Adobe Lightroom plug-in eases transition from Aperture, streamlines photo library imports

Posted:
in Mac Software edited October 2014
Seemingly timed to coincide with the launch of OS X Yosemite, Adobe on Thursday announced availability of a Lightroom plug-in that streamlines the process of importing Aperture photo libraries.



Since Apple announced it would drop support for Aperture in June, Adobe has been looking for ways to gain marketshare at the expense of the image editing app's demise. The latest foray comes in the form of a plug-in that easily transitions existing Aperture photo libraries into Lightroom 5.6 or later.

Along with the new plug-in, Adobe is extending a free three-month subscription to photography training program KelbyOne. Membership includes the following:
  • Step-by-step training series to streamline the transition from Aperture to Lightroom
  • Full access to comprehensive training videos on Lightroom and Photoshop, lighting and photography
  • 3-month digital subscription to Photoshop User; and additional bonus content
In August, Adobe published a how-to guide for migrating from Apple's Aperture to Lightroom. Adobe Lightroom is a part of the Creative Cloud Photography subscription plan, which gives users access to the latest versions of Photoshop, Lightroom and mobile imaging apps for $9.99 per month.

Most recently, Adobe revamped its iOS app library, with major updates for free apps Photoshop Sketch, Photoshop Mix, Lightroom, Color CC and Illustrator Line.

On Thursday, Apple issued what is likely one of the last updates for Aperture, making the software fully compatible with OS X Yosemite. A new Photos app, said to be a cross between Apple's pro-level Aperture and consumer-level iPhoto, is due for release in 2015.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 35
    The timing is excellent. Will see reviews first before I make any decision. Not that I need to, Aperture runs just fine. Perhaps better to await all versions be on .1 before 'upgrading' my workflow.
  • Reply 2 of 35
    enzosenzos Posts: 344member
    Ditto, PB. It's a bit of premature opportunism from Adobe since Aperture has just got an update (3.6) for Yosemite and is performing as before or maybe better, without library upgrades, etc.

    Having used it a few times, I've nothing against Lightroom it's just that I like Aperture better and can wait for Photos (or whatever) to see if it's a reasonable successor.
  • Reply 3 of 35
    philboogie wrote: »
    The timing is excellent. Will see reviews first before I make any decision. Not that I need to, Aperture runs just fine. Perhaps better to await all versions be on .1 before 'upgrading' my workflow.

    My suggestion: patience and wait to see what Photos has to offer.

    Here's a very nice and short comment on the iLife thread by Chasm that says it best.
  • Reply 4 of 35
    philboogiephilboogie Posts: 7,419member
    ^ post

    Thanks, I saw that post. Yup, patience and not a problem if the 1.0 version is not for me. It's not like Aperture is going to auto-shutdown.
  • Reply 5 of 35
    Never been pleased with Adobe, a company that builds complex, powerful yet utterly unintuitive software. I have always wondered why Apple just didn't buy Adobe and work their magic on it? Why Apple is abandoning perhaps its most hard core professional customer base by dumbing down its Pro programs is beyond me. Money obviously, but for a company with billions in the bank, why? Why not expand and make the Pro programs better not dumber? Apple is a wonderful company that has transformed computing. Adobe is a PC company that did nothing for the user experience except make it frustrating, longwinded, inelegant and a pain. I do use Photoshop , rarely, and know how powerful and good it can be, but compared to the elegance of Apple software engineers and Aperture, Adobe engineers are the 1984 goon squad that seemingly don't care about making our lives more difficult. Sad Apple is going down this route.
  • Reply 6 of 35

    Caribousteaks,

     

    I agree 100%. It's nice that apple is making their consumer software better and more powerful, but why at the expense of their pro apps?

     

    I will wait to see what Photos looks like, but if Final Cut is any example it will be a couple years before they add back in all the features of Aperture they will lose in producing Photos...

  • Reply 7 of 35
    philboogiephilboogie Posts: 7,419member
    Never been pleased with Adobe, a company that builds complex, powerful yet utterly unintuitive software. I have always wondered why Apple just didn't buy Adobe and work their magic on it? Why Apple is abandoning perhaps its most hard core professional customer base by dumbing down its Pro programs is beyond me. Money obviously, but for a company with billions in the bank, why? Why not expand and make the Pro programs better not dumber? Apple is a wonderful company that has transformed computing. Adobe is a PC company that did nothing for the user experience except make it frustrating, longwinded, inelegant and a pain. I do use Photoshop , rarely, and know how powerful and good it can be, but compared to the elegance of Apple software engineers and Aperture, Adobe engineers are the 1984 goon squad that seemingly don't care about making our lives more difficult. Sad Apple is going down this route.

    What incentive is there for Apple to buy Adobe? To make software for the peecee? No, they don't do that, except for iCloud and iOS device compatibility.

    Buy Adobe for their talent? Well, if they are indeed creating utterly unintuitive software what will they do with the newly hired ones, fire them before their first day at work?

    Is Apple dumbing down their Pro apps? No, not by a long shot; they are creating an even more compelling and useful ecosystem that syncs everything in order for us to use any Apple device we have or want to use.

    To say that Apple is making our lives more difficult is disingenuous at best. Actually, a rather foolish statement, without having first used the new Photos app before making assumptions.

    I say wait till it's here, try it out on a duplicate library or a separate set of photos, use it for a couple of days and post back your findings.

    edit: this reply applies to you too [@]jsheffie[/@]
  • Reply 8 of 35

    I use Lightroom almost exclusively, and I find its workflow a lot more intuitive than Photoshop (which I rarely need to use). I do agree that Adobe makes some really goofy interfaces. My first job in software development was at Quark in the mid 90s, and I remember talk of a hostile takeover of Adobe (Quark had so much freaking cash back then). Pretty much everyone was up in arms about crappy UI design and didn't want to have to transform those teams. I'm not sure that QXP was all that brilliant either, but whatever.

  • Reply 9 of 35

    Thanks for the response, but I stand by my assessment. Apple has a history of releasing software that is less capable than previous versions in the name of progress.

     

    Several other apps come to mind (Pages, Numbers, Keynote, and OS X Server) on top of Final Cut Pro. Yes, they have closed many if not most of the deficiencies in those software applications over the last few years (at least in my mind, barring Server), but the truth remains. Whenever Apple wants to fully replace something old with something new, they release (what people often call) beta software on its members.

     

    I know Photos will do well, and I know that I will use it (even from the beginning) for some things. However, to say that Apple has changed its practices to releasing new software that is complete (compared to its predecessors) is a bit nearsighted in my opinion.

     

    I love Apple as much as the next Apple guy. I use their products for almost everything, and maybe I'm wrong. I hope I am. History just has a way of repeating itself.

     

    In regards to buying Adobe... Yeah, I wouldn't do it. But it would be good for Apple to do something other than re-release pro apps as pro-sumer editions.

  • Reply 10 of 35



    Just installed Yosemite. Amused to see that one of the quoted new features in Mail is the ability to directly export images received in messages to Aperture. Secrecy can be a double-edged weapon ;)

  • Reply 11 of 35

    The incentive to by Adobe is no different to any incentive to buy any company. To own their technologies and absorb their capabilities into ones own.  Simply put to make Aperture and Final Cut even better.  Adobe is the only real competitor to Apple with regard to video and still  editing programs.  Here we have a situation where Adobe is today making the move to scoop up Aperture users who feel left for dead by the transition to "Photos".  There is no doubt Photos will be a good program, but how can you consider it a better program when it is trying to bridge itself to the lesser iPhoto?  You can't.  Thats dumbing down the product.  The capabilities of Photoshop Elements have consistently been upgraded as have those of Photoshop itself year after year and each iteration makes a big deal of the advancement.  Why Apple feels its has to downgrade is excellent program to make it user friendly with iPhoto users is ridiculous.  Apple has the loyal user base in its pro community to justify constantly upgrading its pro Aps. just like Adobe does.  I have never heard a graphic artist praise the user experience of Photoshop and yet they all use it as it is so powerful and no alternative exists.  Aperture users on the other hand sing praises for Aperture yet constantly wish for more enhancements and capabilities not less.  "Photos" will be a dumbing down. Its entire presentation by Apple as a bridge to a lesser program, iPhoto.  What we Pro's want is the opposite and Adobe's action today to pick off Aperture users underscores this demand and desire totally. 

  • Reply 12 of 35
    philboogiephilboogie Posts: 7,419member
    [@]jsheffie[/@] & [@]caribousteaks[/@] You both make excellent points!

    I think I have grown accustomed to Apple shaking everything up by taking away features and slowly add them back (like FCP and many other apps). In the end though I do think they have created excellent programs, but the path towards that goal read 'stupidity' all over it, like the removal of selling boxed FCP7.

    Fortunately Aperture will remain working though, and I would expect any shortcomings in Photos to be fulfilled by 3rd party plugins. But I will be disappointed if that doesn't turn out to be the case.
  • Reply 13 of 35

    "Apple buy Adobe and work their magic on it?"  I would absolutely hate that.  Now I love Apple, and use their products and also Photoshop every day, but I would never want to see Apple buy Adobe.  One way that Apple makes things more intuitive is to remove options.  As a professional, I don't need intuitive. I need options, and powerful features.  It is almost like saying, "why doesn't Apple buy NASA and make rocket science easy?"  Some things are just complicated and can't be overly simplified.

     

    I bought Aperture several years ago because it was cheaper, and I did like it.  Then I switched to Lightroom, and that was so much better for me.  Adobe caters to professionals and not just the average consumer.  Just look at their business models.  Adobe makes most of its money from pros.  Apple makes most if its money from consumers.  Based on that, where do you think each company spends most of their time and energy?  As a pro, I want someone that focuses on my needs. I don't want a company that focuses on making software accessible to everyone to change the software that I use to make a living.

     

    On a side note, with Adobe's Creative Cloud, most subscribers get Lightroom for "free" bundled in with Photoshop.  It makes sense that Apple would concede the pro market to Adobe and focus more on prosumers with their new Photos app.

  • Reply 14 of 35
    MacProMacPro Posts: 17,729member
    philboogie wrote: »
    The timing is excellent. Will see reviews first before I make any decision. Not that I need to, Aperture runs just fine. Perhaps better to await all versions be on .1 before 'upgrading' my workflow.

    I see it is only for LR 5.6 CC not the previous pre Cloud version that ran on your local drive, 5.0 I believe. If that is a limitation that's a bummer for those who are happy staying with CS6 and 5.0 locally and don't want to get into Adobe's cloud rental scheme.
  • Reply 15 of 35
    MacProMacPro Posts: 17,729member
    flair wrote: »
    "Apple buy Adobe and work their magic on it?"  I would absolutely hate that.  Now I love Apple, and use their products and also Photoshop every day, but I would never want to see Apple buy Adobe.  One way that Apple makes things more intuitive is to remove options.  As a professional, I don't need intuitive. I need options, and powerful features.  It is almost like saying, "why doesn't Apple buy NASA and make rocket science easy?"  Some things are just complicated and can't be overly simplified.

    I bought Aperture several years ago because it was cheaper, and I did like it.  Then I switched to Lightroom, and that was so much better for me.  Adobe caters to professionals and not just the average consumer.  Just look at their business models.  Adobe makes most of its money from pros.  Apple makes most if its money from consumers.  Based on that, where do you think each company spends most of their time and energy?  As a pro, I want someone that focuses on my needs. I don't want a company that focuses on making software accessible to everyone to change the software that I use to make a living.

    On a side note, with Adobe's Creative Cloud, most subscribers get Lightroom for "free" bundled in with Photoshop.  It makes sense that Apple would concede the pro market to Adobe and focus more on prosumers with their new Photos app.

    I partly agree but there are examples where Apple has (eventually ... even if they did at first) not just simplify a pro product. FCPro X is now spectacular and so it Logic Pro X. I am extremely pissed off that there is no Aperture Pro X though.

    On your last point I am happy staying with CS6 for the time being and don't want to pay rent when I can do everything I need with CS6. So what do i do about this plug in that seems to be only for the CC version ... any suggestions? I am willing to try LR 5.0 more (which I bought pre cloud).
  • Reply 16 of 35
    MacProMacPro Posts: 17,729member
    philboogie wrote: »
    [@]jsheffie[/@] & [@]caribousteaks[/@] You both make excellent points!

    I think I have grown accustomed to Apple shaking everything up by taking away features and slowly add them back (like FCP and many other apps). In the end though I do think they have created excellent programs, but the path towards that goal read 'stupidity' all over it, like the removal of selling boxed FCP7.

    Fortunately Aperture will remain working though, and I would expect any shortcomings in Photos to be fulfilled by 3rd party plugins. But I will be disappointed if that doesn't turn out to be the case.

    I am in the same boat as you. I can guess though, 3rd party plug ins are probably already on the 'no more development' shelf. That said, I currently just right click and export to PS and use plug-ins there and save back to Aperture. With a new Mac Pro using RAID 0 over TB this is close to instantaneous even with full sized 5K RAW images using TIFF or PSD 16 bit export.
  • Reply 17 of 35
    philboogiephilboogie Posts: 7,419member
    I currently just right click and export to PS and use plug-ins there and save back to Aperture. With a new Mac Pro using RAID 0 over TB this is close to instantaneous even with full sized 5K RAW images using TIFF or PSD 16 bit export.

    Show-off!!
  • Reply 18 of 35
    MacProMacPro Posts: 17,729member
    philboogie wrote: »
    Show-off!!
    LOL

    I do force myself to use my 2013 Mac mini each day just so I never get accustomed to the nMP and continue to appreciate it. It's the modern day equivalent of an hour with the hair shirt. :\
  • Reply 19 of 35
    I see it is only for LR 5.6 CC not the previous pre Cloud version that ran on your local drive, 5.0 I believe. If that is a limitation that's a bummer for those who are happy staying with CS6 and 5.0 locally and don't want to get into Adobe's cloud rental scheme.

    Many dislike the rentware model. Amazon to the rescue:

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/Adobe-Photoshop-Lightroom-Mac-PC/dp/B00CLD7Y4O/ref=sr_1_1?s=software&ie=UTF8&qid=1413557771&sr=1-1&keywords=lightroom

    Ò¬???©ƒ?

    edit: whoops, was searching for the pound sign. No, not that one, but some key combo decided to hit submit for me. Anyway, it's GBP 99
  • Reply 20 of 35
    MacProMacPro Posts: 17,729member
    philboogie wrote: »
    Many dislike the renter model. Amazon to the rescue:

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/Adobe-Photoshop-Lightroom-Mac-PC/dp/B00CLD7Y4O/ref=sr_1_1?s=software&ie=UTF8&qid=1413557771&sr=1-1&keywords=lightroom

    Ò¬???©ƒ?

    edit: whoops, was searching for the pound sign. No, not that one, but some key combo decided to hit submit for me. Anyway, it's GBP 99

    £ = Option # on US keyboard ... might not be the same there in darkest Europe ;)

    Yes, I have that boxed 5 but the plug in seems to be cloud related only ... I might be missing something though. But I couldn't download it locally.
Sign In or Register to comment.