Aperture/Lightroom vs. PS

- incidentally, I'm not the only LR hater out there. Here's a sample from a Picasa vs LR thread on another forum:

"For quick touchups, I honestly feel that picasa outshines lightroom by huge bounds for it's easy to use interface. Rather than spending 3-5 minutes on each photo, i can do it in less than 30 seconds. In lightroom, you do get more control over colors and finer details, but when it comes to speed and time spent sitting away on a computer.... picasa wins.

i do have lightroom but i just feel like it's a chore to use. when i find a picture that i really want to keep as a keeper, i will turn to lightroom. other than that, it kind of sits on my hard drive, neglected."
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=699242

Never used Picasa but I do like its price over LR.
 
NickTrop said:
What is trivial to you is a waste of time to me.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with your workflow choices, Nick. They work for you.

...pass on useless LR. That's what we smart people do.
Click to expand...

I do have a problem with your assumption that you understand other people's workflow choices, and your implication that if their choices diverge from yours, they are not "smart people."

That's not the kind of assumption that smart people make, especially on a forum like RFF that is chock-full of people who are, in fact, very smart.
 
Last edited:
semilog said:
That's not the kind of assumption that smart people make, especially on a forum like RFF that is chock-full of people who are, in fact, very smart.
Click to expand...

Dude - when you read my posts say this to yourself, "Nick is never serious. He is always tongue in cheek..." :)
 
Last edited:
semilog said:
The problem with insult humor is that it starts with an insult, Nick.
Click to expand...

Who did I insult? Seems to me that if someone is insulted because I make a vague generic statement directed at no one in particular that you can't be "smart" if you use a different work flow or sw package to edit photos, then then that person must spend an awful lot of time in the "offended" state.
 
Steve: I, too, really like Capture NX, but I no longer use Nikon. (I wonder if Nikon isn’t missing the boat—so to speak—by tailoring this software only to Nikon. Sure, it’s a plus for Nikon users, but I can’t imagine it’s the deciding factor between Nikon or Canon. And it largely curtains the interest of non-Nikon users. Heck, I would still use it if it had a broader platform for raw.)

Hteasely: great comments. OK, I’ve gotta get Lightroom. I will still have Photoshop CS4 if I feel limited—but I don’t think I will.
 
Last edited:
OK, a follow up question … As mentioned earlier, I currently use PS CS4 with two Nik plugins. (The email links with the plugins, which came with the purchase from Nik, have choices for PS or Lightroom.) So, once I get Lightroom, do I need to re-install the Lightroom-specific versions of the two Nik plugins? Thanks.
 
Last edited:
ramosa said:
OK, a follow up question … As mentioned earlier, I currently use PS CS4 with two Nik plugins. (The email links with the plugins, which came with the purchase from Nik, have choices for PS or Lightroom.) So, once I get Lightroom, do I need to re-install the Lightroom-specific versions of the two Nik plugins? Thanks.
Click to expand...

I once tried my nik-plugin directly with lightroom and I had to download the special lightroom version additionally to the version that runs with PS-Elements. Didn't like it in Lightroom so I kicked it out again. When I use Nik, then within PSE.
 
I with CS5 64 bit. The adobe bridge acts very similar to the LR functionality anyway, in the latest version. I do like the fact that the plugins work well, with PS. I have tried LR3, and I did not like it. Maybe lack of familiarity. The latest functionality of CS5 64 is amazing, if you decide to use.

I believe you are better spent learning the one program properly, rather than having a number of different programs, which are only partly used, or understood. I went down this path, trying a number of different programs, trying to use the best raw capture software. Drove me nuts. One program, and continue to learn it well for me. :)
 
ramosa, I understand what you mean about Nikon missing the boat with Capture NX and other users.
Something makes me think that Niksoftware are something to do with the plug-ins that are becoming available for software such as Aperture & CS. The adjustment method is superb.

Steve.
 
not_in_good_order said:
I use Lightroom as my sole photo editing tool. I only do very basic things to my images:

cropping
sharpening
minor corrections via the clone or heal tools for scratches or dust
curves adjustment
noise reduction
digital exposure adjustment
black point adjustment
contrast adjustment
resizing
brightness adjustment

Lightroom 100% meets my needs and I find its interface very intuitive. I can't really think of anything that I would need PS for.
Click to expand...

Are you using LR2 or 3? I've been going into PS (I have CS4) to re-size my files. Does LR 3 have a re-size module option that shows the re-size like CS4 does .. or is it just the selection screen (for H+W and pixel/inch) found in LR2? Thanks for any comment p.
 
Last edited:
NickTrop said:
@fdigital... have a sw package that automatically assumes by default that when I plug in a peripheral... be it a computer or an MP3 player, even if I can shut it off, that I want to use that software and starts automatically and I hate it for life and will never use it... LR v1 was such a complete dog, I have no interest in any other versions... I hate the workflow, its rigid file management system, its ridiculous slowness (again the version I had), its unstability (again the version I had). It was a disgrace that Adobe even released that dog and had the temerity to charge for it.

I also despise the term "digital negative". No such thing - preposterous. By extentia I also despise any metaphore associated with "digital negative", like "digital dark room"... and "Light Room"... Gah! Another reason to hate this PoS.

I love when people say "it gives me all the basics I need for editing". Are you kiddn' me? For that price? Photoshop is a better editor, and there are better, less rigid file management solutions.

LR = an inferior photo management solution + inferior photo editor with reverse synergy where the sum of the parts is less than the whole.
Click to expand...


How about them Yankees Nick, do you think they will make the Series this year? p.
 
Tom: Thanks. I figured it would take a second set of downloads.

Charles: Thanks. I agree—I want to keep my use of programs narrow, as a means to improving it and making it efficient. Interestingly enough, that’s how I feel about my use of lenses in terms of focal length.

Steve: Thanks. I’m not sure if you know this. But I think the guys at NIK were involved with Capture NX. Hence, the similarities.
 
ramosa, yes Nik software who are behind Capture NX are behind Viveza plug-in too.
If I change my camera to none Nikon I wouldn't hesitate to by the plug in for the new type. A superb simple way of (localised) image adjustments.

Steve.
 
NickTrop said:
What is trivial to you is a waste of time to me. Now I "right click" and have to wait for PS to load, always a joy. And I use certain plug-ins often enough to where I see no point in booting up another ap for the majority of my pics. It makes sense for me just to do everything in PS. Ever use a piece of software that left such a bad taste in your mouth you refuse to ever look at it again? I've used LR - so I DO know what I'm speaking of... and I didn't just boot it up and give it a look for a couple days. I tried to like it, wanted to like it, and concluded it was crap. I admit that was version 1, yes. But I am more than familiar enough with it to "get the gist". If speed and stability improved - that isn't enough, I just hated everything about it from its silly "digital negative" metaphore that drives its entire workflow and reasons already outlined.

How many apps do I want to open just to edit a photo? I hear Adobe is coming out with "Digital Safe Light" software... a must have!
Click to expand...

Nick; I really like the "safe light" bit.. I'm laughing, thanks! p.
 
I use NikonView to take the images off my card or edit scans and choose keepers and name the files. It's free. It works great for me.

I use an ancient PS CS2 which does more than I would ever want to. I don't want CS5 or a new computer with Windows 7.

I am not concerned with raw or NEF files, a bit of an urban legend these days, I think. I shoot jpegs and sometimes end up with third generation iterations which look fine to me and to my stock editors.
 
semilog said:
The most useful way to think about LR is not as an alternative to PS, but as a vastly-improved alternative to Bridge and Camera RAW.
Click to expand...


I've read through all the posts with great interest. But this statement by Semilog is where I want to start. I have not used LR, which, by the way, obviously has a lot of fans. I've been using Aperture since late last fall. I like it very much, but since it doesn't do everything, I pair it with PS Elements 6, which is the earliest version of Elements that will run on my Snow-Leopard iMac. (As an aside, the more they improve Elements, the less I like it. My favorite is Elements 2. But it won't run on my iMac.)

I use Elements 6 for a couple of things I can't do with Aperture, like perspective correction. And I like the way resizing works in Elements.

I can't compare Aperture with Lightroom. I've never used Lightroom. I know it's a serious alternative to Aperture. A big selling point for me is that I can get all the teaching I want or need right from Apple, through the "one-on-one" at the Apple store. And do they know their stuff!!

I'm sure LR is just as good. To learn either, you have to be willing to learn, of course. I find Aperture to be as user-friendly as it gets. A reviewer in one of the magazines felt that Aperture is the easiest to learn, but noted that LR is very easy for Adobe/PS users, as it is very consistent with the PS way of doing things. I don't doubt that.

But to get back to the original point, the question should not be PS vs. Aperture/Lightroom. It's like, do you need a table saw or a bandsaw? You need both, at least if you need what they both can do. (Me, I need a table saw, a bandsaw, and a jointer.)

But I don't think I need both Aperture and Lightroom, any more than I need both a table saw and a radial arm saw. They are probably too close. But I am very glad to have Aperture. It's logical and intuitive to use. It gives me controls over color and IQ I sure as hell don't have with PSE. So I for one am happy, and feel no need to look for something better.
 
Last edited:
I use LR3 and love it. I tried aperture, which was extremely slow at version 2. I also was never enthousiastic about bridge. I don't do a lot of editing, in fact, many of the photo's I keep in lightroom are scanned negatives so the basic adjustments that I can do in LR are enough for most cases, and in a very rare occasion do I edit a photo in photoshop. I do not use any plugins. But I like the organizing feature of LR3.
 
life has been a true blur lately. too busy and too much stress for unimportant reasons. but i do want to report back on this matter. i have been using lightroom for about nine days and really like it. for me, it's the perfect software, as i really won't miss anything from photoshop (and, if i do, of course, i can always use photoshop). lightroom is much more user-friendly--and one thing i really like is that all changes are "current," including raw settings. (in contrast, in photoshop, you need to configure your raw settings before moving onto other settings, without the ability to move back to raw settings in the same processing. or that's how i understood it.)

alas, thanks to all for their advice and comments per my initial question. i really appreciate your help--and feel comfortable with my decision and new direction.
 
PKR said:
Nick; I really like the "safe light" bit.. I'm laughing, thanks! p.
Click to expand...

Thank you, I thought is was rather clever too... Playing on the absolute silliness of the whole "digital negative" motif on which LR is based... As for the thread poster's choice... to each is own. However, I don't see for the life of me why someone would want to give up the power and extensibility of the best photo editor ever devised - Photoshop, for an inferior product that just "lets you do the basics" and does less than their $70 entry-level Elements package, at a $300 price point. Wha?!?!

Bridge - peruse, select da stinkin' photo, click and it brings up ACR or PS depending on format...
ACR - if RAW file... integrates perfectly with PS. Make your "basic edits".
PS - the best image editor - by far, ever devised. Do whatever without limitation, without constraint.
Picasa 3 - view/tag images... 100% free. Thank you, Google.

But if you want to have PS and LR - be my guest. Let's see... ADBE closed at 29.12... not bad, could be better. Time for a new product launch - Adobe Safe Light. Watch that stock rise! Time to invest in ADBE. I'm sure many here would run out and buy it and sing its praises, can't live w/o it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom