What is most obvious when reading these discusions and feature request discusions is that people do not actually know how to use the software properly. As what they ask for, is actually there a lot of the time or they compare quite different tools as if they were the same.
And to prove my point-
was a quote from jaduffy agreeing with that fact, in reply to someone's post that has now vanished, along with some of my reply so this post reads now oddly.
This quote of jaduffy I commented on, was one I found very was quite ironic considering he agreed with the fact that people talk about software they do not know how to use and then posted this.
Plus, and this is BIG...[in Capture NX] you can work in "ProPhoto" color space , which has a MUCH better gamut than AdobeRGB or sRGB.
Which neatly demonstrates my original point. What Colour space do you think LR works in jaduffy?
A subtle clue
ProPhoto RGB!
And I'm not sure why this quite separate post was shoved in with the writing above
Gosh exhuming an old conversation!
No, in this respect you are just simply wrong, and not fully understanding the methodology that the LR programmers had from the beginning, and what every photographer in the industry said about the Betas, the pre release, the release, and the continuation in LR2.0.
The methodology/thinking behind major parts of the LR beta was actually wrong/seriously flawed and was changed as a result through the development and the tool we now have works quite differently from the original very clumsy and frankly awful beta iteration - talking about the Library here. And saying every photographer was of one mind is complete nonsense, there was
a lot of bickering about how things should be done and things were changed as a result of the mistakes made with the initial workflow. Some aspects still need altering in my view, so as I'm a pro photographer, that's not exactly the unified front of all pro photography you potray.
Plus if everyone obeyed the rules and did just what the programmers [who are very rarely the real end users] thought we should do, there would be a serious stiffling of creativity. I use Acid for very complex long music mixes, despite the fact that it is a loop based programme designed for creating individual songs, not complex 90min layered mixes. It is not designed to do it, but is very good at it, despite that. I also use Excel for planning difficult mixes as it was great for laying out my notes - again not what it was designed for, but actually easier than using a layout programme. An Ad exec chap I knew did a similar sort of layout for his planning and used to use InDesign as it was a layout package and he was producing a graphic, but he was very impressed by how much easier it was by using a spreadsheet like Excel instead.
Now if I had your blinkered view, I and many others wouldn't do most of the creative things one can do with software. You learn the rules then break them or simply make new rules. I get images to look how I want them, which isn't necessarily by doing things
'properly'. Besides you
do not have to do anything in any specific order in LR, not really sure how you think otherwise.
There's a good practice of how to deal with images when developing for 'best' results, but that also applies to Aperture in exactly the same way. But for those of us who create instinctively rather than following predetermined steps, we don't need to follow the herd.
Sorry but you missed the point.
Which point? The fact you use a tool you admit struggles with the basic part of the job developing RAW files or that you simply prefer Aperture despite it's flaws. Nothing wrong with a preference that suits your very specific individual needs, but that means nothing to many others. Particularly those who use PCs, on which Aperture performs so very, very poorly!
The rest of the post was somewhat accurate but didn't really reach what I was trying to say.
Which was?
p.s. LR actually has very good file recognition.
Has it bollox! This illustrates how little you know about LR and how it does not not support many a professional photographer's workflow. It is supposed to be a DAM app yet cannot even recognize files the programme itself uses - music for slideshows for example. How clunky and early 90s is that part of the programme [finding music]? Not to mention it is meant to be a tool for
pro photograhers who now, may well use video and have sound for slideshows these days. The pro photography market has changed again, LR seems not to have noticed. You cannot use LR's card import facilty as it ignores many files cameras produce. Duh!And a 5DII is hardly a camera that can be ignored.
Even odder is the fact that your reason for choosing Aperture is because of this limited file recognition problem, so why now say otherwise? To quote you
"I had other forms of media to work with (HD video, 2D graphics, 3D titling) and other apps to do those tasks, so I picked the one that integrated with them flawlessly... Aperture." LR needs to recognize these for a complete Library function and good integration, but not actually process them as it can send say video files to say Final Cut, AfterEffects or Vegas.
Not to mention it's appaling Achillies heel, it doesn't even recognize large parts of my stills portfolio as it's even a bit fussy about image files.
It even ignores a lot of my PSDs! A DAM app that cannot see all digital media is not a DAM app, it is a half baked tool. Which also means means you then have to use a second DAM app to handle your complete assets. That's plain stupid as it defeats the main purpose of a DAM app and LR appears to be trying to solve the pre-digital photo filing problems of 1998 not 2008! The fact that it does not even handle file labeling in the same way as Bridge is also somewhat idiotic.
LR could be absolutlely brilliant, but currently it is still deeply flawed, though at least the development module is great and way better than Aperture's attempt, which cannot even do non-destructive localised editing.
