or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Adobe's 'Lightroom mobile' for iPad brings advanced photo editing, organization to iOS
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Adobe's 'Lightroom mobile' for iPad brings advanced photo editing, organization to iOS

post #1 of 66
Thread Starter 
Adobe on Monday introduced Lightroom Mobile for iPad, a touch-friendly accompaniment to the company's suite of photography software that brings powerful new tools to Apple's iOS, including on-the-go RAW image editing.



The app, which is available now from the iOS App Store, offers those invested in Adobe's ecosystem a new way to sync and organize images within their existing Adobe ecosystem. More impressive, however, is the app's built-in RAW image editing functions.

With Lightroom mobile for iPad, Adobe has essentially enabled tablets to edit large RAW image files remotely. This not only adds a new dimension to photographers' workflows, but untethers them from their desktops and laptops.

The process uses Adobe's Smart Previews technology. Lightroom 5 on Mac or PC generates a DNG image from RAW image data and syncs the the file with Lightroom mobile. Users can edit this smaller file on the iPad with Lightroom's usual RAW toolset, then sync the changes back to the desktop version when finished. Edits and any changes are seamlessly applied to the higher-resolution RAW file.

Modifications made to the portable file are logged and carried over to the original image in an editing history so photographers can have granular control over past edits. In-app organization filters are also powerful and include file name, image capture time and image modification time, among others.

Aside from Lightroom 5 for Mac and PC, the app can also pull from an iPad's camera roll, directly from DSLR cameras and images stored in the cloud.

Sharing is also made easy with hooks in Lightroom.Adobe.com and popular social networks like Facebook and Twitter.

In order to function, users need to have access to Lightroom 5 on a desktop or laptop, Lightroom's mobile service and Lightroom mobile for iPad. This means owners of non-Creative Cloud Photoshop or Lightroom will need to buy a subscription to a qualifying Adobe Creative Cloud product.

Finally, Adobe says an iPhone version is in the works, but did not provide an estimated release date.



From the release notes:

  • Seamless sync between desktop, mobile and web
  • Edit and organize your images anywhere, anytime
  • Edit everything from smartphone photos to raw images from DSLRs using Smart Previews. Adobe Lightroom mobile can handle virtually any image format
  • Smart Previews creates smaller stand-in files for quicker & efficient work
  • Import images from your iPhone or iPad camera roll straight into your Lightroom catalog. Enhance them using familiar and powerful Lightroom tools. Share them online quickly and easily.
  • Advanced Healing Brush for removing unwanted objects or flaws
  • Radial Gradient tool lets you create off-center vignette effects
  • Create HD video slide shows with images, video clips & music
  • Share edited images to your social networks. Share directly from Lightroom on your mobile device
  • Showcase your images. Present photos with built-in slideshow
  • Import images directly from your camera roll to your Lightroom catalog
  • Access and view your photos on lightroom.adobe.com


Adobe's Lightroom mobile for iPad is a free 41.6MB download from the App Store, but requires an iPad 2 running iOS 7 or later. Users will also need the recently updated Lightroom 5.4 for Mac and one of the following Creative Cloud Subscriptions:



Adobe is currently offering a 30-day free trial for Lightroom mobile as well as a limited time special on the Photoshop Photography Program mentioned above, which includes Photoshop CC, Lightroom desktop, mobile and web, 20GB of cloud storage and a Behance ProSite for $9.99 per month.
post #2 of 66
No way can this work! I have it on good authority* that the iPad is only good as a consumption device.

*Steve Ballard -- right from the horse's orifice.
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
post #3 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

In addition, Adobe is currently offering a 30-day free trial as well as a Photoshop Photography Program special that includes Photoshop CC, Lightroom desktop, mobile and web, 20GB of cloud storage and a Behance ProSite for $9.99 per month.

$9.99 per month!! For that kind of money I can rent Steve Ballmer's family jewels!!!
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
post #4 of 66

I don't know if it can be compared to Lightroom, but I'm totally blown away by Photogene 4. It works out to something like $3 and allows adjusting levels, exposure, colours and the usual cropping and filters.

 

You can also see and edit EXIF information, as well as add locations.

 

If I'm not mistaken, it edits RAW as well, but I'm not sure.

 

Still, amazing value for money. Lightroom at $10 per month - not so much.

post #5 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky the Macky View Post

No way can this work! I have it on good authority* that the iPad is only good as a consumption device.

*Steve Ballard -- right from the horse's orifice.

+1

post #6 of 66
I'm sadly frustrated that Apple is not leading the way on this front, something you could argue is historically a core sector. I am sure there is pent up demand (well there is on my part at least) for Aperture for iPad/iPhone with access to photos in your main aperture library across both local networks and the web.

This would be a killer app which would allow you to look at work with clients (without a laptop or having to specifically download iDevice filling files) and make edits that would sync with the original library.

It would be so slick, a truly professional app that would have no comparison.

Almost everyone I know has either abandoned Aperture for Lightroom or has never considered it and instead of being the powerhouse it could be Apple/Aperture seems to be in the doldrums in photo-management/editing and has lost it's position of groundbreaking leader to Adobe.

I try Lightroom every time there is a new version and so far I have stuck with Aperture because LR seems so clunky and counter-intuitive but frankly if Apple doesn't take a stronger position and produce something vastly superior to catch-up I will also join the hoards of LR users too and it will be another nail in the coffin of a potentially great product called Apperture.app.

Come on Apple, get your finger out!!!
Edited by igamogam - 4/8/14 at 4:41am
post #7 of 66
Hmmm igamogam - I shoot professionally too and Lightroom is far from clunky - you have to understand the workflow. It is the most intuitive program out there IMHO and I have spent time with them all. Not sure what this iPad version is going to be like but I will certainly give it a go....
post #8 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by igamogam View Post

I'm sadly frustrated that Apple is not leading the way on this front, something you could argue is historically a core sector. I am sure there is pent up demand (well there is on my part at least) for Aperture for iPad/iPhone with access to photos in your main aperture library across both local networks and the web.

This would be a killer app which would allow you to look at work with clients (without a laptop or having to specifically download iDevice filling files) and make edits that would sync with the original library.

It would be so slick, a truly professional app that would have no comparison.

Almost everyone I know has either abandoned Aperture for Lightroom or has never considered it and instead of being the powerhouse it could be Apple/Aperture seems to be in the doldrums in photo-management/editing and has lost it's position of groundbreaking leader to Adobe.

I try Lightroom every time there is a new version and so far I have stuck with Aperture because LR seems so clunky and counter-intuitive but frankly if Apple doesn't take a stronger position and produce something vastly superior to catch-up I will join also the hoards of LR users too and it will be another nail in the coffin of a potentially great product called Apperture.app.

Come on Apple, get your finger out!!!

+100!!! I am really... REALLY.... P'ed off at Apple for this!***

I called exactly this approach using lo-res proxis and syncing the library on any iDevice <---> iPhoto more than 2 years ago! It's just so obvious!

*** I think most that have seen my posts here know that I'm an unapologetic Fanboy... but this really gets to me! Hardware is getting "good enough" on all platforms, and the one thing that truly sets Apple apart is it's ecosystem and tightly integrated software that makes all their hardware that much better than the rest. This is just plain "dropping the ball"!

Warning: Rant ahead

I'm also starting to seriously wonder whether all this patent protection court crap is starting to get out of hand and in the way of Apple doing what it does best. I know it had to be done to protect their IP and design trademarks... but still, I'm slightly disappointed that so many other things at Apple are taking too long.

I can understand hardware and new products taking it's time to get right. No argument there how Apple goes about waiting until said "time" is right. Software on the other hand, is an evolving, moving... almost organic... discipline and product and regardless of whether it's free or not. It begs to be updated, features and functions defined and redefined, and keeping pace with the hardware that it's being run on.

Apple has always produced the hardware of choice for creative professionals... and for many years also gave us the powerful software tools to make the best of all their hardware advances. However as of late, I see them not so much as stagnating, but limping along on the software front, leaving it up to 3rd parties like Microsoft and Adobe to make the most of Apple's hardware. Last week it was Office; today it's LR. This has got to stop! Apple can and should be doing more, if not only to set the bar and showing what can really be done with their hardware by pushing the boundaries. Recently we've seen them retooling all of their software (gimping it often in the process) which I have also agreed they should do... BUT ONLY if they're working their collective a**es off to build out even more functionality than what was there, or we can even imagine could be there in future versions.

Software is timeless. It can be created, fixed, improved upon, and updated endlessly on no other timetable than Apple's very own whims and fancies. There is no "perfect software" tool of any kind on the planet... but Apple has often come pretty darn close. Why not kick those efforts into high gear and truly leave Google, Samsung, Amazon, Adobe and Microsoft in the dust?!

Phil Shiller took exception to Apple's ad agency stagnating and failing to deliver what's needed for Apple to weather the constant Negative Media Storm. I'll give him a small tip: run down the hall and get Craig and Eddie, and give 'em a 3 Stooges slap across the chops and tell 'em to get the lead out out of their teams! Actions speak louder than words... and software makes computers worthwhile creative tools! Put proof of that on the market and a big chunk of "marcom" will take care of itself.

/rant.
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
post #9 of 66
Perhaps I am unfair commenting on the lack of Aperture support on an article about this app (I no longer have LR on any machine) but it rankles that increasingly there is no foreseeable alternative to LR no matter how much some folk dislike using it.

I guess it's personal taste. Been using Adobe's products almost since they started and I understand the interface well for all their graphics apps but with LR you have to work the Adobe way or not at all. It is a logical "darkroom" workflow but that's not what I want, I don't use film any more and for me a real beauty of digital is its flexibility, I just don't get that with LR despite the bigger feature set.

Apple is missing a great opportunity to make a fantastic app in their own environment and Adobe is stealing their thunder. It's like Final Cut X, most of the guys I know who do video have moved to Premiere/After Effects because of technical issues and they will all upgrade their machines to PCs next time because it's cheaper so there is a double whammy for Apple.

To cap it all Aperture could be a fantastic consumer product too - imagine being able to show all your family the pictures from your home computer by navigating from an iPad with an internet connection (obviously I'm talking about direct internet connection - working through iCloud would not work because you couldn't fit a terabyte of Aperture thumbnails on an iDevice).

Still frustrated...
Edited by igamogam - 4/8/14 at 4:42am
post #10 of 66

can Lightroom be purchased, or is it part of the new "rent-for-life" scheme?

 

I'm just a hobbiest photographer and like Apple's Aperture, but I can see switching to Lightroom if Apple doesn't keep up.

post #11 of 66

You can still purchase LR5, which I did , but that will probably be the last now that Adobe also has a Photographer's Cloud bundle at $9.99/mo. Plus, you need a Creative Cloud subscription anyway to make the new iPad version work.

post #12 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky the Macky View Post

$9.99 per month!! For that kind of money I can rent Steve Ballmer's family jewels!!!

For all of that? Seriously? That's a pretty good deal. But if you're an amateur, you don't need pro level apps. Get iPhoto and you'll be happy.
post #13 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by BestKeptSecret View Post

I don't know if it can be compared to Lightroom, but I'm totally blown away by Photogene 4. It works out to something like $3 and allows adjusting levels, exposure, colours and the usual cropping and filters.

You can also see and edit EXIF information, as well as add locations.

If I'm not mistaken, it edits RAW as well, but I'm not sure.

Still, amazing value for money. Lightroom at $10 per month - not so much.

Photo gene is fun, and for someone who doesn't really edit their photos, it's fine. But for $9.95 you're not just getting this, remember, you're also getting:

Photoshop CC, Lightroom desktop, mobile and web, 20GB of cloud storage and a Behance ProSite for $9.99 per month.

This is a great deal for those who are professionals.

Understand that like it or not, Photoshop is the industry standard. Before CC came out, you would pay $350 every two years for an upgrade to Photoshop. That,s a heck of a lot more than what they are charging for this, and here, you also get Lightroom, and the online useage. Many pros would pay $9.95 a month just for the ability to sync.
post #14 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by igamogam View Post

Perhaps I am unfair commenting on the lack of Aperture support on an article about this app (I no longer have LR on any machine) but it rankles that increasingly there is no foreseeable alternative to LR no matter how much some folk dislike using it.

I guess it's personal taste. Been using Adobe's products almost since they started and I understand the interface well for all their graphics apps but with LR you have to work the Adobe way or not at all. It is a logical "darkroom" workflow but that's not what I want, I don't use film any more and for me a real beauty of digital is its flexibility, I just don't get that with LR despite the bigger feature set.

Apple is missing a great opportunity to make a fantastic app in their own environment and Adobe is stealing their thunder. It's like Final Cut X, most of the guys I know who do video have moved to Premiere/After Effects because of technical issues and they will all upgrade their machines to PCs next time because it's cheaper so there is a double whammy for Apple.

To cap it all Aperture could be a fantastic consumer product too - imagine being able to show all your family the pictures from your home computer by navigating from an iPad with an internet connection (obviously I'm talking about direct internet connection - working through iCloud would not work because you couldn't fit a terabyte of Aperture thumbnails on an iDevice).

Still frustrated...

Aperture isn't that popular. When Apple first came out with it they had a great chance, but they blew it. By the time they fixed most of the errors, Lightroom had come out. Adobe understands what the pro wants and needs. Apple didn't. So they had made some bad choices. Almost every pro has Lightroom, but few have aperture.
post #15 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Aperture isn't that popular. When Apple first came out with it they had a great chance, but they blew it. By the time they fixed most of the errors, Lightroom had come out. Adobe understands what the pro wants and needs. Apple didn't. So they had made some bad choices. Almost every pro has Lightroom, but few have aperture.Sadly I agree

 

Sadly I agree and I will probably succumb to LR eventually. Apple has come from behind before but they do not seem to be devoting many resources to the Pro apps. I just don't understand the logic of letting the Pro apps languish. 

post #16 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post


Photo gene is fun, and for someone who doesn't really edit their photos, it's fine. But for $9.95 you're not just getting this, remember, you're also getting:

Photoshop CC, Lightroom desktop, mobile and web, 20GB of cloud storage and a Behance ProSite for $9.99 per month.

This is a great deal for those who are professionals.

Understand that like it or not, Photoshop is the industry standard. Before CC came out, you would pay $350 every two years for an upgrade to Photoshop. That,s a heck of a lot more than what they are charging for this, and here, you also get Lightroom, and the online useage. Many pros would pay $9.95 a month just for the ability to sync.

 

I totally agree. I used to use Photoshop for a long time, till about CS4 or so. Then I found Pixlemator and it was enough for me.

 

I do not do any professional photo editing, so I can settle for Pixlemator, or Photogene 4. But I still do splurge on software a bit. I bought Aperture even though I didn't really need it. So, in that context, I would have bought Lightroom for iOS on an impulse if it wasn't priced the way it was.

 

I guess that is what separates the men from the boys.

post #17 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by igamogam View Post

...but frankly if Apple doesn't take a stronger position and produce something vastly superior to catch-up I will also join the hoards of LR users...

Quote:
Originally Posted by dav View Post

...and like Apple's Aperture, but I can see switching to Lightroom if Apple doesn't keep up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by igamogam View Post

Sadly I agree and I will probably succumb to LR eventually

But how to migrate to LR? Will you simply re-do any changes made after importing the Masters into LR? Or will you import the Versions into LR? Or nothing, by keeping your current photos in A3 and import new photos into LR? Or a possible #4: a migration tool I haven't heard about?

Thank you.
post #18 of 66
Thought this was a great product until I read about the subscription requirement. That just killed it for me.
post #19 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post


Photo gene is fun, and for someone who doesn't really edit their photos, it's fine. But for $9.95 you're not just getting this, remember, you're also getting:

Photoshop CC, Lightroom desktop, mobile and web, 20GB of cloud storage and a Behance ProSite for $9.99 per month.

This is a great deal for those who are professionals.

Understand that like it or not, Photoshop is the industry standard. Before CC came out, you would pay $350 every two years for an upgrade to Photoshop. That,s a heck of a lot more than what they are charging for this, and here, you also get Lightroom, and the online useage. Many pros would pay $9.95 a month just for the ability to sync.

 

Paying every two years or three for real new features in a program was cool, subscribing and getting no real improvements is unacceptable. That is why Adobe revenue and profit has stalled.

 

post #20 of 66
I downloaded Lightroom Mobile and have been testing it on an iPad Air and iPad Mini with Retina Display. The app uses my Creative Cloud subscription as the framework for connecting the iPads to my main Lightroom catalog on my desktop. While it is not a perfect solution yet, it is a great beginning in my view. This comes from a person who has been using Aperture since 2007 as the exclusive digital asset manager.

My move to Lightroom was a reluctant one. It began following the release of Mavericks and Aperture 3.5. I didn't want to move from Aperture. In my communication with someone in corporate relations at Apple, as well as with the Aperture engineering team, I told them, Aperture forced me to leave. On two state of the art Macs, Aperture 3.5.1 has consistently suffered from memory leaks. My 80,000 image strong library has often had to rebuild after such crashes. The most recent is last Sunday, when I decided to test Aperture again after being assured the issue had been resolved.

Even now, all I hear is that they're working on figuring out causes. I've sent workflow information, crash logs, screenshots and more. So, because this is a business, and reliability is essential, I had to find another digital asset manager. Lightroom is not without its shortcomings. However, it is very stable. And the decision to add this mobile component is a smart one. If nothing else, I am confident that Adobe has made its photography products the center of attention. That is the core of their business. They can't afford to be indifferent about Lightroom and/or Photoshop as Apple appears to have been for the past few years with Aperture. Quite frankly, as a professional photographer, I've simply become weary of making excuses over Apple's apparent lack effort with the application as photography has evolved. Sometimes Aperture still chokes on my D800 raw files (even the lossless compressed ones that are roughly 45MB each), even though processing is done on a current model iMac with 32GB RAM, their top of the line NVIDIA card, and their highest end quad-core processor.

I don't know if Apple will ever step up their game again on the image management front. I will always love my Mac computers, and can't see myself using anything but OS X. But it will take something amazing for me to go back to Aperture (or any of its derivatives). And it has nothing to do with whether or not the application will once again be robust and powerful. It has to do with Apple demonstrating to me that I can't count on them to pay enough attention to something so central to my work.

Adobe may well screw us all (pardon the colloquialism) with their rental scheme. But I trust them to keep updating and innovating on the image management and image manipulation fronts. Now, that is perhaps the limit of my trust for Adobe. But it's one area where Apple has lost my confidence.
post #21 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by defraserii View Post

^ post

Thanks for your post, insightful.

OT, if I may, but I didn't know pro's were using an iMac for photography. Are the screens really that good? I'm a hobbyist photographer, and 'can only use matte'. Nope, my name isn't zunc (or whatever the posters' name was on this site repeating 'no matte; no sale'. But I do agree with his statement)

BOT, I haven't had many crashes, certainly not from 3.0 onwards.

Thank you, and welcome to the forum.
post #22 of 66
Quote:
 In order to function, users need to have access to Lightroom 5 on a desktop or laptop, Lightroom's mobile service andLightroom mobile for iPad. This means owners of non-Creative Cloud Photoshop or Lightroom will need to buy a subscription to a qualifying Adobe Creative Cloud product.

As soon as I read this line, I flipped the bird at my screen and mentally told Adobe to F off. I will NOT be paying no f'ing subscription for your bloated, buggy software! I rather use ANYTHING other than Creative Cloud! Will be sticking with CS6 as long as OS compatibility remains, or I find something from another software vendor.

post #23 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1983 View Post

Thought this was a great product until I read about the subscription requirement. That just killed it for me.

Remember the backlash on photographer forums, and even Adobe's own discussion groups, when that moron of a CEO announced that going forward CC would be mandatory for their software? I guess they really are one of those corporations who never listen to their customers.

 

I've been looking for alternatives ever since that debacle, and am almost ready to make the switch away from their crap altogether, and can't wait for that day to come!

post #24 of 66

I have also used a Mac Pro. And you would be surprised how many professional photographers are using a high-end iMac and/or MacBook Pro with a Thunderbolt display. I have both setups, with the latter used primarily in the studio (for tethered shooting and edits). I have an array of RAID drives connected to the iMac. Those drives contain my image library, while the iMac has the main Lightroom catalog. 

 

The screen in the iMacs is essentially the same as the 27" Thunderbolt displays. I have done color calibration on the iMac as well as my Thunderbolt monitor. That's an important step to take on every new machine/display before undertaking image processing. 

post #25 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by defraserii View Post

I have also used a Mac Pro. And you would be surprised how many professional photographers are using a high-end iMac and/or MacBook Pro with a Thunderbolt display. I have both setups, with the latter used primarily in the studio (for tethered shooting and edits). I have an array of RAID drives connected to the iMac. Those drives contain my image library, while the iMac has the main Lightroom catalog. 

The screen in the iMacs is essentially the same as the 27" Thunderbolt displays. I have done color calibration on the iMac as well as my Thunderbolt monitor. That's an important step to take on every new machine/display before undertaking image processing. 

The Mac setup I understand, I just didn't know pros were ok with glossy screens. I fully agree on the calibration need. Thanks for the quick reply.
post #26 of 66

I agree with defraserii, Mel, igamogam, et al regarding Aperture.  As far as LR's interface it's really the issue of moving away from a UI/paradigm that one has used since the start.  LR seems really awful until you decide you simply must get on with it, and then anything is possible.  I've owned it for a year and barely cracked it because I far prefer the Aperture way I've been working for so long that I haven't gotten up to speed on it, so whenever getting a lot done in the proper amount of time looms, which is nearly always, I just fire up Aperture and get it done.   But the last six months, for the first time, I've been thinking about when I can migrate over and learn more LR nearly every time I open it!   

 

Some may be due to how it has tripped over transitioning to Mavericks (horrible RAM leakage, slowdowns and stalls) but it reminds me of how Apple had such a goldmine with Logic and, while it still has a niche, its reputation was damaged by being practically the last OS X DAW to get its 10.6 to 10.8 OS compatibility bugs worked out, and had probably the WORST cpu and core usage efficiency of any for way too long.  How can this be?  It's an Apple product!  On Apple computers on Apple's OS!???

 

Same here.  Aperture's a very good app.  But in order to be a duck it has to quack like a duck and swim like a duck, which it really doesn't.

post #27 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post




But how to migrate to LR? Will you simply re-do any changes made after importing the Masters into LR? Or will you import the Versions into LR? Or nothing, by keeping your current photos in A3 and import new photos into LR? Or a possible #4: a migration tool I haven't heard about?

 

 

PhilBoogie, there isn't a migration tool.  Aperture Versions can't be imported into LR.  Moving a library over means doing the same adjustments over again, which has its upside. because, although if you've got huge amounts of images it's ridiculous to redo them all, I always find that taking a second crack later at images that are important to me often yields worthwhile improvements.   Redoing brushwork is a PITA, but otherwise making the same global changes isn't that torturous.

 

  Generally it's #3:  What's done in Aperture stays there and what has started there gets finished there, and new projects begin in LR.  Since the current version of Ap will run for some time (especially if you keep a clone of the current system handy into new systems that demand it be upgraded) and going back to old Ap libraries would be like getting back on a bicycle (we won't forget how to use it) it's not as bad in practice as it feels like it would be. 

post #28 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post


Aperture isn't that popular. 

I respectfully disagree. Aperture is currently #5 in top grossing paid Mac apps in the Mac App store 

"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #29 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlandd View Post

 

Some may be due to how it has tripped over transitioning to Mavericks (horrible RAM leakage, slowdowns and stalls) 

pretty sure its all the same issue;  RAM.  It seems to due reasonably well with 16GB without issues most of the time.  No doubt, its a bit much.

"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #30 of 66
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post


Aperture isn't that popular. 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by snova View Post
 

I respectfully disagree. Aperture is currently #5 in top grossing paid Mac apps in the Mac App store 

 

Here the adjective wasn't meant to describe Aperture's rank within the Apple apps but within the pro photo user world.
 
I would say that Aperture is a fairly popular program but one gets a skewed picture in the photographers' by virtue of what a popular posting topic it is.   Sadly, it really doesn't hold a candle to LR as far as use time in pro image environments.  I'm a complete Apple cheerleader but that's a fact.
 
The amount of downloads it has compared to other Apple apps isn't a meaningful yardstick of its real world use compared to LR.
post #31 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlandd View Post
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post


Aperture isn't that popular. 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by snova View Post
 

I respectfully disagree. Aperture is currently #5 in top grossing paid Mac apps in the Mac App store 

 

Here the adjective wasn't meant to describe Aperture's rank within the Apple apps but within the pro photo user world.
 
I would say that Aperture is a fairly popular program but one gets a skewed picture in the photographers' by virtue of what a popular posting topic it is.   Sadly, it really doesn't hold a candle to LR as far as use time in pro image environments.  I'm a complete Apple cheerleader but that's a fact.
 
The amount of downloads it has compared to other Apple apps isn't a meaningful yardstick of its real world use compared to LR.

lets just leave this as a religious debate. *fact*

"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #32 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post
 

lets just leave this as a religious debate. *fact*

Wasn't commenting on the value or quality or pros or cons of either program.   Plenty of photographers (including myself) do pro work with Aperture.    But LR's presence in the pro community, where nearly everyone who has LR also has their $80 download of Aperture, has always been higher, and over the past few years Aperture's share among them has decreased.   It's just the way it is.  

post #33 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

For all of that? Seriously? That's a pretty good deal. But if you're an amateur, you don't need pro level apps. Get iPhoto and you'll be happy.

I agree with you Photoshop (and rest of Adobe CS) wise, but Lightroom... it was always very sensibly priced and as such, I'm pretty sure a lot of amateurs/hobbyists are using it; I know I do. With older DSLR cameras, there was obvious IQ difference between RAW (converted to JPG in LR) and JPG from camera, plus additional bonus of easy fixing some of shooting mistakes (light balance comes first to my mind). I do shoot (and edit) "seriously" twice a year on average, rest of the time I mostly only snapshot, even with my smartphone... so subscription model feels a bit enforced for me.
post #34 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danox View Post

Paying every two years or three for real new features in a program was cool, subscribing and getting no real improvements is unacceptable. That is why Adobe revenue and profit has stalled.

adobe revenue income - Wolfram|Alpha
adobe net income - Wolfram|Alpha

Except that that's wrong. Adobe has made major upgrades to their software since CC began. If you used CCC you would know that. This happens to be a good deal.
post #35 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by MagMan1979 View Post

Remember the backlash on photographer forums, and even Adobe's own discussion groups, when that moron of a CEO announced that going forward CC would be mandatory for their software? I guess they really are one of those corporations who never listen to their customers.

I've been looking for alternatives ever since that debacle, and am almost ready to make the switch away from their crap altogether, and can't wait for that day to come!

It's hard to believe you use their software if you call it crap
post #36 of 66
Originally Posted by melgross View Post
It's hard to believe you use their software if you call it crap

 

I rather think it’s hard to believe someone calling software crap if he hasn’t used it.

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 #37 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post

I respectfully disagree. Aperture is currently #5 in top grossing paid Mac apps in the Mac App store 

Virtually no pros use Aperature. I'm sorry to say that, but that's the fact. And I'm talking about pros. Apple repositioned this software a long time ago. They tried, at first, to appeal to pros, but due to their failure to understand pro needs, they failed. While the software is much better now, it's too little, too late. They don't upgrade often enough, and it's fallen well behind.
post #38 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlandd View Post


Exactly. If one goes to the pro sites, and looks at the forums, there are far more threads, and posts, regarding LR, than there are regarding Aperture.
post #39 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post

lets just leave this as a religious debate. *fact*

No, it's not.
post #40 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikon133 View Post

I agree with you Photoshop (and rest of Adobe CS) wise, but Lightroom... it was always very sensibly priced and as such, I'm pretty sure a lot of amateurs/hobbyists are using it; I know I do. With older DSLR cameras, there was obvious IQ difference between RAW (converted to JPG in LR) and JPG from camera, plus additional bonus of easy fixing some of shooting mistakes (light balance comes first to my mind). I do shoot (and edit) "seriously" twice a year on average, rest of the time I mostly only snapshot, even with my smartphone... so subscription model feels a bit enforced for me.

LR is basically Camera Raw with a seperate organizational UI. If you don't need the many, and complex, tools that PS has, then LR could be enough.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • Adobe's 'Lightroom mobile' for iPad brings advanced photo editing, organization to iOS
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Adobe's 'Lightroom mobile' for iPad brings advanced photo editing, organization to iOS