Adobe's Light Room is and always has been a me-too product. It miraculously appeared after Aperture 1.0 caught Adobe by surprise, even though it had been in Adobe labs "for years" they claimed.
Right.
To show you just how confused Adobe is, they have Photoshop with Bridge for organizing files; or Lightroom with its Catalogs; or Photoshop Elements for Windows with it Organizer; oh, but wait, Photoshop Elements for Mac uses Bridge!
Why such a huge mess? Sure, I understand why Lightroom and Bridge are different, but why does Photoshop Elements not use one or the other? Why use something completely different (Organizer) on one platform, and use the weaker of the two (for photographers) on the other platform. I mean, are Mac users of Photoshop Elements more likely to want to use Bridge so they can view Illustrator and InDesign documents?
It's a totally confused strategy. In fact, it's the lack of a strategy. It's simply reacting to competition, but not driving forward with a consistent idea.
All I know is that Lightroom 2 kicks ass. It's fast, has basically every feature I can imagine, and lots I can't imagine, and I've never had a single problem with it. The library system is also amazing in it's flexibility. I never tried Aperture, mostly because Lightroom hasn't given me any reason to, and i've heard friends complain about various aspects, and talk about improvements that could be made to it...
I can't imagine the new Aperture doing anything to peel away existing Lightroom users, but they do have a great chance with first time "prosumer" types, who are amateurs that drop ridiculously big bucks on pro cameras they don't need and are big apple fans. They'd definitely be inclined to snap up aperture based on brand alone.
Anyways, i look forward to Lightroom 3!!!!
It's awesome and smart that Adobe makes their beta tests so widely available - I wonder how many iTunes, iPhoto, Aperture issues could have been dealt with in advance with broader Beta testing, and maybe listening to testers for design ideas instead of just crash reports (lightroom 1 changed interface considerably from Beta to 1.0...)
Adobe's Light Room is and always has been a me-too product. It miraculously appeared after Aperture 1.0 caught Adobe by surprise, even though it had been in Adobe labs "for years" they claimed.
Right.
To show you just how confused Adobe is, they have Photoshop with Bridge for organizing files; or Lightroom with its Catalogs; or Photoshop Elements for Windows with it Organizer; oh, but wait, Photoshop Elements for Mac uses Bridge!
Why such a huge mess? Sure, I understand why Lightroom and Bridge are different, but why does Photoshop Elements not use one or the other? Why use something completely different (Organizer) on one platform, and use the weaker of the two (for photographers) on the other platform. I mean, are Mac users of Photoshop Elements more likely to want to use Bridge so they can view Illustrator and InDesign documents?
It's a totally confused strategy. In fact, it's the lack of a strategy. It's simply reacting to competition, but not driving forward with a consistent idea.
Which is what Aperture does very well.
You haven't checked out, or figured out the products.
There's a good reason Lightroom isn't a part of any of Adobe's Creative Suites. It's designed purely as a photography workflow/front end.
The Bridge is, by contrast, a design catalogue/frontend which integrates with the Creative suite..
A photographer would catalogue their material and work in Lightroom about 80% of the time, maybe send photos after processing in Lightroom to Photoshop for some edits, which is easy, and is actually automatically updated by the lIghtroom catalogue.
A designer, on the other hand would have all of their material in the Bridge, and move it in and out of the various CS apps. I think most people with CS probably just use Adobe Camera Raw for development, since it has a full feature set.
Lightroom is more for folks that don't have the full Creative Suite.
Nothing really confusing about it. Bridge is Creative Suite. Lightroom isn't.
All I know is that Lightroom 2 kicks ass. It's fast, has basically every feature I can imagine, and lots I can't imagine, and I've never had a single problem with it. I never tried Aperture, mostly because Lightroom hasn't given me any reason to, and i've heard friends complain about various aspects, and talk about improvements that could be made to it...
"My product is perfect and the other one sucks, even though I've never tried it". That kinda makes you sound like a fanboy, no?
Sure, Lightroom's interface changed during the betas because Adobe didn't really know what they were doing. Like I said, no vision/strategy.
And why is it OK that you buy Apple hardware and OS X without public betas (like Windows does) but somehow it's not OK for Aperture to do it that way? Doesn't seem consistent.
Aperture has a consistency and beauty about it the same way that Apple hardware and OS X do: it's a strong vision of what a product should be. Definitely not designed by committee.
Sure, Apple makes mistakes sometimes, but I don't believe Aperture is one of them (and I've tried both Lightroom and Aperture, and have LR 3 beta on my machine now).
You haven't checked out, or figured out the products.
There's a good reason Lightroom isn't a part of any of Adobe's Creative Suites. It's designed purely as a photography workflow/front end.
The Bridge is, by contrast, a design catalogue/frontend which integrates with the Creative suite..
A photographer would catalogue their material and work in Lightroom about 80% of the time, maybe send photos after processing in Lightroom to Photoshop for some edits, which is easy, and is actually automatically updated by the lIghtroom catalogue.
A designer, on the other hand would have all of their material in the Bridge, and move it in and out of the various CS apps. I think most people with CS probably just use Adobe Camera Raw for development, since it has a full feature set.
Lightroom is more for folks that don't have the full Creative Suite.
Nothing really confusing about it. Bridge is Creative Suite. Lightroom isn't.
As I said in my original post, I understand that Bridge and Lightroom are different. My point was: why does Photoshop Elements for Windows use Organizer, but PSE for Mac use Bridge? Again, as I asked in my original post:
Quote:
I mean, are Mac users of Photoshop Elements more likely to want to use Bridge so they can view Illustrator and InDesign documents?
I can mostly agree that Aperature has had a difficult history, but honestly I cannot find myself using LR. Its interface is just not something I enjoy using. Same with Adobe Bridge. Aperature is simply a lot better in the interface dept. Now Apple simply has to fix the rest of it.
What don't you like about the Lightroom catalogue?
I think it's genius. My favorite part is that it remembers and displays thumbnails for photos on external drives which aren't plugged in, and automatically updates the library if I've deleted some of those the next time the drive is plugged in. Ever try that in iTunes? Also, the whole catalogue structure is very flexible and customizable and the tagging is versatile and fast. I can't compare it to Aperture, but I must say I like it a hell of a lot more than Finder in OSX 10.5.7...
BTW, I agree with those use say version "X" is used as a placeholder for a version number and has no other special connotation.
And it would not surprise me if Apple had this leaked intentionally, so that the Aperture faithful wouldn't lose the faith with the release of Lightroom 3 beta.
"My product is perfect and the other one sucks, even though I've never tried it". That kinda makes you sound like a fanboy, no?
I didn't say Aperture sucks, I said I've heard people say there are problems with it, which I've never experienced in Lightroom. Read the rest of this thread, and you'll see some pretty big apple supporters who also say Apple dropped the ball and had launch issues with Aperture.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bikertwin
And why is it OK that you buy Apple hardware and OS X without public betas (like Windows does) but somehow it's not OK for Aperture to do it that way? Doesn't seem consistent.
Well, issues with testing an OS or hardware would probably fuck with everything I'm running on them. Issues with testing a professional program would be localized to that program, which I can deal with. I think you can look at the difference between the Windows 7 testing and the Lightroom betas as an example. Lot's of normal, non computer nerds have downloaded the Lightroom betas, used them as previews, and also checked out features, in addition to checking for bugs. Windows 7 betas were all used by computer nerds who were comfortable with wiping their systems if it crashed bad...
Quote:
Aperture has a consistency and beauty about it the same way that Apple hardware and OS X do: it's a strong vision of what a product should be. Definitely not designed by committee.
So you think Aperture was designed and programmed by a single person and not a committee? Let me guess.... STEVE JOBS???
As I said in my original post, I understand that Bridge and Lightroom are different. My point was: why does Photoshop Elements for Windows use Organizer, but PSE for Mac use Bridge? Again, as I asked in my original post:
I assume it's an operating system based reason for Organizer vs. Bridge with Photoshop elements, kind of like Outlook vs Entourage in MS Office. Do you also get confused by why PCs have Outlook and Macs have Entourage? Is it worth worrying over? Or were you just bashing Adobe...
PSE is a stripped down version of PS, aimed at amateurs/consumer level folks who don't need all the features. Everybody needs some sort of content catalog, so Adobe made Organizer, which is a (very) stripped down version of Bridge. I guess there was an issue with porting Organizer to mac, so they just stuck with Bridge. Lucky mac users, since the Bridge is a lot more powerful than Organizer....
The Lightroom catalogue is part of Lightroom, and i doubt could just be yanked out and pasted onto Photoshop Elements. Photoshop and Lightroom are different programs.
Is there a problem with that?
The fact that Adobe has about 20 programs out there, divided into several different creative suites is because the photography, design and film worlds are very interdisciplinary and varied, and can't be satisfied practically or economically by a single, do it all program. Therefore...
I assume it's an operating system based reason for Organizer vs. Bridge with Photoshop elements, kind of like Outlook vs Entourage in MS Office. Do you also get confused by why PCs have Outlook and Macs have Entourage? Is it worth worrying over? Or were you just bashing Adobe...
PSE is a stripped down version of PS, aimed at amateurs/consumer level folks who don't need all the features. Everybody needs some sort of content catalog, so Adobe made Organizer, which is a (very) stripped down version of Bridge. I guess there was an issue with porting Organizer to mac, so they just stuck with Bridge. Lucky mac users, since the Bridge is a lot more powerful than Organizer....
The Lightroom catalogue is part of Lightroom, and i doubt could just be yanked out and pasted onto Photoshop Elements. Photoshop and Lightroom are different programs.
Is there a problem with that?
Yes. Adobe has no big picture, no plan, no strategy.
If it's an operating system difference (that PSE has Organizer on Windows but Bridge on Mac), then how come they didn't have the same problem with Lightroom? Is the PSE Organizer not comparable to Lightroom's catalogs? (And if Organizer is a stripped down version of Bridge, as you say, then how come the full Bridge works on Mac but the Organizer doesn't. That makes no sense.)
Adobe's being going after the consumer/prosumer photo editing market for years. Remember PhotoDeluxe?! Ugh. I do. Then Photoshop LE? Another discontinued product. They didn't even get close until Photoshop Elements 1.0.
Still way too confusing for beginners and way too much non-photo related stuff. Now people create amazing images from scratch in PSE, but a lot of its photo tools replicate what's in Lightroom.
If you're a prosumer who buys a dSLR, do you get Photoshop Elements or Lightroom? Well, they want you to buy both. But they still don't integrate well. Where do you store your images? Which do you use for which procedure?
It's a mess. A disaster for the end user.
But great for Adobe, because they get to charge you for both programs and there's no clear workflow for the user.
But look at Apple. You have either iPhoto or Aperture. Both integrate throughout the operating system (you can use either--or both!--for desktop backgrounds, screen savers, or within the iLife or iWork apps). In fact, you can reference Aperture images in iPhoto (File-->Show Aperture Library) and iPhoto images from within Aperture (File-->Show iPhoto Browser). How beautiful and consistent is that?
What Apple needs is more photo editing tools. Do they need their own Photoshop CS? Not sure about that. But certainly more photo editing tools than Aperture currently has--such as selection/region-based editing, without being destructive editing. That's, admittedly, a big gap that they fill by telling you to get PSE or PS CS. Apple can do better than that.
What don't you like about the Lightroom catalogue?
a) you cannot have a managed library
b) collections and albums are not integrated into the library
c) modal nature
Quote:
My favorite part is that it remembers and displays thumbnails for photos on external drives which aren't plugged in, and automatically updates the library if I've deleted some of those the next time the drive is plugged in. Also, the whole catalogue structure is very flexible and customizable and the tagging is versatile and fast.
As I said in my original post, I understand that Bridge and Lightroom are different. My point was: why does Photoshop Elements for Windows use Organizer, but PSE for Mac use Bridge? Again, as I asked in my original post:
"I mean, are Mac users of Photoshop Elements more likely to want to use Bridge so they can view Illustrator and InDesign documents?"
I'll give you three guesses.
Big hint: Maybe there is no Organiser for Macs because Adobe did not develop it.
Big hint: Maybe there is no Organiser for Macs because Adobe did not develop it.
Oh, you mean they bought the technology for it? I didn't know that.
But that came out in version--what?--3 or 4 of Elements? They're now on version 7, and their 3rd iteration of Lightroom. They should migrate Elements and Lightroom to use the same cataloging mechanism so that it's cross platform and you can share images cleanly between the two products (roundtrip).
But I guess they're making plenty of money right now, so they don't see the need for that. No foresight whatsoever.
As a side note I have to wonder just how gullible photographers are. Adobes beta is nothing more than a marketing ploy to snare you before Apple releases their new version. Don't fall for that crap, wait for both revisions to come out.
Well, it certainly seemed obvious to me that Adobe think Apple is about to release Aperture v3, and so put out the beta of Lightroom as a bit of a spoiler. It helps, of course, that Adobe has decided to be more open with development and features of the product (and that they're really aggressive with including support for new cameras, even if it takes making ACR betas available.)
Well, it certainly seemed obvious to me that Adobe think Apple is about to release Aperture v3, and so put out the beta of Lightroom as a bit of a spoiler. It helps, of course, that Adobe has decided to be more open with development and features of the product (and that they're really aggressive with including support for new cameras, even if it takes making ACR betas available.)
The "pre-beta" support for raw files from the 7D in Lr 2.5 is absolutely abysmal. Yes, it opens the files, but there are no profiles so the color rendering is hugely tinted toward orange. And the raw conversion for higher ISOs introduces massive amounts of noise that isn't there when the same files are converted using Canon's quirky DPP software.
In this case if you believe they are aggressive with support for new cameras, then I would say they have been too aggressive. Tom Hogarty and his whole Lightroom development team should be embarrassed at rolling out so-called "support for new cameras" with such an amateurish, incomplete effort.
I would hope that the suits at Adobe would realize they don't have the market wrapped up so much that they feel they can continue silently release such shoddy efforts in the future.
I've currently got over 65k photos on the photo project I'm working on this year
( http://www.forestpark365.com ) and I will say that while I love Aperture (yes, I've used Lightroom) it has some serious quirks.
For one thing, when going through a lot of images it will start refusing to display certain images and tell me "unsupported file" until I quit the program and restart it. Sometimes it quits on its own accord. Often, when I quit the program to open another library, it opens the previously opened library instead of the one I selected; several times in a row.
Poor batch processing capabilities: if I export more than one batch of photos (i.e. jpegs from this Project 1, then Project 2, then project 3, so that all are exporting simultaneously), it will drop images from the batches and I have to go back and re-export the missing images - after restarting the program. I have had more crashes with this program than any other since Photoshop 7 on Mac OS9.
Aperture is also a bit confusing on the placement of commands. I frequently spend time trying to remember how to do something. It's almost as bad as a Macromedia program!
The printing tools are also poor. Rather than fiddle with the obscure printing options, I print from Photoshop.
But I love Aperture! It's the only program of its sort that allows book creation, the web options are much better than Lightroom's (I've been hacking the html), I can edit the images at any point in the process and it is as fast or faster than Lightroom on the computers I use (Intel and G5). Dual monitor support from day one (I started at day one) and the best organizing tools I've ever encountered. Apple got the basic idea right, now it needs updating.
Comments
Getting Aperture functioning as paralized code with leading edge performance is.
Right.
To show you just how confused Adobe is, they have Photoshop with Bridge for organizing files; or Lightroom with its Catalogs; or Photoshop Elements for Windows with it Organizer; oh, but wait, Photoshop Elements for Mac uses Bridge!
Why such a huge mess? Sure, I understand why Lightroom and Bridge are different, but why does Photoshop Elements not use one or the other? Why use something completely different (Organizer) on one platform, and use the weaker of the two (for photographers) on the other platform. I mean, are Mac users of Photoshop Elements more likely to want to use Bridge so they can view Illustrator and InDesign documents?
It's a totally confused strategy. In fact, it's the lack of a strategy. It's simply reacting to competition, but not driving forward with a consistent idea.
Which is what Aperture does very well.
I can't imagine the new Aperture doing anything to peel away existing Lightroom users, but they do have a great chance with first time "prosumer" types, who are amateurs that drop ridiculously big bucks on pro cameras they don't need and are big apple fans. They'd definitely be inclined to snap up aperture based on brand alone.
Anyways, i look forward to Lightroom 3!!!!
It's awesome and smart that Adobe makes their beta tests so widely available - I wonder how many iTunes, iPhoto, Aperture issues could have been dealt with in advance with broader Beta testing, and maybe listening to testers for design ideas instead of just crash reports (lightroom 1 changed interface considerably from Beta to 1.0...)
Adobe's Light Room is and always has been a me-too product. It miraculously appeared after Aperture 1.0 caught Adobe by surprise, even though it had been in Adobe labs "for years" they claimed.
Right.
To show you just how confused Adobe is, they have Photoshop with Bridge for organizing files; or Lightroom with its Catalogs; or Photoshop Elements for Windows with it Organizer; oh, but wait, Photoshop Elements for Mac uses Bridge!
Why such a huge mess? Sure, I understand why Lightroom and Bridge are different, but why does Photoshop Elements not use one or the other? Why use something completely different (Organizer) on one platform, and use the weaker of the two (for photographers) on the other platform. I mean, are Mac users of Photoshop Elements more likely to want to use Bridge so they can view Illustrator and InDesign documents?
It's a totally confused strategy. In fact, it's the lack of a strategy. It's simply reacting to competition, but not driving forward with a consistent idea.
Which is what Aperture does very well.
You haven't checked out, or figured out the products.
There's a good reason Lightroom isn't a part of any of Adobe's Creative Suites. It's designed purely as a photography workflow/front end.
The Bridge is, by contrast, a design catalogue/frontend which integrates with the Creative suite..
A photographer would catalogue their material and work in Lightroom about 80% of the time, maybe send photos after processing in Lightroom to Photoshop for some edits, which is easy, and is actually automatically updated by the lIghtroom catalogue.
A designer, on the other hand would have all of their material in the Bridge, and move it in and out of the various CS apps. I think most people with CS probably just use Adobe Camera Raw for development, since it has a full feature set.
Lightroom is more for folks that don't have the full Creative Suite.
Nothing really confusing about it. Bridge is Creative Suite. Lightroom isn't.
All I know is that Lightroom 2 kicks ass. It's fast, has basically every feature I can imagine, and lots I can't imagine, and I've never had a single problem with it. I never tried Aperture, mostly because Lightroom hasn't given me any reason to, and i've heard friends complain about various aspects, and talk about improvements that could be made to it...
"My product is perfect and the other one sucks, even though I've never tried it". That kinda makes you sound like a fanboy, no?
Sure, Lightroom's interface changed during the betas because Adobe didn't really know what they were doing. Like I said, no vision/strategy.
And why is it OK that you buy Apple hardware and OS X without public betas (like Windows does) but somehow it's not OK for Aperture to do it that way? Doesn't seem consistent.
Aperture has a consistency and beauty about it the same way that Apple hardware and OS X do: it's a strong vision of what a product should be. Definitely not designed by committee.
Sure, Apple makes mistakes sometimes, but I don't believe Aperture is one of them (and I've tried both Lightroom and Aperture, and have LR 3 beta on my machine now).
You haven't checked out, or figured out the products.
There's a good reason Lightroom isn't a part of any of Adobe's Creative Suites. It's designed purely as a photography workflow/front end.
The Bridge is, by contrast, a design catalogue/frontend which integrates with the Creative suite..
A photographer would catalogue their material and work in Lightroom about 80% of the time, maybe send photos after processing in Lightroom to Photoshop for some edits, which is easy, and is actually automatically updated by the lIghtroom catalogue.
A designer, on the other hand would have all of their material in the Bridge, and move it in and out of the various CS apps. I think most people with CS probably just use Adobe Camera Raw for development, since it has a full feature set.
Lightroom is more for folks that don't have the full Creative Suite.
Nothing really confusing about it. Bridge is Creative Suite. Lightroom isn't.
As I said in my original post, I understand that Bridge and Lightroom are different. My point was: why does Photoshop Elements for Windows use Organizer, but PSE for Mac use Bridge? Again, as I asked in my original post:
I mean, are Mac users of Photoshop Elements more likely to want to use Bridge so they can view Illustrator and InDesign documents?
I can mostly agree that Aperature has had a difficult history, but honestly I cannot find myself using LR. Its interface is just not something I enjoy using. Same with Adobe Bridge. Aperature is simply a lot better in the interface dept. Now Apple simply has to fix the rest of it.
What don't you like about the Lightroom catalogue?
I think it's genius. My favorite part is that it remembers and displays thumbnails for photos on external drives which aren't plugged in, and automatically updates the library if I've deleted some of those the next time the drive is plugged in. Ever try that in iTunes? Also, the whole catalogue structure is very flexible and customizable and the tagging is versatile and fast. I can't compare it to Aperture, but I must say I like it a hell of a lot more than Finder in OSX 10.5.7...
And it would not surprise me if Apple had this leaked intentionally, so that the Aperture faithful wouldn't lose the faith with the release of Lightroom 3 beta.
"My product is perfect and the other one sucks, even though I've never tried it". That kinda makes you sound like a fanboy, no?
I didn't say Aperture sucks, I said I've heard people say there are problems with it, which I've never experienced in Lightroom. Read the rest of this thread, and you'll see some pretty big apple supporters who also say Apple dropped the ball and had launch issues with Aperture.
And why is it OK that you buy Apple hardware and OS X without public betas (like Windows does) but somehow it's not OK for Aperture to do it that way? Doesn't seem consistent.
Well, issues with testing an OS or hardware would probably fuck with everything I'm running on them. Issues with testing a professional program would be localized to that program, which I can deal with. I think you can look at the difference between the Windows 7 testing and the Lightroom betas as an example. Lot's of normal, non computer nerds have downloaded the Lightroom betas, used them as previews, and also checked out features, in addition to checking for bugs. Windows 7 betas were all used by computer nerds who were comfortable with wiping their systems if it crashed bad...
Aperture has a consistency and beauty about it the same way that Apple hardware and OS X do: it's a strong vision of what a product should be. Definitely not designed by committee.
So you think Aperture was designed and programmed by a single person and not a committee? Let me guess.... STEVE JOBS???
As I said in my original post, I understand that Bridge and Lightroom are different. My point was: why does Photoshop Elements for Windows use Organizer, but PSE for Mac use Bridge? Again, as I asked in my original post:
I assume it's an operating system based reason for Organizer vs. Bridge with Photoshop elements, kind of like Outlook vs Entourage in MS Office. Do you also get confused by why PCs have Outlook and Macs have Entourage? Is it worth worrying over? Or were you just bashing Adobe...
PSE is a stripped down version of PS, aimed at amateurs/consumer level folks who don't need all the features. Everybody needs some sort of content catalog, so Adobe made Organizer, which is a (very) stripped down version of Bridge. I guess there was an issue with porting Organizer to mac, so they just stuck with Bridge. Lucky mac users, since the Bridge is a lot more powerful than Organizer....
The Lightroom catalogue is part of Lightroom, and i doubt could just be yanked out and pasted onto Photoshop Elements. Photoshop and Lightroom are different programs.
Is there a problem with that?
The fact that Adobe has about 20 programs out there, divided into several different creative suites is because the photography, design and film worlds are very interdisciplinary and varied, and can't be satisfied practically or economically by a single, do it all program. Therefore...
So you think Aperture was designed and programmed by a single person and not a committee?
It certainly wasn't designed by thousands of beta testers.
I assume it's an operating system based reason for Organizer vs. Bridge with Photoshop elements, kind of like Outlook vs Entourage in MS Office. Do you also get confused by why PCs have Outlook and Macs have Entourage? Is it worth worrying over? Or were you just bashing Adobe...
PSE is a stripped down version of PS, aimed at amateurs/consumer level folks who don't need all the features. Everybody needs some sort of content catalog, so Adobe made Organizer, which is a (very) stripped down version of Bridge. I guess there was an issue with porting Organizer to mac, so they just stuck with Bridge. Lucky mac users, since the Bridge is a lot more powerful than Organizer....
The Lightroom catalogue is part of Lightroom, and i doubt could just be yanked out and pasted onto Photoshop Elements. Photoshop and Lightroom are different programs.
Is there a problem with that?
Yes. Adobe has no big picture, no plan, no strategy.
If it's an operating system difference (that PSE has Organizer on Windows but Bridge on Mac), then how come they didn't have the same problem with Lightroom? Is the PSE Organizer not comparable to Lightroom's catalogs? (And if Organizer is a stripped down version of Bridge, as you say, then how come the full Bridge works on Mac but the Organizer doesn't. That makes no sense.)
Look at Adobe's history of photo-editing programs. Please. http://www.adobe.com/designcenter/di...stimeline.html
Adobe's being going after the consumer/prosumer photo editing market for years. Remember PhotoDeluxe?! Ugh. I do. Then Photoshop LE? Another discontinued product. They didn't even get close until Photoshop Elements 1.0.
Still way too confusing for beginners and way too much non-photo related stuff. Now people create amazing images from scratch in PSE, but a lot of its photo tools replicate what's in Lightroom.
If you're a prosumer who buys a dSLR, do you get Photoshop Elements or Lightroom? Well, they want you to buy both. But they still don't integrate well. Where do you store your images? Which do you use for which procedure?
It's a mess. A disaster for the end user.
But great for Adobe, because they get to charge you for both programs and there's no clear workflow for the user.
But look at Apple. You have either iPhoto or Aperture. Both integrate throughout the operating system (you can use either--or both!--for desktop backgrounds, screen savers, or within the iLife or iWork apps). In fact, you can reference Aperture images in iPhoto (File-->Show Aperture Library) and iPhoto images from within Aperture (File-->Show iPhoto Browser). How beautiful and consistent is that?
What Apple needs is more photo editing tools. Do they need their own Photoshop CS? Not sure about that. But certainly more photo editing tools than Aperture currently has--such as selection/region-based editing, without being destructive editing. That's, admittedly, a big gap that they fill by telling you to get PSE or PS CS. Apple can do better than that.
I LOVE Aperture and can't wait for version 3 for 64-bit even though version 2 is pretty good the way it is.
What don't you like about the Lightroom catalogue?
a) you cannot have a managed library
b) collections and albums are not integrated into the library
c) modal nature
My favorite part is that it remembers and displays thumbnails for photos on external drives which aren't plugged in, and automatically updates the library if I've deleted some of those the next time the drive is plugged in. Also, the whole catalogue structure is very flexible and customizable and the tagging is versatile and fast.
Sure, but Aperture has all of that too.
As I said in my original post, I understand that Bridge and Lightroom are different. My point was: why does Photoshop Elements for Windows use Organizer, but PSE for Mac use Bridge? Again, as I asked in my original post:
"I mean, are Mac users of Photoshop Elements more likely to want to use Bridge so they can view Illustrator and InDesign documents?"
I'll give you three guesses.
Big hint: Maybe there is no Organiser for Macs because Adobe did not develop it.
I'll give you three guesses.
Big hint: Maybe there is no Organiser for Macs because Adobe did not develop it.
Oh, you mean they bought the technology for it? I didn't know that.
But that came out in version--what?--3 or 4 of Elements? They're now on version 7, and their 3rd iteration of Lightroom. They should migrate Elements and Lightroom to use the same cataloging mechanism so that it's cross platform and you can share images cleanly between the two products (roundtrip).
But I guess they're making plenty of money right now, so they don't see the need for that. No foresight whatsoever.
As a side note I have to wonder just how gullible photographers are. Adobes beta is nothing more than a marketing ploy to snare you before Apple releases their new version. Don't fall for that crap, wait for both revisions to come out.
Well, it certainly seemed obvious to me that Adobe think Apple is about to release Aperture v3, and so put out the beta of Lightroom as a bit of a spoiler. It helps, of course, that Adobe has decided to be more open with development and features of the product (and that they're really aggressive with including support for new cameras, even if it takes making ACR betas available.)
Well, it certainly seemed obvious to me that Adobe think Apple is about to release Aperture v3, and so put out the beta of Lightroom as a bit of a spoiler. It helps, of course, that Adobe has decided to be more open with development and features of the product (and that they're really aggressive with including support for new cameras, even if it takes making ACR betas available.)
The "pre-beta" support for raw files from the 7D in Lr 2.5 is absolutely abysmal. Yes, it opens the files, but there are no profiles so the color rendering is hugely tinted toward orange. And the raw conversion for higher ISOs introduces massive amounts of noise that isn't there when the same files are converted using Canon's quirky DPP software.
In this case if you believe they are aggressive with support for new cameras, then I would say they have been too aggressive. Tom Hogarty and his whole Lightroom development team should be embarrassed at rolling out so-called "support for new cameras" with such an amateurish, incomplete effort.
I would hope that the suits at Adobe would realize they don't have the market wrapped up so much that they feel they can continue silently release such shoddy efforts in the future.
( http://www.forestpark365.com ) and I will say that while I love Aperture (yes, I've used Lightroom) it has some serious quirks.
For one thing, when going through a lot of images it will start refusing to display certain images and tell me "unsupported file" until I quit the program and restart it. Sometimes it quits on its own accord. Often, when I quit the program to open another library, it opens the previously opened library instead of the one I selected; several times in a row.
Poor batch processing capabilities: if I export more than one batch of photos (i.e. jpegs from this Project 1, then Project 2, then project 3, so that all are exporting simultaneously), it will drop images from the batches and I have to go back and re-export the missing images - after restarting the program. I have had more crashes with this program than any other since Photoshop 7 on Mac OS9.
Aperture is also a bit confusing on the placement of commands. I frequently spend time trying to remember how to do something. It's almost as bad as a Macromedia program!
The printing tools are also poor. Rather than fiddle with the obscure printing options, I print from Photoshop.
But I love Aperture! It's the only program of its sort that allows book creation, the web options are much better than Lightroom's (I've been hacking the html), I can edit the images at any point in the process and it is as fast or faster than Lightroom on the computers I use (Intel and G5). Dual monitor support from day one (I started at day one) and the best organizing tools I've ever encountered. Apple got the basic idea right, now it needs updating.
Adobe clearly thought it was coming soon. But December's almost here.
Would Apple release a new app right in the middle of the Christmas shopping season?
Have they ever done that before?