Apple Aperture vs Lightroom

[Brad_]

>>> I guess some people haven't noticed, but graphics/imaging is Apple's core business.<P>

 

<a href= "http://cdn.macrumors.com/article-new/2013/07/apple.png">Really, their core business?</a> I would guess a lot of

people haven't noticed.

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>I had forgot, somehow, how very sensitive LR users are about the faintest hint to the contrary.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

No, you just don't understand that LR can be a very good editor.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"Will you be happy if I stipulate that LR is perfect and will do everything? I had forgot, somehow, how very sensitive LR users are about the faintest hint to the contrary."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I had to laugh because that was the impression I got from reading the Adobe forums. Whenever I had a question about Lightroom (this was back around version 3 and earlier) and couldn't find the answer on photo.net, I'd Google around the Adobe forums. Often whenever someone else asked the same question I had, the reply from the Adobe gurus would be something along the lines of "Welllll, if you don't already know the answer, or can't phrase your question in a way that piques our interest, you're obviously not the sort of chap we want using our product. Perhaps you should scurry along and download a copy of Picasa or Microsoft Paint. There's a nice caveman. Buh-bye."<br>

<br>

The overall attitude of condescension was such a turn off I avoided Adobe products for years.<br>

<br>

But I haven't gotten that impression from LR users on photo.net. We've had our share of lengthy spats over certain issues, notably To-DNG-or-not-to-DNG. But usually when I've encountered a problem that I couldn't find the answer for elsewhere someone on photo.net would chip in suggestions without the haughtiness I saw on the Adobe forums.</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>In terms of non-destructive editing, you need to learn about layers and history in PS. Besides, who would edit the <em>original</em> file (your digital negative), which should be a RAW file anyhow?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The use of PS layers is not <em>really</em> Non Destructive Editing, certainly not to the degree found within a Lightroom/ACR workflow. Yes, Photoshop with layers and such is a ND editor <strong>if</strong> your idea is not affecting the original data (of which a <em>Save As</em> would apply too). The layers <strong>do</strong> affect the data at some point, like printing the file! You can go back and re-edit, but this is fundamentally different from parametric (instruction based or PIE) editing as seen in Lightroom and most other raw converters. The original data too is untouched. Adobe treats raw as read only. But the instructions are never burned into pixels until you render, there is <strong>J</strong>ust <strong>I</strong>n <strong>T</strong>ime rendering unlike Photoshop which has to open the entire image and suck it into memory just for you to view it. With PIE there's unlimited history no matter how often you quit the app. You are building edits, not editing pixels until JIT export after which new, virgin pixels are <strong>created</strong> from the raw data. Nothing like rendered pixels on a layer. Think old school, Live Picture not older school Photoshop which from day one was a one image at a time pixel editor. Different tools. Different data being used. Differences in what really is a non destructive workflow. <br>

So, in terms of non-destructive editing, you really need to learn about PIE: <br>

http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/non_destructive_imaging.pdf<br>

http://dpbestflow.org/image-editing/parametric-image-editing<br>

</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

To answer Scot's question about how people are organizing photos with Lightroom?

 

I refer you to

http://thedambook.com/organizing-your-photos-with-lightroom-5/

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>You can go back and re-edit, but this is fundamentally different from parametric (instruction based or PIE) editing as seen in Lightroom and most other raw converters.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Can you go back and re-edit the original RAW data with for example, a different WB or better control of highlights? I can't see a way to make a bunch of edits in PS, save it, with or without layers, and then change the original RAW data. That can be done with LR.</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>Can you go back and re-edit the original RAW data with for example, a different WB or better control of highlights?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You are not editing the original raw data at all. You're editing (creating) instructions. As I said, the raw is read only. Yes, you can render as many different editing schema's you wish. You are just creating another set of instructions. Virtual Copies (and Proof Copies) are 'copies' without any additional kind of space you'd need in say Photoshop. There you would have to either save a new document with the different edits on disk or add more adjustment layers which make the file larger and make managing the versions rather difficult. Like a playlist in iTunes, where you have one music file and lots of different lists, in LR you can have one raw and 1000 iterations and the iterations are tiny, they are just text!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I can't see a way to make a bunch of edits in PS, save it, with or without layers, and then change the original RAW data.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In PS, the raw too is untouched. ACR and LR operate the same way. In ACR you don't have means of handling Virtual Copies but you could build 1000 sets of instructions and (here's the catch) render 1000 images to disk. Just to print them! Where in LR, you could print 1000 images from one raw and 1000 sets of 'text files'. Pretty cool, not your father's Photoshop. </p>

[scot_r._brown]

Tried Lightroom some this weekend again... ergh, why does it get under my skin? Not sure. Outcome was very nice image-wise, but it

just saps me for some unknown reason to use it (and it was sluggish, it seemed). I love the benefits of digital but I sure do miss a

boombox and a red-lit darkroom late at night. (Sigh)

 

I wish Apple hadn't killed the demo for Aperture; dropping 79 bucks to test a program is crazy.

[ellis_vener_photography]

It irritates you because you don't understand it, and honestly the only way to learn and and embrace its strength is to dive

in and stay with it, develop your " muscle memory"

 

If it seems sluggish that has to do with how your machine is set up and how you utilize its resources. Also I don't know

anyone who is sane who enjoys sitting in front of a computer for long periods of time.

 

No one is forcing you to use a digital camera, even some commercial photographers still prefer working with film

[Spearhead]

<p>Andrew, I use and understand LR. My comment was about PS being similar that someone else made. I don't see how you can go back and alter WB in layered PSD or TIFF in Photoshop. This is what I always assumed "non-destructive" meant. In LR, I sometimes change WB after I do a number of other adjustments.</p>

[scot_r._brown]

Ah, Ellis... you are right. Sorry. It must be that I am at fault for my perception of my own emotional and cognitive

response to using the program. And I must "not understand it" sufficiently. I must have completely forgotten everything I

learned while working as a photo editor and photographer for several years, using Adobe products the entire time.

 

My Mac must be completely trashed by my diligent daily routine of cleaning and organizing folders, checking utilization of

system resources, and fanatical management of installed programs. I must know absolutely nothing about computers

(how am I even managing to put these letter together on this lit paper thingy in front of me?!?), because Adobe could

NEVER make a bloated slow program!

 

And I must have forgotten I have the choice to go use film! I'll go get a second mortgage to buy a few rolls and renovate

my basement to use my old darkroom equipment.

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>I don't see how you can go back and alter WB in layered PSD or TIFF in Photoshop.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not anywhere to the degree (and speed) of doing it in raw. Some would suggest <em>anything</em> can be done in Photoshop. But the raw file is for all practical purpose a grayscale file, WB is a vastly different process when rendering the image from that data compared to trying to alter a baked appearance. It's not all instructions, a lot of it is the data source one starts with. With raw you have far more flexibility globally but less locally (where a true pixel editor is necessary). </p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

Thank you for the courtesy of a reply. Since we don't actually know each other I had no idea of your background , skills or

intent. Had I, I wouldn't have written my last post. My apologies for inadvertently and unintentionally offending you.

[scot_r._brown]

<p>Sorry for the snippy response, Ellis. No offense meant or taken... it was a bit of that kind of day and I lashed out a bit myself for no real tangible reason. Apologies... :(<br>

I appreciate your comments and glad you took the time to check out the post and respond. It doesn't help when someone gets grumpy.<br>

Cheers!</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Touchy aren't they?</p>

 

[Uhooru]

<p>I've used both aperture and LR. They are both good, but I think LR has surpassed Aperture at this point. The other thing, even though there is no danger of Apple going out of business, and I do think they will maintain Aperture, I don't see the emphasis that LR has on developing. Also, I think even though there is always a danger of up-ticking of the price in Adobe products, I do like the delivery model of LR and getting the upgrades as they are developed and I think the processing in LR is a bit better than Aperture and has caught up to Capture One. <br>

Also, with Apple, there is always that possibility they will make a major re-design with no warning and you will be SOL in terms of your work flow.<br>

Final Cut ProX is a great example. It flipped out a lot of people making a living with it when they brought out the new version that lacked many features they needed to keep working and decided to no longer support the last version before it after users had large investments in equipment to run it. it was not pretty and Apple had to do some real dancing including re-supporting the older version and urging patience to users to keep and use the older program while they were developing features for the new version. Its better now, but it really threw users. That's always a concern with certain things Apple does. Don't get me wrong, all my home computers are Apple, but they do decide to move in a certain direction and it can be disruptive, even thought it is usually the way to go in the long run.</p>

[fravin]

<p>In the early digital days, the solutions were quite simple. Aperture was launched in a time when the other solutions only converted files where it were. I remember the launching adds telling me that working with a unique catalog was possible using photo books, album, digital light tables...<br>

Then Capture One raised as a big deal, giving some lost details.<br>

Adobe launched LR, Dxo appeared...</p>

<p>And I still waiting for the perfect solution, but I'm sure that it will never come. </p>

[steven_quan]

<p>Agree with your assessment. To me, Lightroom appears ugly and clunky to me. I have been comparing photos I edited with both softwares with some recent photos of Lupines (flowers). I have also been looking at comparison photos between the 2 using the exact same tools for editing on different websites. Most of the time I find myself preferring photos from Aperture using a blind test.</p>

<p>The comments about future support make no sense. Apple isn't going out of business anytime soon. Comments about Lightroom "surpassing" Aperture sound exactly like the comments that say Samsung's Galaxy S5 have "surpassed" the iPhone 5S. I find Aperture to be much more user friendly and useable compared with Lightroom which feels like working in a prison to me. The sliders are small in Aperture, but compared with Lightroom they feel huge. The saving grace here is you can input your own value in Lightroom which I wind up doing.</p>

<p>To me it's about user friendliness and output. I find myself enjoying using Aperture and find the results to be more pleasing to my eyes. That's the bottom line for me. No better way to find out which product is for you than to try both. There's a free trial for both Aperture and Lightroom if I'm not mistaken. Let your own eyes be the judge.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>The comments about future support make no sense.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />Guess you didn't follow the Final Cut Pro disaster. Apple is a device company.<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p> </p>

</blockquote>

[Spearhead]

<p>Well what do you know, obviously the comments about lack of future support were right.</p>

<p><a href="/digital-darkroom-forum/">Link</a></p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I guess some people haven't noticed, but graphics/imaging is Apple's core business.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

If you think iPhoto is a core business product, sure.</p>