Lightroom Beta 2 vs. Aperture 1.1

[adamlozo]

How are these two applications progressing? When Aperture was first

released it was panned by the photographic community with the major

reason being that the raw conversion produced marginal results. Apple

released a fix/upgrade but I've heard no feedback on the quality of

this fix.

 

Also, with Adobe feverently working on Lightroom, now in a beta2

release I wanted to get a sense of how well these two applications

stack up against each other.

 

If you're in the know, let us in.

[basscheffers]

I tried lightroom and gave up for it being rediculously slow and having a crappy interface.

 

But Lightroom is public beta so you can download and try it yourself. Similarly there are loads

of "evaluation versions" of Aperture floating about on the internet.

 

The best judge is you...

[godfrey]

I haven't played with Aperture very much because it doesn't support most of my cameras'

RAW files (Pentax DS PEF format, or DNGs created from them).

 

I have been exercising Lightroom beta 2. It works fine with all my RAW format files (Canon,

Olympus, Sony, Pentax, Panasonic, Konica Minolta native RAW files and DNG conversions

of them). The Beta 2 version proves fast enough on a PowerMac G5DP 2Ghz with 3G of

RAM to be useful. It does somethings very nicely and others not ... for instance, if I need to

change the IPC copyright metadata in 40 files to be the same, I haven't found a way to

select the group of files and apply the change to all of them at once yet. And I've found it

mostly irrelevant to working with TIFF and JPEG files. I wish it worked a little more like

Bridge does in terms of how it integrates with Photoshop for workflow automation.

 

On that basis, I haven't found any great advantage to using it as yet. What I'd really like is

Bridge with the cataloging and search functionality of iView MediaPro... ;-)

 

Godfrey

[rwbowman]

Read the forums:

 

http://labs.macromedia.com/technologies/lightroom/