ramosa
B&W
tom: thanks. normally, it's just a few spots ... nothing major. (though the other day i was trying, without much success, to save an old photo with many dots ... and the dust removal tool didn't seem much help either.)
Aperture/Lightroom vs. PS
- Thread starter ramosa
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 70
- Views 7K
Mcary
Well-known
What I've started doing lately, after getting to the point that I decide that a scan has too much dust or too many dots to deal with using cloning tool in LR, is creating a virtual copy to save all the editing I've done to that point and then reset everything but the cloning on the original file Then open that in PS using edit in PS (tiff) with LR adjustments. I then cleaning it up using the tools in PS save it and close it. I then go back in too LR select the virtual copy that I created earlier then the copy that I just cleaned up and use "Sync to apply the LR setting from virtual copy to the other copy. I then delete the original scan and virtual copy.
Last edited:
PKR
Veteran
Hi Mike;
I use both LR and PS CS4. Your tips are helpful. Thanks for taking the time to post the info. p.
gavinlg
Veteran
Lightroom/Aperture are by far the more complete tools for photographers. I don't touch photoshop that often, and the organization of files in lightroom and aperture works brilliantly.
Aperture has better library organization, file safety and backups. I personally think the workflow/interface is better too.
Lightroom has better raw conversion quality with LR3, better sharpening, is quicker and less buggy and better colors from files.
Photoshop allows for more advanced editing but is clunky/slow/difficult to use and offers no library/file management whatsoever.
Lightroom and Apertures library and file management systems are very flexible - you can choose to have both programs organize your files for you in a proprietary lightroom folder where it chooses, or you can choose to "reference" your files from wherever you specify. I keep my raw files on an external drive under a folder structure that goes something like this:
2010 -> Project Name -> 07/21 -> File
And I will rename my files on import to coincide with the structure system, as well as keywording them, so I can find certain ones within seconds within a library of around 35,000 separate files. I also rate them (flags/stars) and keep "smart folders" in my cataog (which are references that automatically sort and update themselves according to parameters I set - for instance - only 5 star pictures, or only flagged pictures, or only pictures with the keyword "editorial")
When you edit a file in Photoshop you're editing the file itself. For example when you open a RAW file or a scan and adjust the contrast/brightness/saturation and then save it, you've physically changed the file itself. Lightroom and Aperture work in a different and much cooler way - they use a "catalog" or "library" file to reference back to the RAW file or scan, and when you make an adjustment to the image, you're actually only making an adjustment to the REFERENCE file in the catalog. As such, the original file stays RAW and untouched, and the reference file indicates the state of the editing you have applied to it. It's a much much safer and smarter way of editing.
Both Lightroom and Aperture are very powerful if you take the time to learn and use them properly. They do 90% of the things a photographer would do in photoshop, but the main use is file organization, and it's a big advantage.
Oh and for NickTrop, in the lightroom preferences you can turn off the auto import dialogue for when a card is inserted. Very easy.
Aperture has better library organization, file safety and backups. I personally think the workflow/interface is better too.
Lightroom has better raw conversion quality with LR3, better sharpening, is quicker and less buggy and better colors from files.
Photoshop allows for more advanced editing but is clunky/slow/difficult to use and offers no library/file management whatsoever.
Lightroom and Apertures library and file management systems are very flexible - you can choose to have both programs organize your files for you in a proprietary lightroom folder where it chooses, or you can choose to "reference" your files from wherever you specify. I keep my raw files on an external drive under a folder structure that goes something like this:
2010 -> Project Name -> 07/21 -> File
And I will rename my files on import to coincide with the structure system, as well as keywording them, so I can find certain ones within seconds within a library of around 35,000 separate files. I also rate them (flags/stars) and keep "smart folders" in my cataog (which are references that automatically sort and update themselves according to parameters I set - for instance - only 5 star pictures, or only flagged pictures, or only pictures with the keyword "editorial")
When you edit a file in Photoshop you're editing the file itself. For example when you open a RAW file or a scan and adjust the contrast/brightness/saturation and then save it, you've physically changed the file itself. Lightroom and Aperture work in a different and much cooler way - they use a "catalog" or "library" file to reference back to the RAW file or scan, and when you make an adjustment to the image, you're actually only making an adjustment to the REFERENCE file in the catalog. As such, the original file stays RAW and untouched, and the reference file indicates the state of the editing you have applied to it. It's a much much safer and smarter way of editing.
Both Lightroom and Aperture are very powerful if you take the time to learn and use them properly. They do 90% of the things a photographer would do in photoshop, but the main use is file organization, and it's a big advantage.
Oh and for NickTrop, in the lightroom preferences you can turn off the auto import dialogue for when a card is inserted. Very easy.
NickTrop
Veteran
@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.
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.
Steve_F
Well-known
Lightroom writes the info into a 'sidecar' file - not my terminology.
If you open the original folder where your images are there are '.xmp' files, the same number as your original file but with that suffix.
If you bin that .xmp then all the LR changes go with it.
Adobe say it is to lessen the chance of corruption to the original file as you are not embedding the data directly into the file, unlike say my own Nikon Capture NX2 where the file itself is altered, but can be undone by those same steps.
If you modify a .nef/.nrw in Capture NX2 in and then open it in LR it initially shows the modification then reverts back to the original file. ie: Convert to b&w in NX2 then open in LR - you get the original colour file back.
What I do like about NX2, View NX & Nikon Transfer is that the keywords etc are embedded directly into the file, unlike LR which is stored in the .xmp. If you want to forward the original raw file on you have to remember to add its .xmp file too for all adjustments and info.
When you export from LR to convert to TIFF or JPEG all the .xmp info is embedded automatically.
Capture NX2 is only for Nikons RAW files. I love it, but now the photo press have been getting excited about the Viveza(?) plug-in that allows the same way of modifying files in Aperture (even talk of the PS too) as you do in Capture NX2.
😱
- smug b*st*rd look!
Steve.
If you open the original folder where your images are there are '.xmp' files, the same number as your original file but with that suffix.
If you bin that .xmp then all the LR changes go with it.
Adobe say it is to lessen the chance of corruption to the original file as you are not embedding the data directly into the file, unlike say my own Nikon Capture NX2 where the file itself is altered, but can be undone by those same steps.
If you modify a .nef/.nrw in Capture NX2 in and then open it in LR it initially shows the modification then reverts back to the original file. ie: Convert to b&w in NX2 then open in LR - you get the original colour file back.
What I do like about NX2, View NX & Nikon Transfer is that the keywords etc are embedded directly into the file, unlike LR which is stored in the .xmp. If you want to forward the original raw file on you have to remember to add its .xmp file too for all adjustments and info.
When you export from LR to convert to TIFF or JPEG all the .xmp info is embedded automatically.
Capture NX2 is only for Nikons RAW files. I love it, but now the photo press have been getting excited about the Viveza(?) plug-in that allows the same way of modifying files in Aperture (even talk of the PS too) as you do in Capture NX2.
😱
- smug b*st*rd look!
Steve.
user237428934
User deletion pending
Only if you enable that option in LR. If you only have LR or LR+PS then you don't need the sidecar files and I have them switched off.
gavinlg
Veteran
+1
XMP sidecar files are an option you can actively choose in the preferences. Normally changes to files are stored in the reference catalog file. When you select to have XMP sidecar files made alongside the raw files, it's doing it IN ADDITION to the catalog references - just extra security in case a catalog becomes corrupt really.
gavinlg
Veteran
You're completely entitled to your opinion, but I think you might want to grab the demo and have a better play around with Lightroom. The file organization is not really very rigid at all - I can store my files where I want, in whatever folders I want, in whatever order I want, with whatever names I want, on whatever disk I want. I don't really understand how you could want more flexibility than that?
As far as Image editing goes - exactly what do you use in photoshop that can't be used in lightroom?
gavinlg
Veteran
Oh, also, you can embed editing and EXIF info directly into your raw files by converting them to DNG files (exactly the same as a raw file but with embedded info) upon import into lightroom.
Just FYI.
Steve_F
Well-known
Yep, you got me. I do recall having a tick in that box when I first installed it for sidecar files!
It still is brilliant programme for cataloging files and having a searchable database providing you keep on top of your keywording.
You can have files all over the shop if you choose and as long as you import them it will keep track of them.
I fully agree with the 'Trial' suggestion.
Steve.
It still is brilliant programme for cataloging files and having a searchable database providing you keep on top of your keywording.
You can have files all over the shop if you choose and as long as you import them it will keep track of them.
I fully agree with the 'Trial' suggestion.
Steve.
Last edited:
whitecat
Lone Range(find)er
Just my 2 cents here.....I have LR3 and think it is the absolute best. I had PS in 3 different versions. This time around I got PS Elements 8 and found it can do 90% of the full blown version. Give it a try.
Andy Kibber
Well-known
There are folks who won't ever concede a point. Best to just ignore them and move on.
NickTrop
Veteran
Can you access Photoshop plug-ins from w/in LR3? There are several I use all the time and can't do without. This - in and of itself, disqualifies LR in my mind if it can't do that - period. You mean I have to do "the basics" in LR then go out of it to use a plug-in, one of the great benes of PS? LR is for people hung up on the ridiculous "digital negative" metaphor who like to think they're working in a "digital darkroom" (LOL@the sheer preposterousness of this concept). But - kudos to Adobe to exploiting this for an additional revenue stream. Perhaps Adobe can come up with a "digital safe light" one must use when working on their "digital negative" in LR as an additional revenue stream.
Steve_F
Well-known
Digital Safelight - Does that mean your screen has to have a light on or you can't see b*gger all? Your 'negatives' are useless without it?
Steve.
Steve.
gavinlg
Veteran
I don't think it's that far fetched at all really... You're basically doing the same things in a 'digital darkroom' or 'lightroom' that you are in a film darkroom - dodging/burning/contrast and now LR3 has basic masks and curves so its pretty much the same thing in a different media. To be honest no ones really saying it's more powerful for editing photos than photoshop - because photoshop is a $1200 program with lots of stuff most photographers never use. The point of lightroom is actually as I said before the file management, and grouping the main editing tools together in an interface that allows several important things to be done at once from 1 program.
To answer your question you can get most of the same plug ins for lightroom - I use Nik software plugins with lightroom - in particular color fx + silver exposure. There are more but not that I use. LR3 even has an in-built export to flickr now, and the noise reduction is better than noise ninja or nik dfine, so that eliminates the need for those plugins which I used to use in PS.
hteasley
Pupil
I've used Aperture and Lightroom both, and have used PS professionally for about 15 years now (not for general photography work; mostly painting textures for 3D models, and concept art).
I'm using LR3 right now, and think it's an excellent program. Aperture is also nice, but I had crashing problems and db corruption with that, so it soured for me. Lightroom is more file manager friendly, and has an easier library backup setup.
In terms of general processing, dealing with file after file is so much faster in LR/Aperture than in PS. If the white balance is off in an entire sequence of images, say, you can correct them all in LR faster than you can load them into PS (and once they're in, you need to probably create and save an Action to make the work as efficient as possible, which in itself takes a bit of time and UI dorkery that LR simply eliminates.)
Obviously, use the tool you're comfortable with, and the one best suited for the manipulations you want. For local manipulations, like dodging and burning, I like PS. For overall manipulations, I like LR. If there's just one image I want to futz with, PS is a good option, but usually I want to futz with several, so LR wins most of the time.
I'm using LR3 right now, and think it's an excellent program. Aperture is also nice, but I had crashing problems and db corruption with that, so it soured for me. Lightroom is more file manager friendly, and has an easier library backup setup.
In terms of general processing, dealing with file after file is so much faster in LR/Aperture than in PS. If the white balance is off in an entire sequence of images, say, you can correct them all in LR faster than you can load them into PS (and once they're in, you need to probably create and save an Action to make the work as efficient as possible, which in itself takes a bit of time and UI dorkery that LR simply eliminates.)
Obviously, use the tool you're comfortable with, and the one best suited for the manipulations you want. For local manipulations, like dodging and burning, I like PS. For overall manipulations, I like LR. If there's just one image I want to futz with, PS is a good option, but usually I want to futz with several, so LR wins most of the time.
Rogier
Rogier Willems
Photoshop is a Bitch to learn and very expensive.
Have a look at Capture One (Pro) !
Have a look at Capture One (Pro) !
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
@Nick, it's pretty clear that you don't understand the design of LR or its underlying logic and intent. That's fine. If PS works for you, then keep using it.
But the mere fact that you (very obviously) don't understand many of the capabilities of LR does not make it a bad program. For example, you've shown that you haven't the slightest clue about its very flexible options for file management.
In fact, its superb integration of file management, sorting/editing via metadata, and non-destructive editing is specifically why I and many, many others have adopted it in preference to PS as a front-line editor. It integrates seamlessly with PS, so when PS or another editor is required (e.g., Image/J), it's absolutely trivial to integrate into your workflow: a right-click on the image. 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.
It would be helpful to confine your criticisms to things that you actually have some understanding of.
But the mere fact that you (very obviously) don't understand many of the capabilities of LR does not make it a bad program. For example, you've shown that you haven't the slightest clue about its very flexible options for file management.
In fact, its superb integration of file management, sorting/editing via metadata, and non-destructive editing is specifically why I and many, many others have adopted it in preference to PS as a front-line editor. It integrates seamlessly with PS, so when PS or another editor is required (e.g., Image/J), it's absolutely trivial to integrate into your workflow: a right-click on the image. 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.
It would be helpful to confine your criticisms to things that you actually have some understanding of.
Last edited:
NickTrop
Veteran
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!
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!
Last edited:
