Adobe releases Photoshop Lightroom 4, cuts price in half to $149

2»

Comments

  • palegolaspalegolas Posts: 1,154member
    I've ended up using Lightroom more and more. In my opinion pictures just look better in Lightroom than Aperture, and it's easier to achieve better looking picture. Low contrast tools look marvelous in Lightroom, where Aperture looks kinda Quartz Graphics.

    It's been too expensive for too long. Great new price!
  • djames4242djames4242 Posts: 434member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gustav View Post


    When I evaluated the two, I chose Aperture because of its free form nature. LR made me feel like I was locked into their process. I don't know if that's still the case.



    That's exactly why I chose Aperture over LR. This was when Aperture was at version 1.5 so I don't know if LR has opened up their process flow or if you still have to switch between catalog and process and God knows whatever else modes you have to be in to perform tasks. I like that Aperture allows me to create my own workflow. Maybe us Aperture users make a bigger deal of this than it really is since there are more LR users (even on the Mac platform) than there are Aperture.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hexx View Post


    I don't feel locked-in the LR, the opposite, gives me freedom



    How does having to adapt your workflow to match Adobe's give you freedom? Again, maybe it's not such a big deal to have to switch modes to perform tasks...?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hexx View Post


    oh yes those canon/nikon debates i feel a bit left out now, replaced my dSLR kit (Nikon) with Fuji X100.



    Likewise - I looked at Canon and Nikon when I made the switch to digital and decided that Pentax gave me a lot more for my money. Now I too am left out of the photography religious wars (fortunately I still get to participate in the PC vs Mac religion debates however).
  • jlanddjlandd Posts: 862member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ash471 View Post


    Apple has flipped the computer industry on its head. Apple is creating a "race to the bottom" in software. The OS is $29.99 for up to 10 users in a household. iWork apps cost $19.99. Aperture costs $79.99. Most games and simple apps are $0-$5. This is the opposite of the microsoft era where hardware was a race to the bottom and MS was charging $300 for its OS and productivity suites. I think it is a brilliant strategy for Apple since they sell both hardware and software. If you think about it, cheap software is the only way to break down the PC barrier. If the software is cheap, people will buy the hardware to run the software. Once people buy the software, they will keep buying the hardware.





    True, but there's a bit of a downside when you consider that not all software developers are part of an evil empire conglomerate. (Though indy games are big, because people who like games will keep buying $1.99 games the way we used to drop $2 on comics at the candy store monthly).



    Check out the user forums on sites for "everything but games" software and look for enthusiasm from the developers on great new versions for $10 instead of $75. It's killed the small developer who isn't banking on a goofy blockbuster game or social app. Bye Pixelmator, so long everything else that isn't free very narrow niched.



    Don't ignore the double edged sword.
  • wigginwiggin Posts: 2,196member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hexx View Post


    it's worth the extra. speed speed speed, and better organizing, custom presets and so on. think about LR as a huge db management, all you do is stored in a db and therefore you can create from whatever you do a new preset and apply it to number of photographs, you can limit those presets to be applied only to certain ISO, camera serial nr and so on. it also means that you have full history of all edits you've done to a photo and you can go back and forth, create new virtual copies at whatever step you desire (it will create just new set of settings).



    now they've added soft proofing to print module so there's no need for PS any more. the basic panel in develop module is re-done from scratch and now fulfils 98% of my post-processing needs. also B&W conversion is better than in Aperture. I've been using both for really long time.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hexx View Post


    i guess it's matter of preference. i like the fact that my RAW files remain untouched (you can write settings to your RAW files if you choose to), it allows me to work with different SW on the same files and also allows me to haw RAW files on external HDD and LR library on my internal SSD which makes it really really quick.



    I've been switching back and forth, started with the first Beta of LR and used it until version 2, then switched to Aperture and then again when version 3 was released I switched to LR.



    I don't feel locked-in the LR, the opposite, gives me freedom





    "That's not really a selling point" - for some it is, I know few people who use MacBooks as portable machine and have a Win based computer at home. It's not a selling point for me because I don't have a Win box.



    There's really not a whole lot in either of these posts that Aperture doesn't also do. Yes, there are some more advanced features in Lightroom, and it also does a good job of leveraging Adobe's more extensive database of cameras and lenses to better handle certain kinds of adjustments. But most of the items listed above (db manaagement, RAW processing, presets, history of edits, master files outside the library, etc) are also in Aperture. So I'm not sure why these are being listed as if they are the differentiator between the two programs.



    The biggest difference, as a previous poster described well, is the workflow. If you like Adobe's modular, step-by-step approach to working with your files, Lightroom will work well for you. If you prefer a more free-form approach and just want the program to get out of your way, you may like Apeture better.



    Lightroom does have a slight edge in the adjustment tools based on Adobe's extensive experience in image editting, but the workflow management should be the first thing you consider when choosing one or the other.



    My only real concern with Aperture is Apple's commitment to it and if it will one day get the FCP X treatment thus destroying another perfectly good piece of software.
  • docno42docno42 Posts: 3,164member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jlandd View Post


    Check out the user forums on sites for "everything but games" software and look for enthusiasm from the developers on great new versions for $10 instead of $75. It's killed the small developer who isn't banking on a goofy blockbuster game or social app. Bye Pixelmator, so long everything else that isn't free very narrow niched.



    Don't ignore the double edged sword.



    Double edged sword? Making more money with less overhead?



    I'm pretty sure the Pixelmator guys are making more money and selling more than they ever could have on their own. Even the Omni Group who was well established has been bullish on the App store.



    I think there is a danger in comparing the hardware race to the bottom with software. First, hardware has a much higher "floor" - the cost of the hardware and ther is a fixed per unit cost for every unit sold. For software it's your companies overhead and once covered new activity is pure profit. Of you are lean and mean, a small jump in volume can lead to a huge difference on profit. Heck, even big companies - once they pass a certain threshold- sales turns into profit



    So in that way, price shifts - especially backed by the column the app store brings - are less of an issue with software.



    Indeed, as the music industry found out lower pricing encourages more sales - people who would have pirated but now don't see the lower price as a big deal, so they buy.



    Most people want to do the right thing. iTunes music proved this, and now the Mac App Store is. I wonder if the MPAA will ever get it
  • jlanddjlandd Posts: 862member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DocNo42 View Post


    Double edged sword? Making more money with less overhead?




    No, the double edged sword of Apple lowering the marketplace value of software to levels that are often unrealistic for a developer to set their price at. Wasn't talking about the app store at all.



    Don't get me wrong, getting tools into the computers of the non pros who wouldn't have spent $300 is a great thing. But the OSX software marketplace in terms of variety in the mid to upper realm has vastly shrunk as a result, regardless of what's wonderful about the App Store.



    In this example, there's no incentive for there to be any more choices beyond iPhoto/Elements/Photoshop for pixel editing and Aperture/LightRoom for RAW editing and DAM. And I'm not sure that's a good tradeoff for having cheaper tools. Same for every category.



    Again, it's great that cheap and free good software is now the order of the day. It's not great, IMO. that the most talented developers are now cranking out $2 games instead of simply amazing useful creative products worth spending $500 on.
  • rjmcinnisrjmcinnis Posts: 3member
    I thought the biggest benefit to LR was that it had much better noise reduction on high ISO photos?



    Is this true or just an overexageration?
  • ash471ash471 Posts: 705member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jlandd View Post


    True, but there's a bit of a downside when you consider that not all software developers are part of an evil empire conglomerate. (Though indy games are big, because people who like games will keep buying $1.99 games the way we used to drop $2 on comics at the candy store monthly).



    Check out the user forums on sites for "everything but games" software and look for enthusiasm from the developers on great new versions for $10 instead of $75. It's killed the small developer who isn't banking on a goofy blockbuster game or social app. Bye Pixelmator, so long everything else that isn't free very narrow niched.



    Don't ignore the double edged sword.



    I see it as a single edge sword. Software has gotten cheaper and better. The fact that developers can't charge $75 for their software is because the software wasn't worth $75 to most people. The market has gotten more competitive and more efficient. When that happens, the inefficient manufacturers either change their ways or get trodden under foot. That's just the way it goes.
  • jlanddjlandd Posts: 862member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rjmcinnis View Post


    I thought the biggest benefit to LR was that it had much better noise reduction on high ISO photos?



    Is this true or just an overexageration?



    Aperture's noise reduction has always been a joke. Terrible. LR has useful NR. This is not disputable : )



    OTOH, while I haven't had a chance to delve deeply into LR's new shadow detail adjustments, Aperture's shadow adjustments have been completely useful and great for ages. There's a good chance that this update brings it in line with Aperture's, but that's been a long time coming. There are several Aperture features where it trumps LR, but also the reverse is true for some.
  • minnesota_steveminnesota_steve Posts: 109member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rjmcinnis View Post


    I thought the biggest benefit to LR was that it had much better noise reduction on high ISO photos?



    Is this true or just an overexageration?



    That is indeed true. Reducing especially luminescence noise while retaining detail.
  • minnesota_steveminnesota_steve Posts: 109member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jlandd View Post


    No, the double edged sword of Apple lowering the marketplace value of software to levels that are often unrealistic for a developer to set their price at. Wasn't talking about the app store at all.



    Don't get me wrong, getting tools into the computers of the non pros who wouldn't have spent $300 is a great thing. But the OSX software marketplace in terms of variety in the mid to upper realm has vastly shrunk as a result, regardless of what's wonderful about the App Store.



    In this example, there's no incentive for there to be any more choices beyond iPhoto/Elements/Photoshop for pixel editing and Aperture/LightRoom for RAW editing and DAM. And I'm not sure that's a good tradeoff for having cheaper tools. Same for every category.



    Again, it's great that cheap and free good software is now the order of the day. It's not great, IMO. that the most talented developers are now cranking out $2 games instead of simply amazing useful creative products worth spending $500 on.





    That said, Photoshop is that creative >$500 software. It takes a large R&D effort. They also have the marketing resources to promote outside if the Mac App Store. 4 person development teams are unlikely to create a Photoshop. The reality is that Aperture and Lightroom really only bring a database function vs. other software. So that Adobe can simplify a partial set of existing features, add a basic database and then charge $150 is pretty nice for them.
  • hexxhexx Posts: 40member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post


    There's really not a whole lot in either of these posts that Aperture doesn't also do. Yes, there are some more advanced features in Lightroom, and it also does a good job of leveraging Adobe's more extensive database of cameras and lenses to better handle certain kinds of adjustments. But most of the items listed above (db manaagement, RAW processing, presets, history of edits, master files outside the library, etc) are also in Aperture. So I'm not sure why these are being listed as if they are the differentiator between the two programs.



    The biggest difference, as a previous poster described well, is the workflow. If you like Adobe's modular, step-by-step approach to working with your files, Lightroom will work well for you. If you prefer a more free-form approach and just want the program to get out of your way, you may like Apeture better.



    Lightroom does have a slight edge in the adjustment tools based on Adobe's extensive experience in image editting, but the workflow management should be the first thing you consider when choosing one or the other.



    My only real concern with Aperture is Apple's commitment to it and if it will one day get the FCP X treatment thus destroying another perfectly good piece of software.



    yep, i like modular approach, makes more sense to me. at first i organize, tag and then develop and after that I decide what to do with my files. as i said i've been using both and LR currently suits my needs better than Aperture. it's personal preference, not a guide for everybody. and i don't like Aperture's interface. I wasn't saying these are not present in Aperture (soft proofing has been in Aperture for quite some time so has been 'books' module), it just feels less awkward to use to me in LR, and speed, speed, speed. Also as I said LR4 is big step forward and cuts my time spent in develop module to less than half, in comparison to LR3. I've never really got results I was after in Aperture (easily).
  • hexxhexx Posts: 40member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by djames4242 View Post


    How does having to adapt your workflow to match Adobe's give you freedom? Again, maybe it's not such a big deal to have to switch modes to perform tasks...?



    my older sis was a photographer and had a dark room. it kind of makes sense to me to organize, develop, publish - i like modules
  • jlanddjlandd Posts: 862member
    I spend most of my awake working time (as opposed to when I'm working and not actually awake) sitting in front of Aperture, and it's BY FAR my preferred UI between the two. But I always have to laugh when it gets printed somewhere that a big difference between the two is that LR "locks you in" to working a certain way while in Aperture you are "free" to work in a way not dictated by the software. You have a row of adjustment "bricks" that you can't change the order of. Levels MUST happen it this point and contrast MUST be applied at this point, before this other adjustment and never after. You can add another adjustment brick and guess what? It HAS to sit right under the original one. Want to do a contrast adjustment right after curves instead of before? Apple: "No, you don't". Ah but you have the ability to add a new solo contrast brick via the QuickBrush menu. What? It only adds it at the BOTTOM of the list, as the very last adjustment? But I don't want it there, after sharpening, locked and unmovable. Apple: "Yes, you do". Many more example throughout the UI. Aperture is great, has a great way of working IMO, but it's FAR from NOT locking you into it.



    And don't even get me started with what can only very loosely be called "brushes", since they work more like a box of 3" sidewalk chalk. And there's a second reason to avoid them: although Aperture is 100% reliant on the graphics card during editing (so fast computer/not fast GPU is like working in slowmo, with literally 10 second pauses between adjustments) it (and all Apple Core processes) do NOT go to the graphics card even 1% when exporting. So an upgrade to a new graphics card helps your on-screen editing immensely, exporting 300 images with brushes will still take an hour. If the brushes and exports are an issue for you, LR4 will be a blessing.



    All that said I still like the Apple Aperture RAW conversion very much. And, what some people don't realize, is that the Adobe RAW conversion, while excellent, is different. Your pictures will look different all other things equal because it's not the same conversion engine. Some like one or the other, but most, I think, accept the difference and work toward what their eyes are desiring. But I bring up the different conversion algorithms to point out that it's really much more than some features, like noise reduction or soft proofing or shadow adjustments, being ahead or behind the other. Even aside from the adjustment algorithms your pictures will not look identical, so that takes some getting used to/accepting/working around.
  • docno42docno42 Posts: 3,164member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jlandd View Post


    No, the double edged sword of Apple lowering the marketplace value of software to levels that are often unrealistic for a developer to set their price at. Wasn't talking about the app store at all.



    That's your first mistake because the app store is key.



    Quote:

    Don't get me wrong, getting tools into the computers of the non pros who wouldn't have spent $300 is a great thing. But the OSX software marketplace in terms of variety in the mid to upper realm has vastly shrunk as a result, regardless of what's wonderful about the App Store.



    Really?



    Quote:

    In this example, there's no incentive for there to be any more choices beyond iPhoto/Elements/Photoshop for pixel editing and Aperture/LightRoom for RAW editing and DAM. And I'm not sure that's a good tradeoff for having cheaper tools. Same for every category.



    I see the opposite. Tools like Photoshop have become unwieldily. Just browse the Photography category in the app store - there's more innovation going on in there in the year since it's debut than the previous 10 years.



    Lower prices combined with a low-overhead distribution method with a far-ranging reach have blown the doors off the software market - no longer is power concentrated with the big boys.



    Quote:

    Again, it's great that cheap and free good software is now the order of the day. It's not great, IMO. that the most talented developers are now cranking out $2 games instead of simply amazing useful creative products worth spending $500 on.



    You can moan about how your buggy whip market has collapsed in the face of the automobile or you can adapt.



    Personally, I'll keep the automobile and learn to deal with change. As a photo enthusiast, never before has there been the variety and choice for software that's easy to obtain - and it's just beginning.
  • jlanddjlandd Posts: 862member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DocNo42 View Post


    That's your first mistake because the app store is key.





    Key to what? Not the key to "Killer Apps" not made by Apple. Who's making them?





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DocNo42 View Post


    Really?





    I see the opposite. Tools like Photoshop have become unwieldily. Just browse the Photography category in the app store - there's more innovation going on in there in the year since it's debut than the previous 10 years.



    Lower prices combined with a low-overhead distribution method with a far-ranging reach have blown the doors off the software market - no longer is power concentrated with the big boys.



    Photoshop is unwieldy because of the way of Adobe. Innovation by non-Apple companies in the Photography category? Where? If that's what you're calling a wealth of innovation, please point out the apps that are innovative that you have purchased. Naturally it's better than last year. And there still isn't an Elements killer much less a PS killer in the bunch. Many are one-trick-pony image utilities that don't do anything new. As far as editors, etween the bundled iPhoto and Elements and Aperture there is none worth getting (I've demoed them all) , and between Elements and PS there is none. Forget about all of the image editors that function by hooking into Core Image. Apple has provided them with a great, simple way to offer an image editor but they can't differentiate themselves. Core Image is what drives the bus, and it gets no better or worse for any of them aside from some bells and whistles. Go to any photo site and when people ask what to get on a sub $75 budget it's overwhelmingly PSE and not any of the cookie cutter Core Image based editors.



    The App Store is great for many things, but an amazing place of innovative non-Apple software it isn't.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DocNo42 View Post


    You can moan about how your buggy whip market has collapsed in the face of the automobile or you can adapt.



    Personally, I'll keep the automobile and learn to deal with change. As a photo enthusiast, never before has there been the variety and choice for software that's easy to obtain - and it's just beginning.



    You're misunderstanding the original point.
  • I never use Photoshop Lightroom in any of my project, but this half price definitely have one

    thanks!
Sign In or Register to comment.