Does LR2 have a clone brush like aperture 2? I know you can clone in LR2 but it is not the brush style that aperture 2 has.... Is there away to do the same on LR2?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Aperture vs. Lightroom
- Thread starter Westside guy
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I use Aperture because I'm a beginner photographer. If I need help, I can always ask at my local Apple Store. I heard people saying that Aperture is more flexible in terms of workflow, Adobe forces LR users to follow it's own workflow.
This is very true.
I am getting reacquainted with LR2.0 now and one of my biggest pet peeves is the crappy modules. I like an app that lets me just GO and do my work. Not have to stop, switch modules, do the simple task that I needed to do, then switch back.
I also miss the HELL out of the HUDs, photo-books (which make great proof books), and REAL loupe.
Basically all the things that made me love Aperture in the beginning. LR does have a much better set of tools for toning and correction though. Much better in 2.0 than in 1.0. I find myself doing less work in Photoshop or toning the image completely in LR.
I still stand where I did almost 4 years ago. LR is great for the toning and corrections (and it's use of Catalogs), Aperture is great for everything else.
Aperature vs Lightroom
The two advantages of Lightroom are: 1)all your thumbnails are on your main drive but all your original large files can be on external drives; 2)you can convert all RAW files to Adobe DNG, a universal digital negative format. This is very handy when your camera manufacturer or Apple does not support your RAW format.
The two advantages of Lightroom are: 1)all your thumbnails are on your main drive but all your original large files can be on external drives; 2)you can convert all RAW files to Adobe DNG, a universal digital negative format. This is very handy when your camera manufacturer or Apple does not support your RAW format.
Aperture allows you to keep your source files on another drive, while all previews generated are stored in the library. One cool thing about Aperture for multi-media pros or anyone needing quick access is that you can drag and drop your preview into another app, or access them through the iLife/iWork media browser. Generate a large enough preview and you have a wonder KBs in size thumbnail.
The DNG exporter is cool, but Aperture has a plugin for that.
While we're dredging up FUD directly from Adobe's prepared talking points, let's look at this from the other perspective...
What if Adobe goes under and takes the patent and licensing for the DNG format with it?
After all, the rights to key portions of the DNG patents are revocable at the whim of Adobe or, as the lawyers like to say, its successors or assigns.
+1 for Lightroom. I don't like the idea of being tied to one platform (as much as I love OS X). I work with other photographers on a regular basis who use Windows + Lightroom. It is very nice to be able to work on a project in its own Library file and bounce it to a network drive for a windows photographer to pick up, make changes and bounce it back in its entirety. I have Lightroom, Aperture, iphoto, and PS CS4. I also like the cohesion between CS4 Bridge, Lightroom, and Photoshop.
Talking about Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt, seems like you're not averse to dishing some up yourself. On the page you link to, the only instance in which Adobe threatens revocation is if you start to sue them regarding the DNG standard... which doesn't sound too unreasonable.
I have no association with him... but I really recommend Michael Reichmann's video training for Lightroom. I think it's probably the quickest way of getting up to speed and becoming productive on the LR workflow.
That's the current license, which defines the current restrictions and remedies. It can be changed at the patent holder's (Adobe's) whim. IANAL, but I have a working understanding when it comes to software licensing and patent law.
You'd have to be desperate or a fool to hitch your manufacturing/development wagon to a file format completely controlled by someone who could one day be your competition (through product line development or M&A), or that could change the license terms on you overnight, or could take away your option of last resort over a legitimate dispute. What Adobe has done is to write the proverbial will that tries to disinherit anyone who contests it.
OBTW, this is the reason that DNG is a de facto standard, not an ISO standard; Adobe is trying (on several fronts) to become the new Microsoft with themselves as the sole gateway to a set of "proprietary standards". :shrugs: Huh, you'd think Mac users would know that...
And that still doesn't answer the question, "What happens if Adobe goes under or someone buys out Adobe the way Adobe bought Aldus and Macromedia?"
Lightroom definitely makes you conform to their workflow, the workaround (if you'd call it that) is to jump into Photoshop. OTOH, parts of Lightroom like the filenaming templates for importing photos are very good (and the bug fixes in the Lr3 beta make it even better), not to mention the enhancements to the develop module in Lr3. But for every Lr feature you'll like there are offsetting annoyances like their predefined workflow or un-Mac-like interface or lack of proofing support or lack of a plug-in style architecture for using other (non-Adobe) raw converters like CaptureOne or DxO.
It's a real shame Apple won't step up to the plate and really challenge Adobe by enhancing Aperture with just the Ps-type features photographers actually need.
Aperture 3 Vs. Lightroom 2
Hi All,
I know my question has been asked a 1000 times before, and i apologize for that, but i really need an expert opinion on which one of these programs to get, by someone who used both programs would be fantastic.
I am a hobby photographer and i have 10000+ images on my iphoto library, they are well organized, i know aperture is better for organizing right? but which is better and more powerful for editing?! thats the main reason to buy one of them. I dont have photoshop and i'm not planing to get it. so the program should be efficient without the help of PS
I've read that LR 3 is in public beta, should i wait for it?!
Thank you
Hi All,
I know my question has been asked a 1000 times before, and i apologize for that, but i really need an expert opinion on which one of these programs to get, by someone who used both programs would be fantastic.
I am a hobby photographer and i have 10000+ images on my iphoto library, they are well organized, i know aperture is better for organizing right? but which is better and more powerful for editing?! thats the main reason to buy one of them. I dont have photoshop and i'm not planing to get it. so the program should be efficient without the help of PS
I've read that LR 3 is in public beta, should i wait for it?!
Thank you
There is no single right answer we can give you in terms of which one will be best for you (and anyone who does is just shilling for their favorite product).
Note these are both vastly more powerful if you are shooting raw than if you are shooting JPEGs. But that's more of an answer to whether you should get an advanced DAM, not which one to buy.
Whether one product is better for editing or for organization or any of a number of other factors is really going to depend on you. Up until last week, I would've given Lr the edge for editing, but with the non-destructive editing enhancements in Aperture 3, I think it's really a toss-up.
Your best best is to download the trial/beta versions of both programs and invest (yes, invest!) the time to get familiar with them and get a feel whether one suits you better than the other. The Lr workflow is pretty structured, some like that while others feel constrained. Likewise, Aperture is more flexible (and is a LOT more Mac-like), some like that while others feel like they are lost in the interface. Both have features that edge the other out, but we can't know if any of those are actually important to you.
If you do decide to go with Aperture 3, the new version is out but it seems like some bugs are needing to be worked out for better stability (esp. the faces processing for large libraries). $199-ish out the door.
Lightroom 3 beta isn't "feature complete" according to Adobe, no telling what bugs will need to be addressed in the new version. You won't want to use the beta for your "real" DAM because I don't know if the beta library will be upgradeable? But it is worth waiting for if you are going the Lr route if only because it'll be $299-ish for version 2 plus another $99 for the version 3 upgrade -- you might as well just wait and spend the $299 on the new version when it's released.
HTH
BTW, just to further muddy the waters... There is no reason you couldn't use Elements for the lion's share of Ps-type work to start, for that small percentage of edits that go beyond what Lr or Aperture can do. Elements is not the full Photoshop, but a hobbyist photographer doesn't need it to be. The Mac version also comes with Bridge and Camera Raw -- that's still a poor substitute for a DAM, but the price is definitely right.
You're right, I know each has pros and cons, I wish it was easier to decide which is best.
I started shooting RAW some time back just to make sure i have the ability and freedom to edit if something went wrong.
You mean i can accidentally mess some photos up in Lr and not having the original back?! or do you mean i have more freedom to be creative and try new things in Aperture and its easy to go back a few steps if i didnt like the result?
One thing that surprises me about Apples advertisement of Aperture 3 is the fact that organizing with faces and geo tagging is considered as a massive feature, its already there in iphoto.
Its like saying the new Audi A8, it has the same features as the A6, it doesnt make any sense, or am i missing something?
Thats the best advice i can get, never thought about it before and i'll definitely try both extensively to determine which suits me better.
Using brushes to fix the background or to delete unwanted objects in the photo, make faces softer in portraits, and playing with colors and exposure are the main edits for me, though i would like to have more options in hand.
I also started to experiment with HDR in photomatix trial, but i think both A3 and Lr are good at it.
TBH i never considered Elements, i thought it was just another iphoto, I'll read about it, and the price is definitely right.
Thank you John
And that is/was the biggest pet-peeve I had/have with Aperture. Aperture 3 has started chipping away at it, but it was a HUGE annoyance. There was just NO way I could comfortably, efficiently, and accurately tone 80% of my images in Aperture. I was always sending them to Photoshop, making Aperture a glorified Bridge.
Ap 3 is helping, and each day I use the trail it's moving me further and further away from Lr ... but I am still fed up with the album building features in Aperture. Much easier than going into full blown InDesign (which is over kill IMHO) but just as rudimentary as TextEdit. Even in Ap 3 I am running into issues that Apple should have just fixed, especially given that Pages is such an advanced page layout application.
But if it really was, we would have already done that and there would only be one product on the market. Now, we wouldn't want that, right?
Vectorscope for correct skin tones?
Do either of these programs have a Vectorscope for getting correct skin tones?
How about a traditional three-way color corrector like in Final Cut Pro or Color?
(One tutorial I saw said that the eye can tolerate inaccurate color almost anywhere except we always need blue sky, green grass, and true skin tones.)
I learned what little I know about color correction first from Final Cut Pro. It was weird when I could not find a vectorscope in Photoshop/Camera Raw.
In FCP, as part of color correction, I'll temporarily mask out everything but the skin and adjust until the most of the color falls on the flesh tone line.
Do either of these programs have a Vectorscope for getting correct skin tones?
How about a traditional three-way color corrector like in Final Cut Pro or Color?
(One tutorial I saw said that the eye can tolerate inaccurate color almost anywhere except we always need blue sky, green grass, and true skin tones.)
I learned what little I know about color correction first from Final Cut Pro. It was weird when I could not find a vectorscope in Photoshop/Camera Raw.
In FCP, as part of color correction, I'll temporarily mask out everything but the skin and adjust until the most of the color falls on the flesh tone line.
No - but they do both have other methods of getting correct colour.
On Lightroom, it's possible to shoot a MacBeth Color chart, and then build a custom profile using Adobe's DNG profile editor tool. You then color manage your shoot using that known camera response and the response profile of your monitor and printer.
Plug in's: Vectorscope and Three-Way Color Corrector?
In After Effects, there are plug in's for a vectorscope and a three-way color corrector (with the three color wheels), such as Colorista. Is there something like these for Lightroom, Aperature, or PH Camera RAW?
Would this require shooting the chart throughout out the photographing session (each time the light around/on the subject changed)?
I'm not sure - it's not something I've ever needed/wanted. It is possible to change tints for both shadows and highlights - I'm not sure if that replicates what a 3 way corrector would do for you.
The profile creator app supports the creation of a camera profile from two colour temperatures - and that camera profile is more about describing the innate response of the sensor itself, rather than the light colour cast in a given scene. A white balance eyedropper tool is provided to enable you to correct temperature in a given shot.
So no, you'd probably do the whole colour chart setup once, but then use a gray/white card periodically through the photo session to establish white balance.
I'm sure I can get the flesh tones correct if I were to also shoot a grey/white card in every place I shoot a subject, then just auto grey/white balance in the application.
But after this, once I start messing with colors, I can get off the flesh tone line on the vectorscope pretty quickly (in FCP).
Is there something in either Aperature or Lightroom to tell me if my skin tones are becoming inaccurate?
Great resource. Thanks. I found this while surfing for Lightroom tutorials.
FYI, I also found a free online seminar on lightroom being given April 3 over at photocamel.
FYI, I also found a free online seminar on lightroom being given April 3 over at photocamel.
Aperture is nice if you want to move up to something that's comparable to Adobe Lightroom..but Aperture 3 is just not as good as Lightroom 2. The ease of being creative is just not there in Aperture. Just my 2 cents...
Being creative does not rest in the tool you are using.
Especially when 90% of the creativity comes from the original image that was captured.
