arstechnica.com— Adobe's response to Aperture has arrived and is ready to rumble. Ars opens up Adobe's "professional photographer's essential toolbox" to see what's lurking inside.
Feb 20, 2007View in Crawl 4
Yea. The only thing Adobe Lightroom has is a nice GUI, but that slows things down. Photoshop CS3's Camera RAW is identical to Adobe Lightroom in terms of actual raw editing performance, and Photoshop itself has nicer print functions etc.If you have PSCS3, don't bother with Lightroom.
Actually the way LR now handles Folders (as opposed to "Shoots" in the Beta versions) directly correlates with your file system. Hence the name change.What I miss most is a Light Table. Aperture had a good idea there, yet didn't implement it perfectly - I hope I'll get to see a plugin for a better one in Lightroom.
Aperture in version 1.5 is pretty fast now (yes, I also use a Macbook Pro). Furthermore, it also allows you to keep master images outside of the library. How long has it been since you use Aperture?
Getting Apple users to use Lightroom over Aperture is not the biggest worry for Lightroom. The real concern is, how do you get people to use Lightroom when CS3 Bridge offers all of the same editing and some of the same organizational capabilities?
The comparison section at the end is not at all good - the Lightroom points are enumerated fairly, but some fairly major positive points are dismissed for Aperture (like multiple monitor support and an existing export API with active development going against it).Read the "discussion" section of that article for a more in-depth look at what is wrong with the Aperture comparison.
CS3 doesn't have good spot removal tools? Somehow I doubt that very much. That also goes for straightening, which I think even Bridge does now. Some of those features you mention can be handled by CS3 bridge (also keywording and rating).
gawtmilkFeb 21, 2007
Yea. The only thing Adobe Lightroom has is a nice GUI, but that slows things down. Photoshop CS3's Camera RAW is identical to Adobe Lightroom in terms of actual raw editing performance, and Photoshop itself has nicer print functions etc.If you have PSCS3, don't bother with Lightroom.
anchorboiFeb 21, 2007
Actually the way LR now handles Folders (as opposed to "Shoots" in the Beta versions) directly correlates with your file system. Hence the name change.What I miss most is a Light Table. Aperture had a good idea there, yet didn't implement it perfectly - I hope I'll get to see a plugin for a better one in Lightroom.
superkendallFeb 23, 2007
Aperture in version 1.5 is pretty fast now (yes, I also use a Macbook Pro). Furthermore, it also allows you to keep master images outside of the library. How long has it been since you use Aperture?
superkendallFeb 23, 2007
Getting Apple users to use Lightroom over Aperture is not the biggest worry for Lightroom. The real concern is, how do you get people to use Lightroom when CS3 Bridge offers all of the same editing and some of the same organizational capabilities?
superkendallFeb 23, 2007
The comparison section at the end is not at all good - the Lightroom points are enumerated fairly, but some fairly major positive points are dismissed for Aperture (like multiple monitor support and an existing export API with active development going against it).Read the "discussion" section of that article for a more in-depth look at what is wrong with the Aperture comparison.
superkendallFeb 23, 2007
CS3 doesn't have good spot removal tools? Somehow I doubt that very much. That also goes for straightening, which I think even Bridge does now. Some of those features you mention can be handled by CS3 bridge (also keywording and rating).