What is Digg?64 Comments
- nilobject, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18Congratulations. You're not Lightroom's target audience.
*golfclap* - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -13/+24Wait, you're supposed to move OUT of your parents basement!?
Photoshop and the gang are really not that expensive if you're using them for actual industry work, and if you're not, check out free alternatives like paint.net and gimp - cJw314, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Wow, what a selfish, immature, immoral ass.
- griz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8How long does that intro offer last? Sweet deal!!
- eggyacid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6i have both lightroom beta and Aperture 1.5 on my system.
I perfer Aperture better... much cleaner interface, easy to use just like iPhoto yet very powerful.
backing up photo is no brainer.
if you don't have an intel mac, then go with Lightroom.. if you have intel mac, definitely go with Aperture.
can't wait until Aperture 2.0 comes out. - Throlkim, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I use it too. It's a very powerful application, but needs a hefty machine, and still doesn't feature selective editing.
It is however, extremely good for many uses, and I recommend you try it out when you can. - Korvaras, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6You sir, are a detriment to society. What do you do for a living? Would you do it for free?
I doubt it HIGHLY. - nicku, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Hopefully the final is faster than the beta. Both Aperture and Lightroom are horribly slow apps, I'm not sure if its the GUI or previewing routines. I've found that Lightroom does much cleaner RAW conversions than Aperture though. You really can't beat Adobe on Raw format support.
- dbr_onix, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6If your getting paid, say, $1000 per photo-shoot, $300 isn't that much..
- Ben - Firehed, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Me. It's not a Photoshop replacement, and it's not supposed to be. It's great for making quick fixes to a number of similar photos (such as RAW white balance correction), just like Lightroom. Plus it's great for organizing photos. When you fire off a couple dozen burstfire shots in RAW and need to make the same fixes to all of them, it makes it easy - much more than Photoshop (although Bridge will let you do a decent amount of that).
A lot of people don't seem to understand that Adobe's image editing tools aren't all for the same thing. And that Apple made a competitor to one of them, and that one wasn't Photoshop. Aperture (and Lightroom) are for tweaking good photos. Photoshop is for fixing mediocre ones. - sunchild, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4That's great if you're shooting about ten exposures a day.
- scruffles, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Thank god its finally going to play nice with Camera Raw... It's been a real pain in the ass to use both lightroom and bridge on the same photos.
- griz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Why not just buy a Mac with Parallels. Best of both worlds and a hell of a lot cheaper than buying one of each.
- thunderous, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2From what I have heard on their podcasts (yes, they have a podcast) this is intended as a metadata editor and not a pixel based editor as photoshop. I have played around with Lightroom and Aperture and have to say that Lighroom is more zippier than Aperture. I am more familiar with the buffed up ACR implementation than Aperture's take on processing. Am I going to buy it off of the shelf? The $100 discount makes it tempting. I think I may play the waiting game on it and see who may come out on top over the next few years between Lightroom and Aperture.
- Korvaras, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Well then don't purchase it or use it man?
- perral1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@monergism
No they aren't. Especially as of tomorrow, people will be paying up to $399 for a Microsoft beta product.
The difference between Microsoft and Adobe is that Adobe tells you a beta and gives it to you free, then charges you when they fix everything. Microsoft acts like it has a full product, charges you money for it, then gradually makes changes that it claims is "fixing" it.
-Anything-but-Microsoft-fanboy, Perral1 - monergism, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Some of us use software to make money. In one gig I can pay for Aperture.
- monergism, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I shall. Sadly I got LOCKED IN with the PPC G5.
Sigh.
I now know why fanboys are so fanatic. You can either preach or cry. Really, all the praise is just reassurance they weren't stupid. - drewhenson, on 10/12/2007, -13/+15pricing? what do you need that for?
- Scheissenegger, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Can't find the "Adobe Lightroom 1 leaked!" story.... Do I need new glasses or something?
- cJw314, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@ "Software developers could lean alot from apple! "
So long as what they learn is NOT pricing methods. -.- - monergism, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I use it. I'm a professional photographer and I am buying a Mac book just so I can use Aperture.
Sadly it is Mac only :( - aliguana, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2so, its like £148 for the boxed version, or £150+ for the download version. Nice to see adobe doing their bit for the environment.....
/me confused - monergism, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3It doesn't matter how many Macs you can buy. Apple makes great apps, but they ONLY work on their hardware. Sadly I have to buy a Mac AND a PC.
- brufleth, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@Ramble
Not trying to bash Apple software or anything but I thought the same thing. Is Aperture really that popular? - santacruz, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4This isn't sarcasm but what can lightroom do that photoshop can't?
My workflow in photoshop goes something like this:
Camera Raw processing
Noise Removal using Noise Ninja (this step isn't always required)
Smart Sharpen
Levels & Curves
Color Correction
Sometimes I'll run a Velvia plugin to saturate landscapes
Done - monergism, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Photoshop can't manage my 12,000 photos.
I use Aperture but wouldn't mind getting away from an Apple product (provided it was greater or equal). - itsxtian, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3One step closer to Adobe's take over of the digital imaging world...
- monergism, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1microsoft betas are free or included with software licenses (such as MSDN subscriptions).
/msdn subscriber. - Rivetgeek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I have the beta and just end up using camera raw bridge and mass edit feature. I dunno, I take a lot of pictures and to me lightroom just seemed redundant.
- korimickster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I love how it is assumed that I live in my parent's basement because I refuse to pay an unbelievable amount of money for a piece of software that I can download and run within a matter of about 6 minutes.
I'd rather take that money and put it towards *gasp* rent. - superkendall, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1To me the Aperture RAW conversions have looked better (with D200 files). Which app is better depends on what camera you are using, and how you make use of the RAW fine tuning adjustments you have in Aperture and I think Lightroom.
- iluvhatemail, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I love the program but have noted many bugs on their site with the latest beta version that still makes it worthless. Hopefully there will be a trial available with these fixes, otherwise it's too expensive.
- brokekneck, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2 Not that I know of. When I work in production we used Adobe.
- superkendall, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1What you get from being a beta tester of anything is a product that does more of what you want it to when released, instead of buying something already shaped and trying to convince people to change some things when they have settled in place.
The value of being a beta tester is thus directly proportional to the volume of your feedback. If you were not posting regularly to the Lightroom forums, then you probably didn't get anything out of it (except of course free use of the product for a year)!
What annoyed me however was the non-release of the most recent beta - I know they needed to spend more effort finishing the product that would have been taken up by doing another public beta, but I really think they should have solicited broader feedback on the way they are doing stacks and versions. - superkendall, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You could keep it working by rolling back the date on your computer - that's the only way.
- fiffer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I shoot fashion pro and I lurrve Lightroom, and am, for the first time ever, considering *paying* for software, just because I've gotten such great use out of the beta. I think it kicks the ***** out of iPhoto and anyone who shoots a ton of digital, even not pro, should at least explore the trial...
- vexter, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@Dotcommer NO ONE looks like a bigger douche then the grammar nazi's. But douche is probably a compliment for you, as it leads one to believe you might have been close to a vagina at least one more time since your mommy forced you upon this world.
- superkendall, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I use Aperture even though it does not support my RAW files directly. I simply import 16-bit TIFF files - one of the great things about Lightroom AND Aperture is that you can treat RAW files like JPG/TIFF, or vice versa - I can set white balance on a TIFF just the same as a RAW file.
- mediaphile, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I used Aperture until the most recent betas of Lightroom. In my opinion, Lightroom blows Aperture away, and has an exceptionally well designed interface.
- weiran, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Lightroom plays funny with my D80 RAWs and goes upto 1GB of RAM usage when I just try to browse some. Hopefully this is fixed with the new version of Camera RAW.
- aliguana, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1so hows that any different to say... Windows? or any of the other beta you can download (with the exception of the open-source stuff)
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I sincerely hope its performance is better than what we experienced during their beta's. Lightroom was so incredibly sluggish I had to uninstall it after struggling with it for a week.
- griz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The contact sheet/print options are extremely well implemented.
- ramunas, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I was playing with it today almost all day long, and I must say that's the best photo editing software I've ever used.
- turbo2ltr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0yeah, the beta I have is pretty useless. I have about 1300 pics imported and it's slow as a pig. And my machine is no slouch and has a gig of memory.
- Dotcommer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2vexter makes me lol.
aww... I'm sorry.. did I agitate the sand in your vagina? Booo hooo. Here let me make you feel better.
"im dot, who likes teh internets".
There. I left the apostrophe out of I'm and misspelled "the" as well as making "internet" plural. Feel better now? - Ramble, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7Who actualy uses Aperture?
- fribhey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0i use aperture
- RockBandit, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7I do.
-
Show 51 - 63 of 63 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is