That's
exactly what it creates, although I admit, the web gallery with one singe image didn't show that. Click on an image to see a larger version. There are arrows on top that get you to the next or previous photo. Can we settle this?
Yup, you lose!
Though it more a matter of what you think a web gallery is and what I think it is, so in one sense we are both right.
What you show is a more a mini web site with images, as opposed to a single page web gallery which is what I meant + require. So Aperture still cannot do what I asked of it - possibly unless you have a mobile me/.mac account, even then maybe not.
This is the sort of thing I mean. One page with images + thumbs.
LR demo 1
LR demo2
I've said the opposite: not that it's a worse product, but simply that it's not the right product for me, that's all. I can be a lot more creative in Aperture.
Yet interestingly, I find Aperture hobbling as it is so remedial in the image processing department. It simply cannot produce images like LR can with localised edits and grad filters - non destructively.
Say I want to darken the sky in a shot as it's a bit overexposed compared to of rest of scene. One could use recovery or highlights, but that affects
all of the image, not just the sky. With a graduated filter or brush I can alter up to 6 different attributes locally.
You can say soften skin to look like smooth plastic
and then separately sharpen eyes,hair + mouth - if you like people to look like mannequins that is. This is the sort of complex thing you used to have to use Photoshop for.
You seem to misunderstand, I really did give Lightroom a chance before I switched form iView to Aperture (I switched to 1.5). I've evaluated it for about two weeks and I just didn't like it as much (still don't). It's not a matter of `getting used to', I have a knack for computer apps (took about half a day or so to learn the basic paradigms of Final Cut 3, not saying I was ever any good with it, but `I got the app').
At that time, Lightroom didn't even have multimonitor support (added with Lightroom 2 afaik). That's hardly what I call professional.
But as you say below you aren't professional, so no problem then
Anyway, LR 2 is much better now, just like later Aperture versions are much improved on the first and awful Aperture 1.0. BTW, I didn't think LR was good enough to use for work until v1.3. LR 2 does have dual monitor suppport and very different file handling from original versions. LR used to handle files similar to Aperture, but overwhelmingly people thought it simply didn't work. So Adobe went to showing actual folders [+collections + using metadata as well] for filing.
Plus I wanted to make books (again, a feature missing up until now in Lightroom).
I also have Aperture to use for Books - it's cheap enough to have for just that one thing. Though LR would probably, only do that if Adobe printed books as well.
And I strongly dislike having to manually manage my files (a consequence of the disaster with iView, I admit), having them automatically in my Aperture library package is easier for me and I have more time to tinker with images. (AFAIK Lightroom 2 doesn't do that still.) My photos are sorted in a much more clever fashion with hierarchical folders and projects and folders within projects, although there is only one original (this cannot be fully emulated on the level of files and folders, I've had a pretty sophisticated directory structure with iView, no way to do something similar). And if I decide to manually manage to location of my files, I can still do that, even for single files in a project. I have three different vaults and although this feature is not as important as the others above (I could manage to make offsite backups in other ways), it's a very handy and nice thing to have.
I would say that is possible the worst reason to use Aperture - let it manage your file directory. Why do I say that? You should always have a robust filing sytem that is not dependent on any one programme and that any programmme or OS can handle easily. To that, you then add keywording and metadata and you have a much, much better system.
What you've done may appear to save time now, but long term, it may be a real disaster. Organising your
physical file location by heirachical means, simply does not work, as images can be in any number of categories.
I heirachically organise my files by date in folder [+description] on the hard drive [very, very easy to do with LR even if you've let [shudder] Aperture or iPhoto
'organise' your data.
This means
any software can look through my image files and if I'm using a PC still no problem there. So if some better software comes along I can move to it away from LR with no effort. I also use Bridge as a file browser to complement my LR database and that would be impossible if I used your system. File Browsers can be much better for some tasks, so why exclude their use? I use Bridge + ACR a lot of the time, particularly as Bridge integrates so well with PS.
LR can organise all your files into folders by date and then also by using metadata/tags. Best of both worlds. It can also do versions which can exist in multiple places and LR has smart folders and collections for organising by criteria.
I heard of many people who used your method and then realised metadata filing by subject/content
on top of a good date+Label based system was far better.
The problem with keyword searching is that if you shoot a lot and the same sort of subject a lot then,
unless you spend an awful lot of time keywording very carefully, then you end up with an awful lot of images when you search. I do some big projects, when I shoot for 5 weeks at a time and over several years. Keywording is no quicker than simply looking through the date/description folders, as the same subject will have been shot repeatedly at times.
This is a whole other topic or two though.
Perhaps these points aren't important to others, sure, but they were (and are) important to me at the time when I switched apps last. A mere `you can also do that with Lightroom' is not going to make me switch (which is a lot of work, work that is not reflected in the structure of the files, but in keywords, albums, books and such). I don't mind switching as much as others do, but I do know it was 100+ hours of work last time
I organised a friend's iPhoto mishmash of folders into a date based system by simply importing and using 'move to new folders by date' option. All you have to do then is label the dated olders with a description - if you want to. Quite easy actually.
And I haven't found Aperture's image editing skills lacking, but then, I'm just an avid amateur, not a professional.
It's a shame we can't sit around a table with some laptops and show each other how we do things as I sure we'd all learn some cool things off each other. Even as an amateur, there are great things in LR/ACR that Aperture simply lacks - it doesn't even have curves it seems!?!
Does D change modules or not?
Yes but it's not an issue [for me], I prefer to work on larger images, with no clutter. Plus as I travel with a 13" laptop, the stripped down approach works much better. On my dual monitors, it's less of an issue and yes being able to edit images and see your web layout would be better [at times]. Anyway, there no reason why LR couldn't be even more dual monitor friendly as you could have a different module on each - which LR2 already does to a certain extent.
Can I see the changes live on the book page/web gallery page or not?
No, but it's a single click to swap back, but as you give up what I consider essential tools for that very minor attribute - So I don't think Aperture is worth it for that - for me that is - obviously our mileage varies!
