I have a buddy that uses both. He uses LR strictly for the develop module (and LR's round-trip capability for Photoshop). Then he exports a .tiff file and imports that into Aperture for all it's other features and simplicity. Sounds like a lot of work frankly, but that's his style.
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.
New Aperture 4 announcement for June 10th?
- Thread starter Razeus
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I have a buddy that uses both. He uses LR strictly for the develop module (and LR's round-trip capability for Photoshop). Then he exports a .tiff file and imports that into Aperture for all it's other features and simplicity. Sounds like a lot of work frankly, but that's his style.
I'm not surprised nor disappointed - yet. WWDCis a developer conference so it rightly focuses on new platforms and OS, with major new apple market launches - such as radio. I never expected Aperture to be addressed this week.
But there was one ray of hope today - the new desktop. http://www.apple.com/mac-pro/index2.html
Besides looking sexy and powerful, I'm pleased that apple isn't neglecting the power user community. Which, I can only hope, bodes well for Aperture.
If it meets your needs and you have a lot of photos in iPhoto it's easier to migrate.
Cheaper, not run by Adobe with their creative cloud nonsense, better organization, better integration with iOS (ipad for client previews = money).
I have a feeling Aperture 4 is going to blow light room out of the water.
I saw some of the promo materials for that thing and they clearly had Aperture on the desktop in a few shots. Doubt they would do that if they were planning on killing it. I bet the new version comes when these new Mac Pros are released.
For users who want to send their images to a full-feature editing programme such as Photoshop, Aperture still creates a far more accurate raw conversion than Lightroom (in terms of turning the data from the raw file into a viewable image).
Lightroom obviously offers dozens of features that Aperture does not, and for those who want to do all their editing in their raw converter it's the obvious choice. However, FOR ME, the fact that Lightroom offers a lot more slide bars to edit the image doesn't make up for the fact that its initial raw conversion is poor.
I completely understand that different users each have different priorities. For many, lots of extra slide bars and special effects will be more important than image quality - that's absolutely fine. But for those who want the very best in image quality, a combination of Aperture and Photoshop will provide the best results.
Personally, I send absolutely all my images to Photoshop. Many photographers may see this as a lot of unnecessary extra work, but sadly neither Lightroom or Aperture are any good for what I'd consider the two most basic image edits: contrast and sharpening. The reason both apps are so bad for these edits is simply the limitation of their masking.
Because of my workflow, I only need my DAM to do two things: convert the raw data from my camera into an accurate raster image, and manage my image catalog. That's it. For the conversion, Aperture is more accurate, plain & simple. For the file management side of things - that's completely down to personal preference, but in my opinion Aperture's is simpler and more effective.
They'd choose it because of
- excellent project-based workflow and UI,
- excellent integration with the Mac ecosystem (desktop and mobile),
- the many, many image enhancement components (brushes, curves, white balance, CA, etc),
- the availability of outstanding plugins, publishing capabilities, ease of integration with Photoshop, Pixelmator or favorite editor,
- it's DAM capabilities (which are terrific),
- not having to pay a subscription fee to get new RAW capabilities, which was a new aspect of CC that I had not heard about until yesterday (see www.bythom.com).
Among other reasons.
Obviously, LR has many of these features too (perhaps with a different approach to implementation), but the point is that they're both highly capable tools, both supported by their respective companies (no, Aperture is not abandonware), and both offer an excellent choice in the right hands. Someone should be able to obtain stellar images from either tool with ease (after practice, of course
) and ultimately comes down to preferences and results.
My interpretation of the article was different. My interpretation is that it would depend on which version of ACR is built in. I took it as: for LR off-the-shelf, you get new cameras, lenses, bug fixes but no new ACR functionality as you would on a CC subscription (which I have, so not terribly concerned).
Thom Hogan:
"This release is the first of the "forked" releases of Camera Raw. Creative Cloud users get a slightly different version of Camera Raw than do Photoshop CS6 users. Basically, Adobe will provide bug fixes and new camera/lens support for CS6 users, but add no new features as they will with Photoshop CC. This introduces a whole new problem in and of itself. Both releases are version 8.1. Therefore, if you write about, or need support for Camera Raw, you're going to need to specify ACR 8.1 CS or ACR 8.1 CC to distinguish the version you're using.
"
EDIT: Although, to be fair, he doesn't mention LR.
… yet. Adobe really wants to move to a subscription-only model for its software. Probably the only reason that hasn't happened for Lightroom yet is because of the competition in that particular market segment (which does not exist for, say, Photoshop).
You guys keep mention a subscription for LR when there isn't one. You don't have to pay for updates for access the RAW converter. But, I do have it noted as I'm watching closely with what Adobe does with LR in the future. I may just have to use CS6 and LR5 for the rest of my life if whatever Mac I have will run it.
The one thing that's quite evident in the retail/perpetual license version of LR5 is it's link to the Creative Cloud. From the splash screen to the Publish option for Behance - it's there.
SLR Lounge did an article a while back asking if LR5 was Adobe's "Gateway Drug" to the Creative Cloud. They were on to something.
At this point, I've dumped Photoshop completely. Yeah...Adobe pissed me off that much. And I'm thinking about asking for a refund on LR5 - mostly because even the retail version is heavily linked to Adobe's Creative Fiasco...I mean Cloud.
SLR Lounge did an article a while back asking if LR5 was Adobe's "Gateway Drug" to the Creative Cloud. They were on to something.
At this point, I've dumped Photoshop completely. Yeah...Adobe pissed me off that much. And I'm thinking about asking for a refund on LR5 - mostly because even the retail version is heavily linked to Adobe's Creative Fiasco...I mean Cloud.
That's the direction Adobe is taking with its software, and many of its customers don't like being forced into the new subscription model. Many Adobe customers see the writing on the wall and think that at one point, Lightroom will eventually also be available only via a subscription.
If you use Photoshop in conjunction with Lightroom, you might, because if you want a lossless workflow, Lightroom and Photoshop need to use the same version of ACR. So should you upgrade to Lightroom 6, you have an incentive to upgrade to the latest version of Photoshop as well. Adobe is leveraging its ecosystem here, and I find nothing wrong with that.You don't have to pay for updates for access the RAW converter. But, I do have it noted as I'm watching closely with what Adobe does with LR in the future. I may just have to use CS6 and LR5 for the rest of my life if whatever Mac I have will run it.
I almost bought LR5 yesterday, but I'm waiting to see what happens with LR. If it goes subscription, I'll be forced to drop Adobe completely. They want $19.99 just to use Photoshop. I don't need another bill, I rather just pay outright and keep it as long as I feel the next version's features won't do me much good. I'm in a happy place with LR4/Photoshop CS6. Everything works so well. I really hope Adobe doesn't ruin it.
BAM! You hit the nail on the head. One of the main reasons I'm thinking about going Adobe-free right now.
Aperture 4 right now is just pigment of imagination until can point to proof it exists. Personally I would love to see Aperture give LR a run for the money...especially since Adobe is not winning friends with their smoke screen....I mean cloud. What are they smoking? Must be some good stuff.
Aperture 4 right now is just pigment of imagination until can point to proof it exists. Personally I would love to see Aperture give LR a run for the money...especially since Adobe is not winning friends with their smoke screen....I mean cloud. What are they smoking? Must be some good stuff.
It would be a good time for Apple to take advantage of Adobe's mis-step. At least for Apple users anyway. But I'm convinced that Apple really doesn't have Pro Software Engineers anymore, when iPhone is 90% of your business. I'm waiting for the iPhone bubble to bust, and see how Apple tries to win back the users that have kept them alive all these years.
Well, this is good to hear, concerning Lightroom 5 and Creative Cloud subsciptions:
http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2013/05/lightroom-and-the-creative-cloud.html
So if you are a CC subscribe, then LR5 comes in your package. If you don't, you 'll have regular old licences for ALL versions of future LR releases. I figured as much, as LR is a different beast from the rest of the CC apps.
http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2013/05/lightroom-and-the-creative-cloud.html
So if you are a CC subscribe, then LR5 comes in your package. If you don't, you 'll have regular old licences for ALL versions of future LR releases. I figured as much, as LR is a different beast from the rest of the CC apps.
Seriously? iPhone bubble? And do the software developers now work in Ive's design team, or what?
One could see Aperture on a Display during the keynote in the Mavericks part. And I believe, they would never show software during a keynote they want to discontinue.
Seriously? iPhone bubble? And do the software developers now work in Ive's design team, or what?
One could see Aperture on a Display during the keynote in the Mavericks part. And I believe, they would never show software during a keynote they want to discontinue.
I noticed that too and had the same thought. Part of their integration with all of their devices always includes pictures. It seems to me that they would not bail on Aperture and still keep it a significant step up from iPhoto. Why build a powerful Mac Pro aimed at high end users such as videographers and photographers and not improve upon Aperture? It is still tied into books, calendars, etc. Any income stream is always welcome in business.
The kicker that I've read in multiple spots is that there are CC and non-CC versions of ACR. The CC version comes goodies that apparently won't make it into the non-CC variant. That said, I've only seen it in relation to the CC/non-CC versions of PS and no conversation about LR, though I'd assume it would hold. Scroll to the end of this article...if it does hold for LR, it is something to consider in the future...
http://www.imaging-resource.com/new...rt-previews-perspective-correction-camera-raw
Come on, why do you always throw such trollish statements out there when it's so easy to prove them wrong by just thinking about them for a second. The most prominent face (to the outside world) of pro software at Apple is probably Randy Ubillos who created Adobe Premiere, both incarnations of Final Cut Pro, iPhoto, the revamped version of iMovie, iPhoto and iMovie for the iPad, etc. I seem to remember he has had a hand in creating Aperture, but I could be wrong on that.
The iPhone is not a trend, it's not a bubble that'll burst. But that doesn't mean they don't care about the Mac anymore or that they no longer take risks to innovate in the pro segment. The newly released Final Cut and Mac Pro are evidence of that: I'm not claiming that Apple gets everything right, by no means, but they continue to invest time and resources. I hope Aperture is next, though
We can all go have a hissy fit on Adobe CC or lack of word on Aperture 4, but personally I'd rather use what is available to me right now and worry about the other stuff when I have reason to worry about it.
Right now, I will happily continue to use LR5 and A3. If a future version of LR goes CC only, I will worry about that and make a decision when that time comes. If A4 never comes, I'll worry about that whenever A3 doesn't support my camera's or OSX version anymore.
If I were going to lead my life worrying and basing decisions on what may or may not possibly happen in the future, the only result will be that it will make my life miserable and paralyzing my dreams and goals.
Remember, yesterday is gone forever, there will always be another tomorrow and the only thing you have is the here and now. Live your life in the now.
Right now, I will happily continue to use LR5 and A3. If a future version of LR goes CC only, I will worry about that and make a decision when that time comes. If A4 never comes, I'll worry about that whenever A3 doesn't support my camera's or OSX version anymore.
If I were going to lead my life worrying and basing decisions on what may or may not possibly happen in the future, the only result will be that it will make my life miserable and paralyzing my dreams and goals.
Remember, yesterday is gone forever, there will always be another tomorrow and the only thing you have is the here and now. Live your life in the now.