or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Adobe releases Photoshop Lightroom 4, cuts price in half to $149
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

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

post #1 of 37
Thread Starter 
Adobe on Tuesday released Photoshop Lightroom 4, the latest version of its professional photography software for OS X and PC, with a $149 starting price that's half that of its predecessor.

Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4 introduces refined technology for superior shadow and highlight processing, the ability to create photo books, additional local adjustment controls, and has enhanced video support. It's $149 for new customers, or $79 for those upgrading from a previous version.

"Feedback from our customers is invaluable in developing Lightroom and the real trick to a great release is to combine these insights with Adobe’s unrivaled image processing innovation," said Winston Hendrickson, vice president products of Creative Media Solutions at Adobe. "Lightroom 4 is a stunning new release that will enhance photography workflows and help photographs stand out from the crowd."

Adobe said on Tuesday that Photoshop Lightroom 4 features significant new capabilities and innovations, including new adjustment controls that maximize dynamic range from cameras for recovering shadow details and highlights. New auto adjustments dynamically set values for exposure and contrast, and additional local adjustments are now available, including "Noise Reduction," "Moire" and "White Balance."

The latest version of Lightroom also provides photographers with tools to create photo books with text controls and a number of templates. There's also a direct link for photo book creation within the software's new "Book" module.



Users can also access a new "Map" module that displays images already assigned a location, and also provides location tagging and reverse geo-tagging controls. Saved locations also allow for assignment of a photographer's common location.

Lightroom 4 also features native video support, giving photographers the ability to play, trim and extract frames from video clips shot on DSLR cameras, as well as point-and-shoot cameras and smartphones. Video-specific presets and many standard Lightroom image adjustments can be applied to video clips, and adjusted videos can be exported as an H.264 file or published directly to Facebook or Flickr.



The "Develop" module also offers presets that utilize new processing technology. The addition of soft proofing will also assist photographers in tuning images in a destination color space. Customers can also e-mail images directly from Lightroom using an e-mail account of their choice.

Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4 is available for both Mac and Windows direct from Adobe. Free shipping is available through March 31, 2012, and users can also download a free trial of the software.

[ View article on AppleInsider ]
post #2 of 37
excellent update, been using beta for some time and it's really great improvement and the price is big surprise, was expecting much more not half price
Water cooled QuadCore 16GB 2 x 240GB SSD HackBox | 13" MacBook Air 1.8 GHz Core i5, 8GB RAM, 256GB SSD | 32GB iPhone 4 | PS3 Slim 250GB
Reply
Water cooled QuadCore 16GB 2 x 240GB SSD HackBox | 13" MacBook Air 1.8 GHz Core i5, 8GB RAM, 256GB SSD | 32GB iPhone 4 | PS3 Slim 250GB
Reply
post #3 of 37
Half-price? These are hard times isn't it?
post #4 of 37
Apple cut the price of Aperture from ~$199 to ~$80, so Lightroom is still $70 more expensive.

Is it worth the extra $70 ?? [Honest question - I haven't used Lightroom and can't compare]
post #5 of 37
With LR you're getting both win and mac copies. also LR in my opinion is much better than Aperture
Water cooled QuadCore 16GB 2 x 240GB SSD HackBox | 13" MacBook Air 1.8 GHz Core i5, 8GB RAM, 256GB SSD | 32GB iPhone 4 | PS3 Slim 250GB
Reply
Water cooled QuadCore 16GB 2 x 240GB SSD HackBox | 13" MacBook Air 1.8 GHz Core i5, 8GB RAM, 256GB SSD | 32GB iPhone 4 | PS3 Slim 250GB
Reply
post #6 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by plovell View Post

Apple cut the price of Aperture from ~$199 to ~$80, so Lightroom is still $70 more expensive.

Is it worth the extra $70 ?? [Honest question - I haven't used Lightroom and can't compare]

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.
Water cooled QuadCore 16GB 2 x 240GB SSD HackBox | 13" MacBook Air 1.8 GHz Core i5, 8GB RAM, 256GB SSD | 32GB iPhone 4 | PS3 Slim 250GB
Reply
Water cooled QuadCore 16GB 2 x 240GB SSD HackBox | 13" MacBook Air 1.8 GHz Core i5, 8GB RAM, 256GB SSD | 32GB iPhone 4 | PS3 Slim 250GB
Reply
post #7 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by hexx View Post

With LR you're getting both win and mac copies. also LR in my opinion is much better than Aperture

That's not really a selling point. Most photographers have one chosen platform, not two. 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.
post #8 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gustav View Post

That's not really a selling point. Most photographers have one chosen platform, not two. 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.

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.
Water cooled QuadCore 16GB 2 x 240GB SSD HackBox | 13" MacBook Air 1.8 GHz Core i5, 8GB RAM, 256GB SSD | 32GB iPhone 4 | PS3 Slim 250GB
Reply
Water cooled QuadCore 16GB 2 x 240GB SSD HackBox | 13" MacBook Air 1.8 GHz Core i5, 8GB RAM, 256GB SSD | 32GB iPhone 4 | PS3 Slim 250GB
Reply
post #9 of 37
Oh my god, adobe is abandoning its pro users, targeting the prosumer market with this price point and cheap iPhoto features like book making, Facebook uploading and location mapping.

There is nothing left, the professional market is doomed!

/irony or something

--

Lightroom gives you simple file system control, I find that a major win over aperture (which can but gets all convoluted about it)
you only have freedom in choice when you know you have no choice
Reply
you only have freedom in choice when you know you have no choice
Reply
post #10 of 37
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.

Aperture can work exactly the same way. Indeed, I've found any speed advantage Lightroom had completely evaporated once I put my Aperture library on my SSD. Aperture is extremely sensitive to file fragmentation of its databases - so much so I think the Aperture team should address it by at least warning people when their databases are fragmenting.

Quote:
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

They are both great programs. I'm glad Adobe is keeping pace and even pushing forward a little with Apple. If I grew up as a traditional photographer and/or was a constant user of Adobe software and had the "Adobe Way" ingrained in me I might lean more towards Lightroom - but for me personally Aperture just felt better.

As I said the are both great and one doesn't have a knockout over the other. Much like the endless Nikon/Canon debates . Since the both have trials, download 'em both and make your choice that way.
post #11 of 37
Wake me when the Illustrator CS6 demo comes out.

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #12 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42 View Post

Aperture can work exactly the same way. Indeed, I've found any speed advantage Lightroom had completely evaporated once I put my Aperture library on my SSD. Aperture is extremely sensitive to file fragmentation of its databases - so much so I think the Aperture team should address it by at least warning people when their databases are fragmenting.



They are both great programs. I'm glad Adobe is keeping pace and even pushing forward a little with Apple. If I grew up as a traditional photographer and/or was a constant user of Adobe software and had the "Adobe Way" ingrained in me I might lean more towards Lightroom - but for me personally Aperture just felt better.

As I said the are both great and one doesn't have a knockout over the other. Much like the endless Nikon/Canon debates . Since the both have trials, download 'em both and make your choice that way.

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

What you're suggesting is the best thing to do - download trial versions and try them both
Water cooled QuadCore 16GB 2 x 240GB SSD HackBox | 13" MacBook Air 1.8 GHz Core i5, 8GB RAM, 256GB SSD | 32GB iPhone 4 | PS3 Slim 250GB
Reply
Water cooled QuadCore 16GB 2 x 240GB SSD HackBox | 13" MacBook Air 1.8 GHz Core i5, 8GB RAM, 256GB SSD | 32GB iPhone 4 | PS3 Slim 250GB
Reply
post #13 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by plovell View Post

Apple cut the price of Aperture from ~$199 to ~$80, so Lightroom is still $70 more expensive.

Is it worth the extra $70 ?? [Honest question - I haven't used Lightroom and can't compare]

Absolutely, and it was worth it before this update and at $300. Now it's a no brainer.
post #14 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by plovell View Post

Apple cut the price of Aperture from ~$199 to ~$80, so Lightroom is still $70 more expensive.

Is it worth the extra $70 ?? [Honest question - I haven't used Lightroom and can't compare]

Biggest factor is that they are two very different ways of working. You'd base your preference on the working paradigm rather than if either is a "better" program.

There are surely differences is speed and some features existing or not, but truthfully 75% of Aperture users don't even know what softproofing is much less use it : ) so much feature comparison isn't going to be a deciding factor. Most Aperture users just were happy they had an $80 image program (and were never going to spend more), and now they're used to it.
post #15 of 37
Get your ass in the Mac App Store.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #16 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

Get your ass in the Mac App Store.

They'd actually have to put work into their Mac versions for once, and they're never going to do that.

And if they rewrote the stuff in Xcode and submitted it to the Mac App Store, they'd be rejected instantaneously because Adobe wants to tie everything into AIR and Bridge and all their other third party crap. "Adobe Application Manager" my foot.

PLUS, Apple gets a cut of their money, so even if they swallowed their nonexistent pride and actually wrote proper Mac applications, they'd still put them on their own website.

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #17 of 37
Photography is my main hobby and Photoshop with various plug-ins is my main software. Eventually with a large photo collection, database management becomes a real need and easy management of multiple versions of photos. The built in file browser for Photoshop, Bridge, is quite nice. But it is not a database.

For a Photoshop user, Lightroom uses the same RAW file processing engine and tools. Furthermore, because of the high learning curve for Photoshop, many folks also purchase learning resources. Books, membership in NAPP, etc. Those same authors and organizations also support Lightroom. But until this release, Lightroom had many gaps compared to Aperture. Basically anything related to export of your work (web, printing, books, etc.) was superior in Aperture. So I use both. This becomes the battle. Adobe wins easily win Photoshop users. Aperture created the category of giving high end capabilities to the rest of the world.

Now when my friends getting into photography, who own a Mac, ask me for a recommendation, I ask them about their true use. But I emphasize more, "what do the friends and family you collaborate the most with use?" . Like cameras, if you have hobby time with friends and family which mostly own one brand, the you will likely have more fun using that same brand. Sharing lenses, learning features, etc. Photo apps is roughly similiar. All of my friends come back to me about how to improve their post processing. For those who chose Aperture, I have less to offer them.

For those who will mostly work on their own. Aperture supports iCloud, is simpler to learn, is more free form. It works very well, especially for just a few thousand photos. Lightroom requires more diligence in learning, offers more advanced features and has a an extremely large support community (Scott Kelby, etc.). Youtube training videos are many. Currently, it is better set up for managing large photo collections and now has caught up to Aperture in the output features.

But they basically are both huge improvements over iPhoto for postprocessing and file management.
post #18 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

They'd actually have to put work into their Mac versions for once, and they're never going to do that.

Although it's Aperture and not LR that has the well deserved reputation as behaving like an alpha release for years, but whatever.

(and I've been on Aperture since shelling out for v1)
post #19 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlandd View Post

although it's aperture and not lr that has the well deserved reputation as behaving like an alpha release for years, but whatever.

(and i've been on aperture since shelling out for v1)

+1000
Water cooled QuadCore 16GB 2 x 240GB SSD HackBox | 13" MacBook Air 1.8 GHz Core i5, 8GB RAM, 256GB SSD | 32GB iPhone 4 | PS3 Slim 250GB
Reply
Water cooled QuadCore 16GB 2 x 240GB SSD HackBox | 13" MacBook Air 1.8 GHz Core i5, 8GB RAM, 256GB SSD | 32GB iPhone 4 | PS3 Slim 250GB
Reply
post #20 of 37
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.
post #21 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by ash471 View Post

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.

The best part is that it fundamentally undermines Microsoft's entire platform. They don't sell the hardware, so their software has to be stupidly expensive. But when iWork is $45 and Office is $150, people will stop buying the latter entirely. When OS X updates are $30 and Windows updates are $400…

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #22 of 37
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!
post #23 of 37
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).
post #24 of 37
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.
post #25 of 37
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.
post #26 of 37
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
post #27 of 37
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.
post #28 of 37
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?
post #29 of 37
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.
post #30 of 37
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.
post #31 of 37
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.
post #32 of 37
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.
post #33 of 37
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).
Water cooled QuadCore 16GB 2 x 240GB SSD HackBox | 13" MacBook Air 1.8 GHz Core i5, 8GB RAM, 256GB SSD | 32GB iPhone 4 | PS3 Slim 250GB
Reply
Water cooled QuadCore 16GB 2 x 240GB SSD HackBox | 13" MacBook Air 1.8 GHz Core i5, 8GB RAM, 256GB SSD | 32GB iPhone 4 | PS3 Slim 250GB
Reply
post #34 of 37
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
Water cooled QuadCore 16GB 2 x 240GB SSD HackBox | 13" MacBook Air 1.8 GHz Core i5, 8GB RAM, 256GB SSD | 32GB iPhone 4 | PS3 Slim 250GB
Reply
Water cooled QuadCore 16GB 2 x 240GB SSD HackBox | 13" MacBook Air 1.8 GHz Core i5, 8GB RAM, 256GB SSD | 32GB iPhone 4 | PS3 Slim 250GB
Reply
post #35 of 37
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.
post #36 of 37
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.
post #37 of 37
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.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac Software
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Adobe releases Photoshop Lightroom 4, cuts price in half to $149