. I also wonder what you're doing in this thread, you have nothing constructive to contribute and your coming perilously close to trolling and flame baiting. Maybe you aspire to Schewe-ness? Although he does it better than you.....
-
Keep the personal insults to yourself, will you?
-
You know, at some point we need to stop trying to figure out which program is "better," and recognize that different folks have different priorities and different workflows. One is not "right" and the other "wrong."
My preference is Aperture's approach. John's is Lightroom's. OK. Fine. He is not an idiot or failed photographer. Nor am I.
The fact of the matter is that Aperture is being discontinued. In a free market, that would suggest it has not been popular enough to keep it alive. Apple may be making one of its well known distributions of its own software/hardware. It may be shifting away from the "professional" market and moving more to the "pro-sumer" market. The new Photos, combined with plug-ins may create a raw pipeline that allows third-partys to extend the non-destuctive functions and completely leap-frog the other raw converters on the market. The fact of the mater is that we do not know. And may not know for some time. Or Apple may preview the plan any day they choose.
The main issue for me is what other options do I have, as an Aperture user, if I wish to go another way. Lightroom is one way, but for me it is not "better." Capture One Pro is another way, but so far it does not seem to be "better" to me. There may be nothing I like "better." So I may have to adapt my workflow to what is available.
Or I may have to stick it out with Aperture, trusting that Apple will protect my investment in time over the coming months by ensuring all my metadata, organization and image adjustments transfer intact to Photos. Will Photos then be "good enough" for my needs? That's what I'd be betting on. Apple's secrecy and lack of previous development on Aperture make it hard to know.
Which ever way I go, it will not be "wrong." It may be wrong for someone else, and that's fine.
-
Well, you (in the sense "one") don't have to make a decision right now, do you? And seriously why would you? If you're happy with it, won't Aperture be fine throughout the life of Yosemite? That takes us into 2016, doesn't it? After then, I'm not sure about the risk areas (printing?) but wouldn't you expect it to continue to work for most important purposes?
As for Photos, how many plugins will one need for an equivalent experience? And how soon will you wish you were back in 2005 when Apple quite rightly saw that people were fed up of a string of programs and wanted their workflow to be in a single pro-oriented program?
-
Well, you (in the sense "one") don't have to make a decision right now, do you? And seriously why would you? If you're happy with it, won't Aperture be fine throughout the life of Yosemite? That takes us into 2016, doesn't it? After then, I'm not sure about the risk areas (printing?) but wouldn't you expect it to continue to work for most important purposes?
I only half agree. You (meaning "one" again) don't HAVE to make a decision now. But I can see where you'd want to. It all depends on how much supplier uncertainty bothers you or not. Some people might decide to bet that Photos will eventually do what they need. Others might decide otherwise. Since there are no facts yet, that decision is a crap shoot. But it would make sense for those who believe the former to investigate alternatives and make a decision now. If they don't and choose to stay with Aperture, it may mean that one day they might have to make an even greater conversion.
What you choose to do depends on your decision time horizon and your tolerance for uncertainty.
-
You know, at some point we need to stop trying to figure out which program is "better," and recognize that different folks have different priorities and different workflows. One is not "right" and the other "wrong."
My preference is Aperture's approach. John's is Lightroom's. OK. Fine. He is not an idiot or failed photographer. Nor am I.
The fact of the matter is that Aperture is being discontinued. In a free market, that would suggest it has not been popular enough to keep it alive. Apple may be making one of its well known distributions of its own software/hardware. It may be shifting away from the "professional" market and moving more to the "pro-sumer" market. The new Photos, combined with plug-ins may create a raw pipeline that allows third-partys to extend the non-destuctive functions and completely leap-frog the other raw converters on the market. The fact of the mater is that we do not know. And may not know for some time. Or Apple may preview the plan any day they choose.
The main issue for me is what other options do I have, as an Aperture user, if I wish to go another way. Lightroom is one way, but for me it is not "better." Capture One Pro is another way, but so far it does not seem to be "better" to me. There may be nothing I like "better." So I may have to adapt my workflow to what is available.
Or I may have to stick it out with Aperture, trusting that Apple will protect my investment in time over the coming months by ensuring all my metadata, organization and image adjustments transfer intact to Photos. Will Photos then be "good enough" for my needs? That's what I'd be betting on. Apple's secrecy and lack of previous development on Aperture make it hard to know.
Which ever way I go, it will not be "wrong." It may be wrong for someone else, and that's fine.
This is much too reasonable for the interweb. :)
-
Aperture's full screen and tabbed view are two different interfaces for one program, as if they couldn't decide which to choose.
Making all tools available just isn't the logical conclusion though. The Quick Develop tools are the ones most people need at that stage in the typical workflow when you're supposed to be making those keep / cull / rate decisions, organising or adding metadata. Instead of putting all the tools there, Lightroom presents a workspace that's dedicated to the relevant task. And at that point, you just don't need to be playing with Curves - or to start loading the full image data - since the Highlights and Shadows sliders are the go-to tool for blocks of contiguous shadows or highlights. I might agree if you had suggested cropping and straightening though.
Or let the user decide how they want to arrange their workspace(s) and be able to save them?
i.e. Capture One. ;)
-
I only half agree. You (meaning "one" again) don't HAVE to make a decision now. But I can see where you'd want to. It all depends on how much supplier uncertainty bothers you or not. Some people might decide to bet that Photos will eventually do what they need. Others might decide otherwise. Since there are no facts yet, that decision is a crap shoot. But it would make sense for those who believe the former to investigate alternatives and make a decision now. If they don't and choose to stay with Aperture, it may mean that one day they might have to make an even greater conversion.
What you choose to do depends on your decision time horizon and your tolerance for uncertainty.
My point exactly.
The time I see I invest in the workflow in into organization, metadata and image adjustments.
If you believe Apple will produce a Photos app that will cover your needs as a photographer, that investment could be safe. If you don't believe that, it's time to move the investment as soon as possible.
When will Apple stop adding new camera support to Aperture? At what OS X update will Aperture no longer open? There are no facts and no way to know.
When will Photos be "ready" to handle your needs? In version 1.0? In version 1.5? When NIK produces a plug-in for Photos? There are no facts and no way to know.
So, as the man said, it's a crap shoot.
-
As for Photos, how many plugins will one need for an equivalent experience? And how soon will you wish you were back in 2005 when Apple quite rightly saw that people were fed up of a string of programs and wanted their workflow to be in a single pro-oriented program?
The number of plugins required would depend upon individual needs of what is desired above and beyond the actual capabilities that the new Photos app will offer on it's own. Currently, even the Apple engineers working on the OS X Photos app quite likely don't know what v1 will actually offer ... it's early days. It could be no plugins at all for at least a few users ... to a rather lengthy list for others ... Just as it is for Aperture and Lightroom users today. Some use no external plugins ... others have a lot they rely on for their workflow.
If, for example, Nik or onOne could offer their suites as part of the RAW pipeline with the Photos app as the baseline for browsing, culling, metadata and basic image processing ... that would be all many users would likely require. I know I would be much more inclined to invest in plugins if they would fit into the workflow without resorting to creating derivative files to accommodate the use of plugins.
Yes, in 2005, Apple "rightly so" offered up a singular option ... their ceasing further development of iPhoto and Aperture may not be a reversal of that intent. That concept is over a decade old now (since the time development began) they could very well be onto a newer, more advanced concept that is even more "rightly so" for this point in time.
We do not know all the facts yet as to what this new offering will be capable or exactly how third party extensibility will all fit together ... I have a feeling that it won't be quite like "plugins" as we are accustomed to ... but a furtherance of a more seamless use where the user experiences little difference between where the parent app ends and the supported extensions begins.
Which is exactly what I had hoped at one point was Adobe's intention for Lightroom. If they had chosen to focus on solely providing Library, Develop and Print package of modules ... then open up additional module development to other developers ... it would be an awesome foundation while the lesser modules could be addressed for the various niche markets like slideshow, books and web ... or even others. In that respect, I think Adobe may have missed the boat.
I think it is a bit early to pass judgement on how it all fit together until we see a bit more of what Apple has envisioned.
-
As for Photos, how many plugins will one need for an equivalent experience? And how soon will you wish you were back in 2005 when Apple quite rightly saw that people were fed up of a string of programs and wanted their workflow to be in a single pro-oriented program?
There are no facts.
Will plug-ins be like multiple programs from 2005? No one knows.
Will plug-ins be the next clever thing from Apple that blows the doors off the competition? No one knows.
We simple do not know what Photos will, or will not, be. Nor do we know what will come for Photos in the months after release.
So let's not speculate, poke fun, criticize, predict or suggest what others need to do.
Should you leave Aperture? Should you take up Lightroom? Or Capture One Pro? We have no facts to go on.
-
I think it is a bit early to pass judgement on how it all fit together until we see a bit more of what Apple has envisioned.
And that was my point in asking "Well, you (in the sense "one") don't have to make a decision right now, do you? And seriously why would you?"
I would probably wait and see, but I'd be hugely unsettled and maybe I might be upping sticks. But even if I wanted control of my pictures/workflow to be limited to one brand of computer, it's wishful thinking to imagine that Photos is going to provide an equivalent experience without a barking pack of plugins. Today's "monolithic" (your word) Aperture/LR give most users a coherent "pro" workflow with no need for plugins, and while some of these Photos apps will be little diamonds, I suspect putting Humpty Dumpty back together again will prove too much of a Rube Goldberg / Heath Robinson exercise for the mass of Aperture/LR users.
-
And that was my point in asking "Well, you (in the sense "one") don't have to make a decision right now, do you? And seriously why would you?"
I would probably wait and see, but I'd be hugely unsettled and maybe I might be upping sticks. But even if I wanted control of my pictures/workflow to be limited to one brand of computer, it's wishful thinking to imagine that Photos is going to provide an equivalent experience without a barking pack of plugins. Today's "monolithic" (your word) Aperture/LR give most users a coherent "pro" workflow with no need for plugins, and while some of these Photos apps will be little diamonds, I suspect putting Humpty Dumpty back together again will prove too much of a Rube Goldberg / Heath Robinson exercise for the mass of Aperture/LR users.
Well, I may not have to decide right now, but I might need to.
It's been reported that I'll be able to transfer metadata and organizational structure (projects, folders, albums) from Aperture into Photos. And I think I've read that Apple said adjustments would transfer as well. So no information would be lost. But the time spent on adjustments could be lost if Photos' doesn't have the adjustment tools required moving ahead.
But what Photos will provide is simply not known. You speculate that there may be a need for a "barking pack of plugins" and an "Rube Goldberg / Heath Robinson exercise" from no basis of fact. I can as easily speculate that plug-ins will be easily installed as Aperture-style adjustment bricks, so I might be free to install a brick for my favorite noise reductions plug-in (like DeNoise or Neat Image), another for lens corrections (perhaps DxO Optics), and so on. If Photos started with the same bricks as Aperture has today, there would only need to be a couple plug-ins to be "complete" enough for me. Also said from no basis in fact.
My "problem" is that Aperture was my first end-to-end tool and it fits my approach very well (or I learned my approach from Aperture). Neither Lightroom nor Capture One Pro suit me nearly as well (even though both programs are arguably excellent tools).
-
And that was my point in asking "Well, you (in the sense "one") don't have to make a decision right now, do you? And seriously why would you?"
I would probably wait and see, but I'd be hugely unsettled and maybe I might be upping sticks. But even if I wanted control of my pictures/workflow to be limited to one brand of computer, it's wishful thinking to imagine that Photos is going to provide an equivalent experience without a barking pack of plugins. Today's "monolithic" (your word) Aperture/LR give most users a coherent "pro" workflow with no need for plugins, and while some of these Photos apps will be little diamonds, I suspect putting Humpty Dumpty back together again will prove too much of a Rube Goldberg / Heath Robinson exercise for the mass of Aperture/LR users.
Your premise is all speculation. Mine too. As I offered earlier ... even the Apple engineers coding the new Photos app for OS X don't likely know exactly what the specific feature set v1 will ship with or at what pace further development will follow. This belief that a multitude of plugins will be necessary may be unfounded ... or that plugins for this paradigm will be as disjointed, convoluted or incoherent as we know plugins to be today. We simply don't have enough information to make an informed appraisal ... yet. Everything shared by Apple thus far is just a few sentences of generalities that Aperture and iPhotos will be replaced ... and a single image showing some aspects of the new applications interface. I would think we would have better luck winning the lottery than guessing correctly what the new offering will include or be capable of.
It is also a bit unfair to claim that "pro" Aperture and even Lightroom users can use either app without requiring the addition of plugins. While it may be true that either have eliminated the need for such options over their existence, neither is totally "complete" after many years in the marketplace. It is quite rare not to have supplemental plugins in a professional workflow with these apps ... I would estimate those users earning at least a partial income employing Aperture or Lr, who do not make use of such options are in the extreme minority.
Since I have already trusted my photo workflow for over 22 years to a single brand of computer ... I think I can manage a little bit longer to see what Apple actually offers before making a decision.
-
But what Photos will provide is simply not known. You speculate that there may be a need for a "barking pack of plugins" and an "Rube Goldberg / Heath Robinson exercise" from no basis of fact.
We'll see. But thinking it will satisfy the typical Aperture/Lr user is wishful thinking too, and unlike Aperture in its early days Photos won't be recovering the investment by shifting more Apple boxes, so why would they invest in it to the level required by that type of user? Follow the money is usually a pretty good principle.
-
We'll see. But thinking it will satisfy the typical Aperture/Lr user is wishful thinking too, and unlike Aperture in its early days Photos won't be recovering the investment by shifting more Apple boxes, so why would they invest in it to the level required by that type of user? Follow the money is usually a pretty good principle.
I haven't suggested that Apple will be able to replace Aperture for my needs. But I haven't suggested that they won't. No one, outside of Apple at least, knows.
What I do know is that I don't feel comfortable in Lightroom. It's a great program, has a ton of features, is the workhorse of many photographers, enjoys wide-spread support and is an solid Adobe product. I've own it, I've used it, and I have v5.5 installed now with a bunch of images in its catalog. Still...
I'm still pounding away trying to get into Capture One Pro 7. I can arguably beat Lightroom at the quality of its raw conversions. But its DAM features are behind Lightroom's and WAY behind Aperture's. :(
-
Agreed with all of the above. I bought C1 recently and feel its RAW processing is top notch. And while I like it better than LR, it is substantially behind in DAM...so it's a difficult choice:
Go with something that is good in many areas (LR);
Go with something that is great in some but poor in others (C1);
Stick with something that is great in many areas but is EOL'd (Aperture) and pray for the next great thing?
I've also spent substantial time with RawTherapee lately and with the help of a board member here am discovering that this is a serious tool with some excellent features...but also no DAM.
I'm a bit surprised there aren't more DAM solutions out there on par with Aperture. Anyone who claims LR is that tool doesn't know what they are missing ;)
<runs for cover!>
pp
-
[quote author=Paul Perreault
I'm a bit surprised there aren't more DAM solutions out there on par with Aperture. Anyone who claims LR is that tool doesn't know what they are missing ;)
Paul and Bob hit on something that mystifies me as well. Aperture invented the integrated the non destructive DAM / Converter / Editor /Print workflow App which was a brilliant invention. It's analog like workflow (Inviolet Masters = negatives, Versions =print recipe (s) Projects = Job Jacket etc. It made perfect sense to me.
So Like Bob, I learned my approach from Aperture. Apple announced it with great fanfare, and then dragged their feet ever since.
V1 was roundly criticized of the Managed library only design , It was modified to allow Referenced Libraries. I for one think the managed library approach is brilliant.
I keep a main library for personal work, and annual libraries for commercial work, and never lose anything. I love it
It mystifies me also that no one else has offered anything similar as a front end.
My daughter uses lightroom I use Aperture. I own lightroom and have had to use it several times when Aperture became unusable during certain version upgrades.
I really hate using it. I realize it is partly that I learned Aperture first, because many more folks use lightroom than Aperture.
I've upgraded Lightroom continually and have purchased v5.5 but pointing lightroom to a catalog you have to design and maintain yourself seems like a huge step backwards. As does the the module system.
So I'm going forward with Aperture, Lightroom and Capture 1 and waiting to see what Apple does with Photos though it is doubtful that Apple would have felt it necessary to announce a cesation of development of Aperture if their intent was to duplicate all of it's functionality in Photos.
I wish they would sell the Aperture DAM to Capture1 and we might have something.
-
Wouldn't that be great! The best of both.
-
I wish they would sell the Aperture DAM to Capture1 and we might have something.
Phase One already has a damn fine DAM ... Media Pro (formerly Expression Media; formerly iView Media Pro) ... been using it for my long term archive for years ... does a great job.
-
Phase One already has a damn fine DAM ... Media Pro (formerly Expression Media; formerly iView Media Pro) ... been using it for my long term archive for years ... does a great job.
Butch, I am seriously considering giving C1 a try. My question is, how well do C1 and Media Pro work together. Thanks.
-
Aperture's analog like workflow (Inviolet Masters = negatives, Versions =print recipe (s) Projects = Job Jacket etc. It made perfect sense to me.
LR does basically the same, a project is simply a folder by another name. Depending on your workflow, collections [dumb or smart] could also do the same thing as projects.
V1 was roundly criticized of the Managed library only design , It was modified to allow Referenced Libraries. I for one think the managed library approach is brilliant.
I keep a main library for personal work, and annual libraries for commercial work, and never lose anything. I love it
It mystifies me also that no one else has offered anything similar as a front end.
Maybe it's because it isn't a very good system. :P
My daughter uses lightroom I use Aperture. I own lightroom and have had to use it several times when Aperture became unusable during certain version upgrades.
And you kept using a flakey programme? ???
I really hate using it [LR]. I realize it is partly that I learned Aperture first, because many more folks use lightroom than Aperture.
I've upgraded Lightroom continually and have purchased v5.5 but pointing lightroom to a catalog you have to design and maintain yourself seems like a huge step backwards. As does the the module system.
Funny as I've never had to design[??] and maintain any catalogues in LR.
I simply have the single catalogue with everything in, which LR opens when it starts and backs up when it closes. Job done.
Having multiple libraries or catalogues cripples one of the biggest strengths of a DAM app, i.e. being able to organise and access all your work in a single place.
Sounds like you are using LR incorrectly and blaming LR for the issues.
-
hi ButchM, I already tried C1 with Media Pro, and the system is really complicate and doe not give you the effect we are use to in Aperture, neither Lightroom has it even jjj saids the opposite, however, makes me ask what is the best for me, in this case, might be Lightroom, even though is not natural and forces you to have several modules with different shortcuts. Anyhow, is an all-rounder that makes you have almost everything we are used to.
-
hi ButchM, I already tried C1 with Media Pro, and the system is really complicate and doe not give you the effect we are use to in Aperture, neither Lightroom has it even jjj saids the opposite, however, makes me ask what is the best for me, in this case, might be Lightroom, even though is not natural and forces you to have several modules with different shortcuts. Anyhow, is an all-rounder that makes you have almost everything we are used to.
Well ..... two points ... 1) I have not worked with Media Pro and C1 together as a unified workflow, you may be correct that it is not as ideal as Lr or Aperture. 2) I don't think there is any other option that closely replicates the form and function that is Aperture ... other than Lightroom.
My point was, and still is, Media Pro is an outstanding DAM. It is not a One-Stop-Shop for workflow needs ... but if you need to search, sort and otherwise put your hands on assets quickly, easily and efficiently ... it does the job very we'll and was doing that job long before Aperture or Lightroom were ever conceived. If Phase One can ever meld C1 and MP ... then they may have an ideal direct competitor for Lr ... something that would be beneficial to everyone. Competition is good in the marketplace.
The plus of Media Pro I have always appreciated is it can catalog and reference almost any digital file you can store on your computer. It may not always be able to properly allow you to view or easily open or edit the file's content ...but it will enable you to identify and locate the file quickly for use elsewhere.
-
hi ButchM, I already tried C1 with Media Pro, and the system is really complicate and doe not give you the effect we are use to in Aperture, neither Lightroom has it even jjj saids the opposite, however, makes me ask what is the best for me, in this case, might be Lightroom, even though is not natural and forces you to have several modules with different shortcuts. Anyhow, is an all-rounder that makes you have almost everything we are used to.
The different modules are simply not the issue that people make out. In use there's very little difference between them and clicking on an alternative tab in Ap. Shortcuts are as far as I recall consistent in their meaning in LR, though some are specific to the module they apply to. Though by say invoking a Dev module shortcut in Library you can go straight to the dev module and the tool in question.
Almost every single criticism I have heard about LR from those used to Ap is solved by them learning to use the programme properly. It's worth remembering that there's a very simple reason why LR had such a big uptake amongst photographers over Ap - ease of use. LR decided to start afresh with it's user interface and not cling onto old UIs like Ap has done with its messy 20th century look and feel.
-
The plus of Media Pro I have always appreciated is it can catalog and reference almost any digital file you can store on your computer.
Which I wish LR could also do.
It may not always be able to properly allow you to view or easily open or edit the file's content
Which is a serious gotcha though. :-\
-
Which is a serious gotcha though. :-\
Not really, the list of what MP can't handle is very short and the files relatively obscure.
As photographers, it's nice that Lightroom can handle our images. (Though I don't understand what it took until v5 in order to catalog png files.) Media Pro is for our other files what Aperture/Lr is for photos. (Minus the RAW processor)
We create, use and depend on much more than just photos. Utilizing a DAM that is not limited to only image files is a true asset in itself.
I know I have a mountain of pdf, Word, Pages, Numbers, Keynote, InDesign documents for contracts, estimates, proposals, designs, presentations, wedding and portrait albums etc. As well as tons of audio, video and miscellaneous other digital files that come in handy or need to be located quickly. Many of these files, I would not want in my image library as there is enough strain on resources already without the additional data that would need to be cataloged.
Sure, the OS can pick up some of this task for searching out items ... though Media Pro can get the job done even when the files you are seeking are not live on your system ... There are days I would be lost without it.
-
I still wish LR catalogued more, it doesn't have to be able to edit the files or anything [just pass them onto whatever programme is appropriate] but a limited range of images types are not the only assets related to photography. Even some text files with things like subject's names or location info could be handy for keywording. But all image files should be supported, again no editing support needed, just like with say PSDs which get passed on to PS.
Ideally it would be the only DAM you need as having several DAMs to organise things is like having many LR catalogues for your work, it kind of defeats the purpose of what the programmes are meant do.
-
Ideally it would be the only DAM you need as having several DAMs to organise things is like having many LR catalogues for your work, it kind of defeats the purpose of what the programmes are meant do.
That's why I use Media Pro for my main DAM. I have EVERYTHING in one large library (actually 2) I have one for commercial, weddings and portraits then another that is strictly sports (which is about 70% of my work) along with all the other associated other files I mentioned earlier. There are limits as to what you can keep in a single library. Just my DSLR image files date back to 2000 and I have 25 years of negs, chromes and prints I am slowly adding to the archive as I have the time and inclination to scan, process and archive them.
I don't consider Aperture or Lightroom as my sole DAM solution, they are my workflow solutions for current/recent projects that also offer some DAM options ... my long-term DAM has always been Media Pro. Which is why I followed the app along from iView/Expressions/Media Pro evolution (or de-evolution ;) )
-
I played with Media Pro quite a few years back, but for some reason I now cannot recall it didn't do it for me.
The seamless integration of catalogue and the other modules in LR is what I particularly like about the LR workflow, Phase should try and do that with Phase One as that would give LR some really serious competition.
-
The different modules are simply not the issue that people make out. In use there's very little difference between them and clicking on an alternative tab in Ap. Shortcuts are as far as I recall consistent in their meaning in LR, though some are specific to the module they apply to. Though by say invoking a Dev module shortcut in Library you can go straight to the dev module and the tool in question.
Almost every single criticism I have heard about LR from those used to Ap is solved by them learning to use the programme properly. It's worth remembering that there's a very simple reason why LR had such a big uptake amongst photographers over Ap - ease of use. LR decided to start afresh with it's user interface and not cling onto old UIs like Ap has done with its messy 20th century look and feel.
The modal switch is not just between the Library and Develop modules. If you're making a book in Aperture, you can make adjustments to the image by changing tabs, not going back to a module.
And Lightroom's acceptance advantage probably has more to do with the fact that it's cross-platform than any perceived ease of use.
-
The modal switch is not just between the Library and Develop modules. If you're making a book in Aperture, you can make adjustments to the image by changing tabs, not going back to a module.
Never claimed that other modules weren't modules. I said the difference between modules and tabs is overstated. If I'm in LR's book module and press D I can tweak an image, alternatively I can click on the Dev name at top which I also thought of as being like tabs without the skeuomorphic tab design. The main advantage is the lack of clutter and reduction in clicking compared to Aperture.
And Lightroom's acceptance advantage probably has more to do with the fact that it's cross-platform than any perceived ease of use.
Actually no. A survey of pro photographers some years back who used Apple computers showed a huge uptake in LR and not much interest in LR and that was before Apple lost interest in the programme.
-
Not really, the list of what MP can't handle is very short and the files relatively obscure.
It can handle any type of file. There's a "catalogue importers" text file and you can easily add other file extensions. Only the OS thumbnail is displayed, but this doesn't strain your computer.
I've always put the case for Lightroom removing its arbitrary restriction on the types of files that it can manage. I don't think there's much hope though!
-
Sadly not.
-
Looks like my original question about Lightroom versus Aperture has now sadly been answered by Apple. aperture is being "retired" in favour of their new photo app.
:'(
Martin