Is Lightroom Inevitable for Aperture Users?

[James R]

So why did Apple drop Aperture?  My guess is it never could compete with LR and Apple decided to give up the effort.  Aperture was never going to be profitable.  I used C1 from the beginning, but gave it up after V4.  LR is a fine app used by most wedding pros because it is quick, stable, and properly supported by Adobe--unlike Apple's support of Aperture.  It also has numerous third party plugin apps.  Personally, I like the speed I can cull through 1000's of images. 

C1 was a very unstable application from V4 on and still has some odd quirks.  Better in some ways to LR and lacking in others.  IMO these are the only 2 viable options.  Of course you can do it all in PS and Bridge, but it is a more expensive option, though a more full featured app. 

[BobShaw]

It always makes me laugh when people worry about Apple's profitability and guess about reasons why they do things. Apple does not need to make a profit on each part because they own the whole.
Comparing version 4 to version 8 is a wild comparison. Lightroom early versions were pretty bad too. Photoshop and Lightroom have completely different purposes.

Yes Lightroom is a viable option for Aperture users (if they need to migrate), it's just not mine.

[ButchM]

... and properly supported by Adobe--unlike Apple's support of Aperture.  It also has numerous third party plugin apps.  Personally, I like the speed I can cull through 1000's of images.

As someone who actually does use Aperture and Lightroom ... not in theory or the distant past ... and at the risk of using bad grammar ... you couldn't be more wrong.

If you had ever had the need to shoot tethered with Lightroom, especially with a new(er) camera model ... if you ever had to create a book/album with and send it to your favorite printer Aperture not only does that, but you can get plugins for many of the world's high end album printers and binders. If you ever have the need to create a true custom multi-media slideshow with timeline type control using multiple audio, image and video sources ... working directly with your RAW images ... you wouldn't be using Lightroom.  ... you would soon discover just how properly supported Lightroom is.

Adobe drags their feet about 4-6 months behind Apple in offering tethered support. Apple adds support for tethering usually on the same day they offer RAW support for new cameras ... The Slideshow module in Lightroom is a crude, lame attempt at only wastes your time as compared to the feature set Aperture offers for slideshows. Not to mention the Lightroom for anyone who wishes to print a book/album with anyone other than Blurb, the module is nothing more than a cruel joke.

Plugins? Most third party image processing plugins from the likes of Nik/Google, onOne and Topaz work with Aperture.

Speed? Guess you have never had to work on deadline for publication where you literally only have minutes to an hour to speed through several hundred to several thousand images. In this respect, Lightroom can't hold a candle to Aperture. Lr has never been speedy compared to several other options ... just ask any photojournalist/sportshooter why they have adopted Photo Mechanic (an additional $150 investment) to work the front end of their workflow. Aperture is even faster than PM in some respects plus offers many more options.

While it is true Apple dropped Aperture, and  we can all speculate as to the reasons why ... Let's at least be honest with our assessments of the true capabilities of Aperture and not base those assessments on fictitious and false conjecture.

[jjj]

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.

After hundreds of years some people still cannot dance in time to music. Should we alter music to suit them?  
Many people struggle with software because they have not been shown how to use it correctly and even then some folks will struggle just as others do with dancing. All of us are rubbish at something, for some that is using software.

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.

A photo organising programme that doesn't even have star rating, deserves utter contempt for that along. No bandwagons are needed to hitch to.
Typical Apple attempting to simplify things by reducing options/capabilities which instead makes the product simplistic and actually harder to use.

[jjj]

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.

As John has said, integrated, not monolithic. Also if you seem to be confusing Apple and Adobe. Apple is very much the epitome of one size fits all. Take Apple's  'Photos' Vs Adobe's Photoshop/Photoshop Elements/Lightroom/Bridge.

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.

Name me a programme that is, please.

Even though it is capable of "coherent" workflow ... that workflow is limited to the specific capabilities of the app ... almost forced upon the user.

Like every single programme ever written.

If a user desires to utilize an alternate solution they still face a "confusing and amorphous" alternative.

Eh?

[ButchM]

A photo organising programme that doesn't even have star rating, deserves utter contempt for that along.

I can agree with that assumption ... to a point. So far though, Photos is only in it's very first developer beta version. Could you point to a definitive and absolute reference that Photos will never have such an option to that Apple will refuse to add such capability in later versions?

It's very easy and actually effortless to formulate an opinion based upon incomplete information. How easy we forget some of the very same comments were offered up in the early days of discussion for auto exposure, auto focus, DSLR cameras ... and even Lightroom. None of which were really as productive, reliable or universally accepted as they are today.

[ButchM]

As John has said, integrated, not monolithic. Also if you seem to be confusing Apple and Adobe. Apple is very much the epitome of one size fits all. Take Apple's  'Photos' Vs Adobe's Photoshop/Photoshop Elements/Lightroom/Bridge.
 Name me a programme that is, please.
 Like every single programme ever written.
 Eh?

So ... I take it you are extremely bored today ... 

[jjj]

I can agree with that assumption ... to a point. So far though, Photos is only in it's very first developer beta version. Could you point to a definitive and absolute reference that Photos will never have such an option to that Apple will refuse to add such capability in later versions?

Apple use add basic things in about version 10 or 11, so I can give them the benefit of the doubt in one sense.

It's very easy and actually effortless to formulate an opinion based upon incomplete information. How easy we forget some of the very same comments were offered up in the early days of discussion for auto exposure, auto focus, DSLR cameras ... and even Lightroom. None of which were really as productive, reliable or universally accepted as they are today.

To miss out such a standard thing as star ratings at this stage is very, very different to early stages of completely new ideas. So your analogy is not exactly valid.

[jjj]

So ... I take it you are extremely bored today ... 

No. But I take it you have no rebuttal to my points though.

[James R]

It always makes me laugh when people worry about Apple's profitability and guess about reasons why they do things. Apple does not need to make a profit on each part because they own the whole.
Comparing version 4 to version 8 is a wild comparison. Lightroom early versions were pretty bad too. Photoshop and Lightroom have completely different purposes.

Yes Lightroom is a viable option for Aperture users (if they need to migrate), it's just not mine.

1. I never expressed worry about Apple's profitability.  2. A guess or opinion is what drives conversations on these these boards.  3. Apple's OS and the free apps are part of the whole.  Aperture is a separate software program and Apple has decided that supporting this program is no longer worth the resources.  A common occurrence in the software world.  4. I never compared of C1 V4 to V8, I only stated that I moved away from C1 after V4 because it became very buggy (an opinion shared by many).  LR like all successful programs continually improves, as did Aperture.  LR and PS have different purposes; however, I state it is an option because you can do everything in PS that you can do in LR.  Camera Raw is the engine that drives both PS and LR, the programs just give you a different UI. 

[ButchM]

So your analogy is not exactly valid.

Wasn't aware you were appointed to deem what is valid ...

My observations and opinions are no more or less valid than your own ...

[ButchM]

No. But I take it you have no rebuttal to my points though.

I don't feel compelled to rebut your points ... after all, who am I to question such a superior intellect? 

[jjj]

 

I don't feel compelled to rebut your points ... after all, who am I to question such a superior intellect? 

Patronising behaviour like this and in prior posts above only makes you look ignorant and avoiding answering questions with that sort of attitude tends to indicate you simply have no answer at all.

[ButchM]

Patronising behaviour like this and in prior posts above only makes you look ignorant and avoiding answering questions with that sort of attitude tends to indicate you simply have no answer at all.

Possibly ... I may be ignorant when it comes to the historical prospect of dance as it applies to human behavior ... or growing weary wait5ing for Apple to offer basic features 10-11 versions out ... though,  since you seem to have all the answers ... we seem to be covered 

I'll just allow you to proclaim your superiority while I cower in the corner in shame ... Oh if I were only worthy to share the same planet with such greatness ....

[jjj]

Possibly ... I may be ignorant when it comes to the historical prospect of dance as it applies to human behavior ... or growing weary wait5ing for Apple to offer basic features 10-11 versions out ... though,  since you seem to have all the answers ... we seem to be covered 

I'll just allow you to proclaim your superiority while I cower in the corner in shame ... Oh if I were only worthy to share the same planet with such greatness ....

Sticking with being a tosser rather than debating politely I see.

[ButchM]

Sticking with being a tosser rather than debating politely I see.

I don't really see the need to debate. If you are seeking competition to fulfill some sense of accomplishment, you picked the wrong bear to poke. Because in the end, I don't really care what you think or if others may perceive someone has won the argument. I can think for myself. I've been self employed in the field of photography for over 40 years now. Debating on the internet is not going to enhance my life or my livelihood ...

I use both Aperture and Lightroom. I have been using Lightroom since the first day the very first public beta for v1 was offered .... I later adopted Aperture when the price was reduced to utilize it to fulfill my workflow for books/albums and multi-media slideshows I produced for my clients. I soon discovered it was not the totally inferior product so many would have had me believe it was. In the areas of books and slideshows, Aperture offered (and still does) quite superior capabilities over Lightroom. While I am disappointed Apple has dropped development of Aperture, I don't have an issue with using Lightroom as my primary option ... since I now can rely on other software and have adjusted my products and services for the current millennium and the evolving desires of my clients.

The market for printed books/albums has tapered off and I am now doing much more video production. I have gone to offering more options for multi-media montages and less printed tomes. I now use Final Cut Pro X much more to complete my daily tasks.

It is primarily my experience with FCP X and how it has evolved from a less than appealing introduction into a very formidable, streamlined, user friendly and widely capable tool ... I am willing to give Apple and the prospect of the Photos app (with a keen eye on the foundation of extensibility) some time to see if this new concept can offer potential ... even for advanced users.

Somehow, mentioning that I am willing to reserve judgement until an actual product is released and actually put the released version through the paces in real world use is an offensive concept to some. It seems as though some folks feel compelled to point out that the world as we know it will suffer unless I come to my senses and accept an opinion of the status quo which is based upon incomplete information and conjecture.

There really is nothing to debate. Comparisons to dance, human behavior over centuries and personal animus toward certain developers does not move the discussion forward. It just becomes a game on the internet to drive popcorn sales.

I am waiting until I actually use the Photos app for OS X before I make any decisions as to it's worth. Just as I have always done with any software I now use and rely upon to perform my daily tasks. Which I am sure saddens some.

Of course you are free to pick as many nits as you wish so as to demonstrate your sense of superiority on the matter in an effort to win a contest you seem so keen on perpetuating.

[jjj]

You seem to be arguing generally against everyone on the thread who has a different opinion to yourself and aiming all that at me.
If you have no interest in debate or what others think, do not understand analogy and prefer to be insulting rather than conversational why bother cluttering up the forum?

[ButchM]

You seem to be arguing generally against everyone on the thread who has a different opinion to yourself and aiming all that at me.
If you have no interest in debate or what others think, do not understand analogy and prefer to be insulting rather than conversational why bother cluttering up the forum?

Aiming at you? Surely it's a bit late in the day to adopt the "woe is me" defense.

I'm not arguing with anyone. In the end, I may come to the same conclusion as you and everyone involved. What you may desire to evaluate is, why does it bother you so, that I choose to reserve my conclusion until I can fully evaluate a delivered product? Why do you feel compelled to extend the debate now ... before all the facts are actually revealed?

I would think anyone who uses the tag line "Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless." would support thinking outside the box and not accepting the status quo, sight unseen.

[jjj]

Assumption must be your stock in trade. Not playing any 'woe is me card', I was simply describing your post and I certainly am not accepting any status quo sight unseen. I can make my own mind up thank you.

However thinking something as simplistic as Photos has been revealed to be so far will morph into a pro caliber piece of software is simply naive. They are a phone company now and have been for many years. Apple as the provider of kit for graphics professionals is a bit last century. Not to mention that anyone contemplating using any Apple software as an essential part of their business is a bit of an idiot in my view. Ever heard the expression - "Past performance is the best predictor of future behavior" ? Apple will drop any product at any time if it suits their bottom line, no matter the harm to long term users of said product. I avoid the use of anything Apple wherever I can for that very reason, the alternatives are usually better anyway. The only thing I cannot avoid is the extremely clunky iTunes as everything else is dependent on it.
MS for all their faults at least understand that businesses need support for legacy products and do not just cater to this year's fashion or force people to upgrade via a computer that is fractionally smaller because all the insides are now literally outside the box.

It's getting time to replace my desk+laptop and am now seriously wondering about switching to Windows.

[James R]

...understand that businesses need support for legacy products and do not just cater to this year's fashion or force people to upgrade via a computer that is fractionally smaller because all the insides are now literally outside the box.

Not wanting to get in between you and Butch, but I find you comment interesting.  I liked MS for its support of software, which prevented users from needing to update software.  However, in 2007, my opinion changed and I moved to Apple.  IMO, MS support of legacy software required the creation of a bloated OS that hampered performance and continued to created security risks.  I like that Apple keeps its OS clean and doesn't try to be everything to everybody.  Personally, I keep my software updated, but understand that others might not be able to afford this policy. 

What does bother me is Apple not working with Wacom (per the Wacom rep) to make its OS usable on the Wacom Companion or Cintiq.  But that just me being me.