Adobe Lightroom 2 now available

[macleon]

uncheck 32bit from Get info

Hi guys,

After downloading the trial version I can tell you it really doesn't show as a 64-bit app. I checked with Activity Monitor and it shows as Intel, not Intel (64-bit), could it be that the trial is not 64-bit?

AJ

In applications select Lightroom right click Get info and uncheck 32bit. Then you'll have a 64bit application.
Although I didn't see any difference in performance, it feels the same.
I have a Mac Pro 2.8 Quad Intel Xeon with 10 Gb of RAM.

 

[Rotary8]

adobe wins again. good job! I'm currently using 1.3 and love it.

 

[OreoCookie]

I also like the vault capabilities of Aperture where as Lightroom requires more user attention to assure safe backups.

To me, both softwares are `equivalent': if I had a preference for Lightroom, I'd cough up the extra $100. But I don't, I don't like Lightroom's user interface or its interface concept (I find modules are very, very much limiting my freedom to work with pictures). I also think that Adobe wastes a lot of screen estate (e. g. why do they show your name on the top left of the main screen, don't I know my own name? I'd rather have my pixels back). To my defense, I don't know Lightroom well, so probably you can get rid of this gimmick. Also, I didn't find a way to use Lightroom acceptably two monitors. All in all, I find Aperture very intuitive to use, I can do it in my sleep (doesn't make my photography any better, though). I dislike some of its limitations (in particular in the book editing mode), but that's another story.

In Lightroom, I like the ability to edit non-destructively in Photoshop, 64 bit support and local brush adjustments. Especially with the latter, Adobe (obviously) has an edge over Apple. Does Lightroom have an open plug-in architecture?

Most these points boil down to (my) personal preference. I think Lightroom is a strong and good competitor which has forced Apple to lower the price of Aperture (yeah!) and implement some features. So a good release by Adobe keeps Apple on its toes and vice versa.

 

[spaz8]

Ya I was curious if this was one of the first OSX 64 bit apps! There aren't many.. 3?

 

[digitalbiker]

To me, both softwares are `equivalent': if I had a preference for Lightroom, I'd cough up the extra $100. But I don't, I don't like Lightroom's user interface or its interface concept (I find modules are very, very much limiting my freedom to work with pictures). I also think that Adobe wastes a lot of screen estate (e. g. why do they show your name on the top left of the main screen, don't I know my own name? I'd rather have my pixels back). To my defense, I don't know Lightroom well, so probably you can get rid of this gimmick. Also, I didn't find a way to use Lightroom acceptably two monitors. All in all, I find Aperture very intuitive to use, I can do it in my sleep (doesn't make my photography any better, though). I dislike some of its limitations (in particular in the book editing mode), but that's another story.

In Lightroom, I like the ability to edit non-destructively in Photoshop, 64 bit support and local brush adjustments. Especially with the latter, Adobe (obviously) has an edge over Apple. Does Lightroom have an open plug-in architecture?

Most these points boil down to (my) personal preference. I think Lightroom is a strong and good competitor which has forced Apple to lower the price of Aperture (yeah!) and implement some features. So a good release by Adobe keeps Apple on its toes and vice versa.

Lightroon 2 added support for dual monitors. It also allows you to customize the GUI so that you can get rid of the worthless elements like your name, etc.

As far as I know LR does not support plug-ins yet which seems to be a disadvantage to Aperture. Probably Adobe wants you to export to Photoshop and use plug-ins there.

It will be interesting to see where Apple and Adobe go from here.

 

[Westside guy]

As far as I know LR does not support plug-ins yet which seems to be a disadvantage to Aperture. Probably Adobe wants you to export to Photoshop and use plug-ins there.

I was listening to Derrick Story interview two of Adobe's main Lightroom team members just this morning. They stated they don't want to support plugins until they have a way to let developers hook into the non-destructive workflow (contrasting with how Aperture does it). But yeah, it sounds like they have LR2 hooked into Photoshop pretty heavily.

It sounds to me like Adobe knows the ability to use plugins with Aperture is a big deal - but maybe that's just me reading too much between the lines.

I still need to decide which V2 app I want to go with, since the edu price is the same for both. Lightroom does have the advantage of already providing preliminary support for the D700. I want to see just how long it takes Apple to update...

 

[Johnchapin]

Paintshop

As an old (grouchy and not keen on learning new software without a very good reason) PC user with a $70 copy of Paintshop, I still keep the old machine with a decent display and a graphics tablet to edit photos.

Just glancing at the Lightroom 2 features, it looks awfully lame compared to Paintshop except for the library features. Not only lame, but with the usual outrageous Adobe pricing. For that price, I hope at least they got the user interface right.

Still hoping for Paintshop to come to the Mac, but with Corel in charge, I'm not holding my breath.

I still don't get it. Apple's strong suit was graphics. What happened?

 

[digitalbiker]

I was listening to Derrick Story interview two of Adobe's main Lightroom team members just this morning. They stated they don't want to support plugins until they have a way to let developers hook into the non-destructive workflow (contrasting with how Aperture does it). But yeah, it sounds like they have LR2 hooked into Photoshop pretty heavily.

It sounds to me like Adobe knows the ability to use plugins with Aperture is a big deal - but maybe that's just me reading too much between the lines.

I still need to decide which V2 app I want to go with, since the edu price is the same for both. Lightroom does have the advantage of already providing preliminary support for the D700. I want to see just how long it takes Apple to update...

When I bought my Canon Rebel XTS, Aperture and iphoto were unable to support the camera raw for a little over 2 months until Apple updated raw support.

Lightroom was able to use the raw format for my camera from the start and I was able to get raw files through Adobe's camera raw.

I was able to convert the raw to DNG and get it into Aperture 2 but I was glad when Apple added native support for my Canon.

 

[digitalbiker]

As an old (grouchy and not keen on learning new software without a very good reason) PC user with a $70 copy of Paintshop, I still keep the old machine with a decent display and a graphics tablet to edit photos.

Just glancing at the Lightroom 2 features, it looks awfully lame compared to Paintshop except for the library features. Not only lame, but with the usual outrageous Adobe pricing. For that price, I hope at least they got the user interface right.

Still hoping for Paintshop to come to the Mac, but with Corel in charge, I'm not holding my breath.

I still don't get it. Apple's strong suit was graphics. What happened?

Paintshop and Lightroom are completely different types of software designed to do different things.

Paintshop is a bitmapped pixel editor similar to a simplified photoshop, while Lightroom is a non-destructive image manipulator like Aperture. Lightroom is aimed at the more professional photographer who has thousands of raw photo files which are 10 or 20 MB in file size a piece.

Lightroom and aperture allow you to adjust multiple attributes of photos without actually modifying the original file. These "edits" are kept in small instructional text files which don't require much space. It also stores and catalogs your thousands of files so that they can easily be searched and retrieved in the future.

This allows a photographer to keep multiple photo variations for thousands of photos without wasting hard disk space.

Apple is still a leader when it comes to the graphics arts. Professional software such as Photoshop, Aperture, Lightroom, Corel Painter X, etc. are just some of the more powerful graphic image manipulation programs on a mac

 

[Phrasikleia]

If Lightroom had started out with dual monitor support, I probably would have gone with it, but I'm glad I didn't. I now have over 25,000 photos loaded into Aperture and am very happy with the application. Adobe really missed the boat with that initial omission.

 

[ChrisA]

As an old (grouchy and not keen on learning new software without a very good reason) PC user with a $70 copy of Paintshop, I still keep the old machine with a decent display and a graphics tablet to edit photos.

Can paintshop handle RAW format images? Can it do 16-bits per channel color? Is it even color managed? You can't compare Paintshop with a professional level application from either Adobe or Apple.

Neither Aperture nor Lightroom is intended to be an imge editor although both alow for minor edits and adjustments. So as you say even a simple image editor has more edit tools.

 

[apearlman]

When does Beta expire?

Anyone know how much longer the Beta will keep working?

I'm in the process of moving my library from iPhoto to the Lightroom Beta, and want to know whether I should place my LR order in a hurry.

Andrew

 

[digitalbiker]

Anyone know how much longer the Beta will keep working?

I'm in the process of moving my library from iPhoto to the Lightroom Beta, and want to know whether I should place my LR order in a hurry.

Andrew

It should only last 30 days from when it was first installed on your system. It is beta but it was setup like a free trial.

I think Adobe is going to allow a free 30 day trial of the final version but the beta should already be gone.

 

[davidjearly]

I'm not all that impressed by this release actually. I think I'll stick with Aperture 2, which I greatly prefer.

 

[Kebabselector]

Anyone know how much longer the Beta will keep working?

The Beta expires 31st August 2008. Download the release version on the 31st and you'll get another 30 days.

Oh the Beta is no longer available on Adobelabs - probably available on 'other' sites though.

 

[nik911sc]

Pricing Sucks

Just dont understand how they can justify a 70% premium in Australia.

Adobe needs to lift its game big time.

 

[ifonline]

This is where Lightroom 2 (as far as I understand) has an advantage: it knows how to generate DNG files and edits are in Photoshop are non-destructive as well. That's also why Dodge & Burn is non-destructive in Lightroom and destructive in Aperture.

Your implication is not correct. Generating DNG files has nothing to do with non-destructive editing. Yes, edits in Photoshop can be non-destructive (for example, smart filters), but Lightroom can not manipulate these edits any more than Aperture can. Both programs work exactly the same in this regard... Lightroom and Aperture can read Photoshop files and that's it.

Additionally, this has absolutely nothing to do with non-destructive Dodge & Burn in Lightroom versus destructive Dodge & Burn in Aperture. Apple stated when Aperture 2.1 was released that Dodge & Burn was being released as a plugin as an example of the plugin architecture. They also stated that there will be proper non-destructive Dodge & Burn in Aperture in a later update. Everyone seems to miss this point.

Look, I run Lightroom Forums and yet I use both Lightroom 2 and Aperture 2. I really like both, and each has its strengths and weaknesses, but both products effectively do the same thing via a different interface and toolset. I just want to make sure people make an informed decision on which product to use.

Hope this helps.

 

[Col127]

you think LR 2 beta users will get any kind of discount??

 

[Val-kyrie]

Aperture 2 vs. Lightroom 2 - Beginner Setup: Which to choose?

The above is not correct. 1) "History" does not mean much with Aperture because the order that you do things is not important. There is not step one, step two and so on so Aperture has not history to keep. It only remembers what you've done, what adjustments were made and so on and does let you change them whenever you want. That's the whole point of non-destructive editing. 2) Aperture allows you to save any number of versions and does not write out another copy of the file. Aperture always keeps the oraginal file un-touched and a small file that contains the adjustments creating another version means you copy only the small file that contains the adjustments.

The exception to the above is when you use a external editor like Adobe Photoshop or one of the Aperure plug-ins. Then the image file is copied and passed to the other program

Lightroom and Aperture work pretty much the same way except for matters of style. Apple's software (iTunes, iPhoto and Aperture) like to keep the data in a library and have the concept of virtual folders and smart albums and the idea that a image (or song) can exist in many folders or albums but still takes up only one physical spot on the disk. Adobe products tent to use "normal folders" that may be easier for many people to understand and use. Adobe also seems to impose a workflow while Aperture just provides tools you can use in any order. Overall Lightroom is more structured.

But in the end they both do more of less the same job.

I am going to be purchasing a MBP with Photoshop CS 3.3 Extended - one of the suites available to education buyers. I am just beginning to work with images and want to set up a work flow of editing and organizing. If I have Photoshop for editing, which app would be better for me to use?

 

[ifonline]

I am going to be purchasing a MBP with Photoshop CS 3.3 Extended - one of the suites available to education buyers. I am just beginning to work with images and want to set up a work flow of editing and organizing. If I have Photoshop for editing, which app would be better for me to use?

If I might jump in here... I recommend downloading both Lightroom 2 and Aperture 2 to try them out. Run both for the full 30 day trial period and really test them up and down. As I stated earlier, both offer the same basic functionality via different interfaces and toolsets. Lightroom tends to be more structured while Aperture tends to be more fluid. Either approach is not wrong.

There are users on both sides of the fence that will argue that one is "significantly" better than the other. The problem with this is that each of us is different and will approach photo workflow differently. Therefore, I highly recommend trying both out. Work them over. Use them and figure out which one gives you the best experience. Remember that ultimately the goal of these programs is to help you manage your photo workflow.

Additionally, with regards to file storage, both Lightroom and Aperture allow for images to be stored anywhere you wish, in any folder structure you wish. This is the only option in Lightroom. In Aperture, this is a referenced workflow. Aperture also offers a managed workflow where Aperture will copy your images into a library and handle the folder structuring on its own. You can have both referenced and managed workflows going at the same time, and you can switch photos from one style to the other whenever you wish. In both cases, however, the programs use databases to manage your photos, edits, metadata, etc.

You might just find that Photoshop won't get used as much as you think, although with that being said, I still use Photoshop (CS3 Extended) with editing plugins from NIK (which also work inside of Aperture directly).

 

[nik911sc]

So here is a question

Given Adobe's obsession with overpricing its upgrades outside the US i.e. charging 70% more in Australia than the US for the same item, it makes me want to re-think my position.

Aperture full purchase is not that much more than LR2 upgrade so rather than blindly upgrading to LR2, I want to openly ask - what are the pros and cons of both?

On principle if the message is they are comparable then I may as well abandon Adobe LR for Aperture given Apple seem to have their pricing relativity policy in check.

Any thoughts....Aperture or Lightroom????

 

[Pigumon]

Boo to apple, Yay to adobe.

I was all excited about the original Aperture, but it was such a processor hog, It wouldn't run on my 12" PB (actually it wouldn't even INSTALL). So I went with Lightroom which ran so quickly on a 3 year old computer that I don't really care about not being able to use Aperture.

Anyway, besides 64bit support, what else is new with version 2? Is it worth the upgrade?

 

[Kebabselector]

you think LR 2 beta users will get any kind of discount??

No not this time, the price of the initial release of LR 1 was lower. But then it went up by around 40-50%

 

[Kebabselector]

On principle if the message is they are comparable then I may as well abandon Adobe LR for Aperture given Apple seem to have their pricing relativity policy in check.

For me it's a case of forgetting principles. The Adobe toolset is a path i've chosen, I'll be sticking with it as I don't want the hassle of changing. Plus Aperture runs poorly on my MacMini.

I'll still bitch and moan about Adobe pricing though.

 

[ianm]

Hi guys,

After downloading the trial version I can tell you it really doesn't show as a 64-bit app. I checked with Activity Monitor and it shows as Intel, not Intel (64-bit), could it be that the trial is not 64-bit?

AJ

You need to bring up File Info for the LR icon and tick the box for 64bit