Is Lightroom Inevitable for Aperture Users?

[Bob Rockefeller]

If Photos is only destined to be a replacement for iPhoto and not for Aperture, options besides Lightroom look poor. C1 is a good RAW processor and a lousy DAM. Everything else is only marginally functional at best.

I'm afraid to imagine that Lightroom is going to be in many ex-Aperture users futures.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

I started with Aperture, then moved to Lightroom long time ago, simply because I found LR superior in most respects. In other words, no need to be afraid

[Ken Bennett]

You will be assimilated? Hmm.

This doesn't often happen, but I am in complete agreement with Slobodan . Lightroom is a very usable application.

[ButchM]

Having used both Lightroom and Aperture quite a bit, I have found neither option was ever perfect. I can take a shoot, large or small, from import to delivery just as easily in either app.

Lr has more options and better treatments for lens correction, noise reduction and overall RAW processing including the ability to quickly and easily create custom Camera Calibration profiles. There are a few key plugins that make life easier like built-in FTP transfers (using the free plugin found in the SDK). The Print module is likely the best work on a single function Adobe has ever produced ... IMHO. How they could get the Print module so right, from the start ... and the Slideshow and Book modules so wrong have me convinced these modules could not possibly have been created by the same corporation ... let alone found in the same application.

Aperture is (even now) far superior for books and slideshows. Aperture's ability to create custom keyboard shortcuts that make sense to the user is invaluable and unheard of elsewhere to the extent Apple offers such customization.

I know most avid Aperture users like to believe that Aperture is the better choice for "organizing" ... but I personally think Lr and Aperture are dead even with DAM ... if you desire to put your fingers on a specific image quickly and efficiently. I can get to what I am seeking equally well in either option.

Again ... neither option is perfect or totally superior ... and more often than not, when users are passionate about which app is superior ... it really has little to do with definitive advantages and more to do with familiarity of how to get there ... working in a strange, unfamiliar app does not equate that the new app is "wrong" ... it's just different.

In the end, there are few options that will come close to replace Aperture other than Lightroom. There will be some things that users will have to give up ... but it's not all bad.

Myself, I will use both as needed until Aperture will no longer function. As each year goes by, books/albums (at least print versions) are seeing less enthusiasm commercially so I won't need that option as much. Since producing more video, I have moved more of my slideshow work to Final Cut Pro X ... so surviving in the absence of Aperture should be possible.

[Tony Jay]

I'm afraid to imagine that Lightroom is going to be in many ex-Aperture users futures.

Afraid?
What of?

Lightroom is an excellent tool.
It actually works.

Tony Jay

[kirkt]

We, as Mac users, are spoiled with the wealth of raw converters.  It sounds like the need to have a DAM, and particularly one that is integrated into the raw converter, is the constraint in this tale of woe.

I do not use a DAM and do not keyword or label everything I shoot.  However, there are perfectly viable alternatives to Lightroom that will do all of this.  Photo Mechanic is an example.  Once you uncouple the DAM from your raw converter, you can experiment with applications that focus on raw conversions to find which one(s) is(are) the best for your needs.

In addition to LR and CaptureOne, these come to mind, in no particular order:

Iridient Developer (download the current beta - it is very nice)
Raw Photo Processor
Raw Therapee
DXO

Fast Raw Viewer is an incredibly powerful tool for viewing and culling raw image files and integrates nicely with raw converters, especially LR/ACR (it will write compatible XML files) and RPP (it will write RPPS files).  You can assess the raw file in real-time, not a preview or a full-rendering that takes time to produce.

In other words, you have options.  Unfortunately, some Aperture users have workflows built around Aperture and need backward compatibility or something that will assimilate Aperture libraries and metadata, etc.  If that is the case, then LR and C1 are the only two solutions that seem to be attempting to accommodate Aperture users in this regard.

They all have learning curves and advantages/disadvantages.  If you simply refuse to adopt LR, then these alternatives are worth a look.  I, personally, do not use LR very often - not out of spite, but mostly because I do not need most what the application offers and find that its raw conversion is average at best compared to other converters.

Aperture also still works, but I understand the desire to start planning for obsolescence.

kirk

[john beardsworth]

It sounds like the need to have a DAM, and particularly one that is integrated into the raw converter, is the constraint in this tale of woe.

It's not a constraint. Rather, Aperture and Lightroom demonstrated the advantages of combining management with adjustment and output features in a single unified package. Those who have seen these benefits aren't that chuffed about having to go back to previous workflows that resembled a daisy chain where you used a glorified Finder (eg PhotoMechanic) to review and tag your pictures (at least those that are online) but found it couldn't display their adjusted state, another program to do the raw conversion, Photoshop too, maybe another to generate slideshows, another to control printing.... And they don't see a Photos.app surrounded by a pack of plugins - if Apple ever get round to releasing an Extensions SDK - as any less of Heath Robinson or Rube Goldberg workflow.

[ButchM]

 if Apple ever get round to releasing an Extensions SDK - as any less of Heath Robinson or Rube Goldberg workflow.

Yeah ... you're probably right ... most developers usually release an SDK before they release v1 of an app.   Especially when we will be about six months away from the next OS version after Photos is released for public use. Was there ever a substantial SDK for Lr v1 or did that come with Lr 2.0?

I'm not sure if Photos will ever be the dream hub I and many others hope it is capable of ... though, I am willing to give Apple some time to see if it indeed is possible.

If I could use an app like photos as the centerpiece of my RAW image workflow along with production pieces from other developers that I prefer in a more seamless fashion, that would be awesome.

That's why I had high hopes for Lightroom at it's inception ... I had hoped that Adobe would have opened up the "modular" aspect to third party developers. If the Lr team focused purely on Library, Develop and Print ... then let the market place worry about less universal functions like Maps, Faces, Web, Slideshows and Books, etc. etc. I think Lr would be an even better solution. In that respect, Lr is a closed box with a lot of wasted space that few users employ fully.

[john beardsworth]

Yeah ... you're probably right ... most developers usually release an SDK before they release v1 of an app. 

I'm not sure that's so, but the delay of the SDK seems a pretty clear indication that Photos.app isn't intended to replace Aperture. But even if it develops as a hub, I wonder how convincing the workflow could ever be. Ap and Lr present users with a coherent set of tasks to process images, and generally a single way to do each task, while a hub and extension workflow is going to be much more confusing and amorphous.

I had hoped that Adobe would have opened up the "modular" aspect to third party developers.

That was the impression one always had. I don't really have any thoughts about why that never happened, though it may be that Adobe felt no-one wanted to come to the party. Nik, for example, were gobbled by Google before a Silver Efex module could ever be mooted.

[ButchM]

John, I understand your philosophy of maintaining a monolith type of app that is mostly one-stop-shop ... unfortunately, I don't think a one-size-fits-all solution is the best concept either.

While Lr is definitely the lesser of all evils for the largest number of users desiring such a solution ... it is far from ideal or perfect. Even though it is capable of "coherent" workflow ... that workflow is limited to the specific capabilities of the app ... almost forced upon the user. If a user desires to utilize an alternate solution they still face a "confusing and amorphous" alternative.

To me, there is little difference to employing an extension that references my RAW images directly with Photos (even if only speaking theoretically) or exporting files from Lightroom to utilize an alternate solution for say a slideshow or designing a wedding album.

[john beardsworth]

Monolithic - or integrated?

[ButchM]

Monolithic - or integrated?

The term of choice is really inconsequential if users are tied to limited or lesser options. Integration is of little use if the components don't offer the desired goal. In it's current sate, Lightroom hampers and limits users and at the very least creates much more work than necessary. To me, that is a high cost for the sake of unification. I don't think a truly more modular solution would be that confusing or problematic.

[john beardsworth]

Well, the choice of term can either be pejorative or positive. We were in a modular workflow before Aperture and Lightroom, and was it really that great? Some of us concocted coherent workflows, but Ap/LR succeeded because many failed to figure out how to get metadata read in each app or see adjustments in their cataloguing apps, and it will be the same when you're expected to bolt on a series of extensions. Integrated apps don't prevent us using specialist apps when needed, but quite how many extensions are you going to need to strap onto Photos.app when it won't even allow you to apply star ratings?

[ButchM]

... how many extensions are you going to need to strap onto Photos.app when it won't even allow you to apply star ratings?

Maybe only one ... maybe a dozen ... we won't know until we see it evolve.

How soon we forget that Aperture or Lightroom were not created overnight. They had to be formulated in concept, then constructed to perform. One thing is for sure, given a pathway, independent developers are awesome at offering solutions.

In time, I may end up agreeing with you 100% when it comes to Photos and potential extensibility ... but as I did with Lightroom and Aperture ... I waited until I actually put the apps through the paces and used them in my workflow before I reached a lasting opinion on their merits. If I had judged either on cursory observations without allowing Adobe and Apple to expand upon their initial offerings.

Photos is still in it's very first developer beta ... what comes next is anybody's guess ... I'm going to wait and see what transpires over the next year or so before making a judgement.

Had I closed my mind about FCP X with it's initial release ... I'd be missing out on a very substantial portion of my current video workflow ... I'm glad I had the patience to give Apple the opportunity to flesh out the app. I'd be lost without it and have much less cash in my pocket if I would be using other options. 

[john beardsworth]

Sure, I agree it's speculation, but I think one can decide much more quickly. I recall that as soon as I heard Aperture 1.0's specs, and certainly once I saw it, it seemed obvious that combining management, adjustment and output was the way forward. Similarly with Lightroom. And equally, I think I know a turkey when I see one coming.

Of course, I'm not a big Apple fan, and I don't like OS-limited solutions in principle, but it's not just me who is pessimistic about Photos.app. Have you seen this post on the former Aperture Expert site? "Plainly put — I no longer believe that serious Aperture users should expect Photos to replace their photography management and editing needs. I am now recommending that advanced and professional users begin to explore other options."

[ButchM]

Sure, I agree it's speculation, but I think one can decide much more quickly. I recall that as soon as I heard Aperture 1.0's specs, and certainly once I saw it, it seemed obvious that combining management, adjustment and output was the way forward. Similarly with Lightroom. And equally, I think I know a turkey when I see one coming.

Of course, I'm not a big Apple fan, and I don't like OS-limited solutions in principle, but it's not just me who is pessimistic about Photos.app. Have you seen this post on the former Aperture Expert site? "Plainly put — I no longer believe that serious Aperture users should expect Photos to replace their photography management and editing needs. I am now recommending that advanced and professional users begin to explore other options."

Geez John ... I don't think I ever advised anyone to rely upon Photos ... for any purpose. While the concept of Aperture and Lightroom workflow potential seemed very obvious to you early on ... you are also well aware that even today, after a decade of development, some users have difficulty in embracing that potential.

Of course Photos v1 is not going to be any kind of solution to replace Aperture or compete with Lr in any significant way in the near future. Heck, the first version will likely disappoint many advanced iPhoto users.

Everyone seems to have an unceasing desire to be among the throngs jumping on the band wagon to deride Photos and toss it in the bin before it has actually ever been released in a finished form. Before they have actually used the app. I doubt the engineers crunching the code today actually know with any certainty what the app will offer in the coming months or year or so.

All I am saying is I see merit in the concept and am keeping an open mind while I follow it's progress. The same as I had hopes for the Lr modular concept. Eventually, I'm hoping a serious developer will finally get it right. There certainly is no harm in that.

I may eventually concur with your assumptions at some point in the future. However,  I'm going to keep an open mind about the Photos app and reserve judgement about that potential until I have actually used at least one slider in the app.

If some folks take issue with that ... well .........

[BobShaw]

If Aperture does die without a suitable replacement then I won't be going to Lightroom, even though I have it. The interface is horrible compared to Aperture. Capture One is much better and also has a migration tool.

[Lundberg02]

If the last three OS are any indication, Photos will be heavily oriented to iOS for iPhone and iPad. Apple doesn't give a s--- about desktop anymore. I'm so irritated with Mavericks I could go with Linux if I could understand any of it.

[pluton]

...then I won't be going to Lightroom, even though I have it. The interface is horrible compared to Aperture. Capture One is much better and also has a migration tool.

Oh no, you're incorrect:  The Aperture interface is horrible, and Capture One's only real function is to be the the thing that studio pros have around for the clients to watch during shooting. 
Just kidding...I actually feel that the interface is merely annoying.

As a Lightroom user from the beginning(Aperture wouldn't work on my PowerPC-equipped Mac at the time), there was one very nice thing about Aperture:  It ran fast on Macs.
The 36MP raw file preview generation that takes Lightroom 16 seconds on my computer takes four or five seconds in Aperture.

[BobShaw]

Oh no, you're incorrect:  The Aperture interface is horrible, and Capture One's only real function is to be the the thing that studio pros have around for the clients to watch during shooting. 
Just kidding...I actually feel that the interface is merely annoying.

As a Lightroom user from the beginning(Aperture wouldn't work on my PowerPC-equipped Mac at the time), there was one very nice thing about Aperture:  It ran fast on Macs.
The 36MP raw file preview generation that takes Lightroom 16 seconds on my computer takes four or five seconds in Aperture.

Interesting that you don't like the Aperture interface though you say it is 4 times faster. That is probably because the raw conversion is done in the operating system and not dependant on Adobe. Anyway, my opinion is my opinion and if you have one then you probably just need to say yours. Phase One users would be interested in your comment on CaptureOne. If CaptureOne is only used by pros in studios to make real money then that is what I want to do. Cheers.