Skip navigation
This discussion is archived

Every time I think I will switch to Lightroom...

7955 Views 55 Replies Latest reply: Jan 23, 2008 7:55 PM by David Schloss RSS
  • Tom Aellis Level 2 Level 2 (205 points)
    bob, so true. Now that' I've made the full migration to the other product I will not go back, no matter how good they say it is. That was $299 down the drain and I'll be a lot more cautious before I buy another professional app from our friends.
    Good Luck.
    Mac OS X (10.4.9), AE 802.11n -Few ATV's
  • David Schloss Calculating status...
    bob.tullis wrote:
    Seems like the biggest issue with Aperture is the lack of any development/release news to keep folks on the fence waiting. It would go a long way if there were news for which folks could pace their anticipations.


    Of course Adobe isn't announcing their 2.0 development schedule either. There's no official posting on their site about when to expect a LR 2.0 and what it would hold.
    Mac OS X (10.5.1), Aperture Users Professional Network: Apertureprofessional.com
  • Tom Aellis Level 2 Level 2 (205 points)
    ya, but we all know that they know of these problems so you would think they would want to hold onto their embedded base especally when going after the big boys.

    I'll tell you, now with the other product, I'm really happy as they re did their library into a "catalog" system. Now I can export indiv. "catalogs" into a seperate drive along with the catalog "launcher" and import it back whenever I want thus taking a heck of a lot of resources off the products core system and I can see the difference. I think they now have a pretty big league. I can hardly wait to see what they do in ver. 2. But I'm never going back to AP.
    Mac OS X (10.4.9), AE 802.11n -Few ATV's
  • bob.tullis Calculating status...
    Fair enough.

    I remember when they did keep folks baited, but that must have been before the official release.

    (Maybe the response should have been, "What's LR?" [g]).
    iMac 24", mini's, Mac OS X (10.4.9)
  • Tom Aellis Level 2 Level 2 (205 points)
    Mac OS X (10.4.9), AE 802.11n -Few ATV's
  • David Schloss Level 1 Level 1 (65 points)
    Yeah there was a time. It was the fifteen months between when they announced LR and when they shipped 1.0. The program was in "public beta" from about 2 weeks after AP shipped until their 1.0.

    Not saying I don't want more transparency in companies. I've spent a lot of time around Apple (as a journalist before my current user-organization days) and it's often frustrating to run into the "we can't talk about that" wall. But Apple's not the only one that does it. Adobe does too, and I think they're against a harder wall. Every copy of LR they sell is one potentially fewer sales of Photoshop. But every Mac copy of LIghtroom sold is a potential hardware sale for Apple.

    I just wanted to point out that Adobe doesn't post their release schedule either, they're just faster with raw support.
    Mac OS X (10.5.1), Aperture Users Professional Network: Apertureprofessional.com
  • David Schloss Level 1 Level 1 (65 points)
    Tom Aellis wrote:
    http://www.google.com/trends?q=AdobeLightroom%2C+AppleAperture


    Hmm, an awful lot of Czech Republic traffic on that trend. I'm not sure exactly what that says. The Czech like Lightroom?
    Mac OS X (10.5.1), Aperture Users Professional Network: Apertureprofessional.com
  • Macino Photo Calculating status...
    I don't think that they are losing that many Photoshop sales, like AP, LR is really a complementary product and not a replacement by any means to Photoshop. I think people are getting that now. There are still a ton of photographers who don't use AP or LR, they just use ACR because they are familiar with it. Then, of those that do use AP or LR, they still use PS for heavy editing. IMO...AP, LR, and PS all have definite strengths and weaknesses that appear fairly balanced to me, if AP and LR were apples and PS was an orange.

    I would expect a LR 2.0 pretty soon. They were on the record explaining why LR was not part of the Creative Suite. They explaination was that the CS product line is on an 18 month development schedule, and that they rate of technology change requires LR to be more agile and accomodate a compressed dev schedule.
    MacBook Pro 2.16 and Dual G5, Mac OS X (10.4.8), Dual 23" Cinema Display HDs
  • Wm Y Level 1 Level 1 (0 points)
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 10, 2008 4:11 PM (in response to sailor)
    I agree with all that's been said. You're right neither Adobe or Apple offer news about their updates. The key disatisfier for me is Adobe supports my new camera and Aperture doesn't. I have enjoyed Aperture and regret that I am forced to use LR/PS CS3. I just don't get how Apple let's Adobe beat them out like this.
    MacBook Pro, Mac OS X (10.5.1)
  • David Schloss Level 1 Level 1 (65 points)
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 10, 2008 5:43 PM (in response to Wm Y)
    The only thing Adobe's doing is getting raw support into the program faster. But they also don't mind releasing a raw converter that gets tweaked later via updates to Adobe Camera Raw, while Apple wants to get the camera raw support right the first time.

    Which of course raises some interesting issues about LR. Open a raw file today and open it a year from now, and they might look completely different, without the ability to do anything about that.
    Mac OS X (10.5.1), Aperture Users Professional Network: Apertureprofessional.com
  • Scott Hampton Level 2 Level 2 (265 points)
    Whoa!

    Never thought of that before...

    Anyway, is that why Apple did what it did with the RAW processing? You know, giving us the toggle switch to use the old RAW converter or the new RAW converter?
    Scott
    iMac Intel Core Duo, Mac OS X (10.4.11)
  • DP Roberts Level 1 Level 1 (120 points)
    Scott Hampton wrote:
    Whoa!

    Never thought of that before...

    Anyway, is that why Apple did what it did with the RAW processing? You know, giving us the toggle switch to use the old RAW converter or the new RAW converter?
    Scott



    I still remember the vitriol expressed at Aperture because people didn't know how Apple would deal with updates to the RAW converter. What would happen when improvements were made to the engine but the photographer had carefully made adjustments on the old one? Apple did this one right. Did Adobe?

    There's more that Apple did right, took heat for, and then became accepted when Lightroom was stuck with the same limitations or features. For example. Anyone else remember the heat over Apertures managed library? After the Lightroom Beta got people interested in Lightroom because it wasn't forcing users into a Library, Apple adapted and gave you the option of storing your originals wherever you want. Good, I suppose, if you like that sort of thing...however, Adobe then implemented a similar managed library and even recommended it. Again, I think Apple got it right. There's pro's and con's to each method. I keep reading about users who were camped in their own folders who eventually tried the managed library--and won't look back.
    G5 Quad w/7800, 6GB, Mac OS X (10.4.10)
  • Scott Hampton Level 2 Level 2 (265 points)
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 10, 2008 7:39 PM (in response to DP Roberts)
    Oh, boy. The managed library!

    I went to an Aperture seminar at B&H and everyone was boo-hooing about the managed library. They didn't want their originals locked in there. Well and good. That's their legitimate concern.

    Me? There's no way I as gonna keep putting CDs, DVD, and hard drives in and out when I needed a shot. Not me, baby. I accepted the managed library from the moment I got Aperture. Can't have it any other way.

    For those who like referenced masters, feel free. No hard feelings...
    Scott
    iMac Intel Core Duo, Mac OS X (10.4.11)
  • David Schloss Level 1 Level 1 (65 points)
    Scott Hampton wrote:


    Anyway, is that why Apple did what it did with the RAW processing? You know, giving us the toggle switch to use the old RAW converter or the new RAW converter?
    Scott


    Why I'm glad you asked. [switches into instructor mode]

    Let's say that you shoot a Pulitzer Prize winning photo (I say "you" because I'm not in danger of shooting one any time soon.) You process it with Aperture 1.5, which uses the "1.1" converter engine.

    Fast forward to the future, and you're asked to send someone that shot. Assume this future is after Aperture has been updated with newer raw processing powers.

    If Apple had not chosen to provide a path to previous conversions, when you went to export your file, it would use a different converter model to create that output. It would use whatever model was part of the current system.

    What you'd end up with is a file that is NOT the original Pulitzer winning shot, but one that's processed using the current tools. While the assumption is that each new version of a processor would add to the ability of the raw file's decoding, even back in film when new developers would come out, people would stock up on the old chemicals so they could produce their images the way they originally seen it.

    Now this might not be a big deal if the raw processing were to add better noise reduction, or more accurate colors, or some such, but if your client's signed off on an image and you can't deliver that image, there are problems.

    One of the cool things about that toggle, and the Migrate Images command is that it allows you to choose to either have Aperture update non-processed images only, or processed-images only (on a per image or per project basis) and to make new versions or not. This allows you to create a side-by-side comparison when a new processing engine comes out, to compare the results.

    As opposed to the model in LR/Bridge/CS3 whereby the converter is tweaked occasionally and you have no way of knowing what rev it was.
    Mac OS X (10.5.1), Aperture Users Professional Network: Apertureprofessional.com
  • David Schloss Level 1 Level 1 (65 points)
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 10, 2008 8:17 PM (in response to DP Roberts)
    After the Lightroom Beta got people interested in Lightroom because it wasn't forcing users into a Library, Apple adapted and gave you the option of storing your originals wherever you want. <<</div>


    Oh, actually Apple adapted way before that, and it wasn't because of Lightroom, it was because of how ballistic photographers went in forums and in person. Even though files aren't locked into the Library (you can head into package contents if you want, and you could export) photographers were very unhappy.

    I was the Tech Editor for PDN at the time, and I think it was about 10 minutes after the launch when I got my first text message from a photographer who wanted me to follow up with Apple about the Library. Personally I went home and moved all my images into Aperture, but I got why people weren't thrilled.

    Apple got it too, they had 1.5 out which required a pretty substantial amount of work to change that behavior.
    Mac OS X (10.5.1), Aperture Users Professional Network: Apertureprofessional.com

Actions

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (0)

Legend

  • This solved my question - 10 points
  • This helped me - 5 points
This site contains user submitted content, comments and opinions and is for informational purposes only. Apple disclaims any and all liability for the acts, omissions and conduct of any third parties in connection with or related to your use of the site. All postings and use of the content on this site are subject to the Apple Support Communities Terms of Use.