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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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*
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Comments
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
Aperture isn't that popular.
I respectfully disagree. Aperture is currently #5 in top grossing paid Mac apps in the Mac App store
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.
Aperture isn't that popular.
Quote:
I respectfully disagree. Aperture is currently #5 in top grossing paid Mac apps in the Mac App store
Aperture isn't that popular.
Quote:
I respectfully disagree. Aperture is currently #5 in top grossing paid Mac apps in the Mac App store
lets just leave this as a religious debate. *fact*
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No, it's not.
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.
Seriously? On the Internet? You mean everyone always tell the truth? Wow! I never knew that.