Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Aperture or Lightroom ??  (Read 35285 times)
Lundberg02
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 143


« Reply #100 on: July 05, 2014, 05:41:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Apple and Adobe are both going cloud/mobile. Don't get so worried . Probably both be dumbed down but open to third party.
Logged
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3648



WWW
« Reply #101 on: July 08, 2014, 12:01:30 PM »
ReplyReply

And why can you not accept that some people demonstrably do find the modal nature of Lightroom fecking annoying? It's not like the modality is up for discussion.
The perceived 'modality' of LR compared to Ap is mostly bollocks as switching tabs or switching modules is just a click of a mouse. There's no more of less effort to do either and certianly less than digging through a menu to do something. But what gets demonstrated time and time again is that nearly every criticism I've seen about LR in this respect is done by those who haven't learnt to use LR correctly. Such as in the comment above about switching back and fore between modules for flagging.
I have plenty of LR criticisms, but they are based on knowing how to use the programme, not through misunderstanding it.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2014, 12:11:47 PM by jjj » Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3648



WWW
« Reply #102 on: July 08, 2014, 12:11:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Sure. And that is one of my gripes with Adobe software products. User interfaces should ideally let you do what you want fast and intuitively. Shortcuts fixes the "fast" part, but hardly the "intuitive" part.
There's an awful ot of nonsense talked about programmes that are intuitive or not. When people say this they more often mean works like something else I know. This is why PCs are not intuitive to a Mac user and vice versa, despite both being pretty easy to use in their own ways.

Quote
Lightroom is the most intuitive Adobe product that I have used (and the only that I have been satisfied with), but there is still a disconnect between the hints and feedback that the interface gives you, and the actual operations that you want to do.
Such as?

Quote
People spending many hours with the product will develop variable degrees of skills that allows them to work around UI warts, but I am guessing that they would prefer to be more productive from day#1.
I've come across so many people who stick with say PS over LR or Ap all because there is some relearning involved with using such different software. But once you have learnt  the new software and how best to use it then you will be far more productive. Thinking that because one is not immediately more productive with unfamiliar/new software, the programme has failed/got a bad UI is naive. Which I seem to recall was your attitude to PS which was 'too difficult to use'. Yet I find it really easy to use and very well thought out.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
Bob Rockefeller
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 161



WWW
« Reply #103 on: July 08, 2014, 02:02:15 PM »
ReplyReply

The perceived 'modality' of LR compared to Ap is mostly bollocks as switching tabs or switching modules is just a click of a mouse. There's no more of less effort to do either and certianly less than digging through a menu to do something. But what gets demonstrated time and time again is that nearly every criticism I've seen about LR in this respect is done by those who haven't learnt to use LR correctly. Such as in the comment above about switching back and fore between modules for flagging.
I have plenty of LR criticisms, but they are based on knowing how to use the programme, not through misunderstanding it.

There is no "perceived" modality. It is modal. Some work well with that, some don't. It doesn't mean they don't understand the software. It means they prefer another approach. No harm.

It's modal because:
  • It's not simply a click on a tab; it's a click and a wait. The shift from Library to Develop is not instant. At all.
  • You can't use some tools in some places. That's what modal means. You can't make a curves adjustment from the Library, for example.
  • You can't add a piece of metadata in Develop, either.

Now Aperture has it's own modes, too. The print dialog is an obvious example. But you can use the loupe tool there, anyway.

Can one program be used and the other not? Of course not. Can one intelligent person prefer one over the other? Sure.
Logged

Bob
-----------------
Robert J. Rockefeller
Richmond Hill, GA
www.bobrockefeller.com
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2904



WWW
« Reply #104 on: July 08, 2014, 02:42:25 PM »
ReplyReply

And Aperture certainly does have its modes - the full screen view with black palettes, and the standard grey view with the tabbed Inspector? Two different interfaces in one app, and yet Aperture users criticise LR for being modal? 

Again, you have to see LR's modules as task-dedicated workspaces. It's a shame that Adobe didn't call them this because they are more akin to the workspaces in Photoshop and other CS apps than to the nasty "modal" word.

Your definition of modal is loose and perhaps self-serving, confusing modularity for modal. Modal just doesn't mean having every tool available all the time. Where Aperture does score over LR is in the absence of modal dialog boxes - for instance renaming projects/albums or in the smart album definition. Just another example of where Aperture users' criticism of LR is so often off target and misses genuine advantages....
Logged

CatOne
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 390


WWW
« Reply #105 on: July 08, 2014, 05:31:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Why not simply stay in Dev module and rate/flag/cull there?   Huh  Sounds like you are the one making things complicated.
Nearly every criticism I've come across of LR from Ap users is solved by their learning to use LR correctly and I'm sure the reverse is also quite likely. Not that LR is without flaws, certainly plenty of places where LR could be improved.

Because it's slow as a dog? Because you can't add a couple keywords if you think of some?

The fact is that you must "learn to use LR correctly" and there are MANY frustrations for me in the workflow. It's a simple fact of life for me that I may be rating/culling images and want to rotate or crop one a bit so I can compare it with the next before I can make a decision. And I may decide to add a keyword or two to an image while I'm doing it. I guess I just can't fit into a "I'm ONLY going to rate or keyword images for the next 1000 images" mode or "OK now I've made my selects I can go edit those 30 images for the next 2 hours" mode. I do some combination of rating/culling AND minor adjusting as part of the rating/culling process and it is VERY COMMON for me to come upon keywords that don't work, or get the "change modes + wait 2 seconds to do a RAW render/Adobe Camera RAW cache update" thing, and I notice.
Logged

CatOne
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 390


WWW
« Reply #106 on: July 08, 2014, 05:35:45 PM »
ReplyReply

He is using LR shortcuts, but you don't actually need to switch back, which is one thing that needs learning. Plus if you render all your previews on import then switching back and for between modules is instant. No different from switching tabs in Ap.

Switching back and forth between modules is NOT instant. A trip to the develop module does a demosaic on the RAW file and shows the file itself. It does not show the preview. Yes, the switch BACK to the Library module is nearly instant, but again it is swapping the RAW file back to the JPEG file. And of course the panels change, and the image may move (if you don't have both panels open all the time, and I don't to save space). In Aperture you are not switching "modes" at all. The sidebar switches but there is NO re-render. It is a marked difference (it appears you haven't tried it.). To say they are effectively the same is just flat out wrong.
Logged

john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2904



WWW
« Reply #107 on: July 09, 2014, 02:39:22 AM »
ReplyReply

I guess I just can't fit into a "I'm ONLY going to rate or keyword images for the next 1000 images" mode or "OK now I've made my selects I can go edit those 30 images for the next 2 hours" mode.

And that is the key. Lightroom's task-oriented workspaces reward a more orderly working style, Aperture allows you to do all tasks at any time.

I do some combination of rating/culling AND minor adjusting as part of the rating/culling process.

And that's why the Quick Develop panel is in Library so you can make the kind of broad adjustments that you often need when you're deciding whether to cull or keep. With one click you can pull back the highlights or open the shadows for lots of images simultaneously.

John
Logged

Hywel
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 159


WWW
« Reply #108 on: July 09, 2014, 07:32:03 AM »
ReplyReply

And yet, they haven't taken that to the logical conclusion by allowing you to make the adjustments YOU want to make to the image whilst going through and deciding whether to cull or keep. Just the ones that the library mode allows you to do. Not, say, curves. Which are always my go-to tool for highlights and shadows. Why not allow you to have the full set of tools in that mode? What's the harm, if they let us do SOME adjustments, why not all the adjustments?

Or if making those adjustments is "wrong" in library mode, why are you allowed to do any of them?

This is why library vs. develop strikes some of us as so cumbersome. In Aperture, there's one suite of tools, and the designers have bent over backwards to make the tools consistent... and the keyboard shortcuts used to invoke them equally so.

The full screen view isn't a separate module from the "normal" tabbed view: the same tools are available to you. The same keys do the same things. You don't have to look to see what mode you are in first before hitting a keyboard shortcut. You decide what you want to do and hit the key, and Aperture makes it so.

THIS is what seems so much more streamlined and user-friendly to those of us who find LR objectionably modal. It's the division between Library and Develop modules, specifically, and the patchy and partial implementation of functions between the two modes where it should be seamless.

My feedback to Adobe since beta testing of LR1 has been to remove the division between Library and Develop modules and make the toolset and interface consistent. I'm not alone in that wish.

Hywel






« Last Edit: July 09, 2014, 07:34:46 AM by Hywel » Logged
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2904



WWW
« Reply #109 on: July 09, 2014, 08:45:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Aperture's full screen and tabbed view are two different interfaces for one program, as if they couldn't decide which to choose.

Making all tools available just isn't the logical conclusion though. The Quick Develop tools are the ones most people need at that stage in the typical workflow when you're supposed to be making those keep / cull / rate decisions, organising or adding metadata. Instead of putting all the tools there, Lightroom presents a workspace that's dedicated to the relevant task. And at that point, you just don't need to be playing with Curves - or to start loading the full image data - since the Highlights and Shadows sliders are the go-to tool for blocks of contiguous shadows or highlights. I might agree if you had suggested cropping and straightening though.
Logged

David Mantripp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 696


WWW
« Reply #110 on: July 10, 2014, 05:51:18 AM »
ReplyReply

And Aperture certainly does have its modes - the full screen view with black palettes, and the standard grey view with the tabbed Inspector? Two different interfaces in one app, and yet Aperture users criticise LR for being modal? 

Again, you have to see LR's modules as task-dedicated workspaces. It's a shame that Adobe didn't call them this because they are more akin to the workspaces in Photoshop and other CS apps than to the nasty "modal" word.

Your definition of modal is loose and perhaps self-serving, confusing modularity for modal. Modal just doesn't mean having every tool available all the time. Where Aperture does score over LR is in the absence of modal dialog boxes - for instance renaming projects/albums or in the smart album definition. Just another example of where Aperture users' criticism of LR is so often off target and misses genuine advantages....

You don't really know what "modal" means, do you, John?  Hint: "mode" as in Full Screen Mode, is not the same thing as "modal", as in modal workflow.  I also wonder what you're doing in this thread, you have nothing constructive to contribute and your coming perilously close to trolling and flame baiting. Maybe you aspire to Schewe-ness? Although he does it better than you.....
Logged

--
David Mantripp
http://www.snowhenge.net
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2904



WWW
« Reply #111 on: July 10, 2014, 06:24:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Keep the personal insults to yourself, will you?
Logged

Bob Rockefeller
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 161



WWW
« Reply #112 on: July 10, 2014, 08:30:37 AM »
ReplyReply

You know, at some point we need to stop trying to figure out which program is "better," and recognize that different folks have different priorities and different workflows. One is not "right" and the other "wrong."

My preference is Aperture's approach. John's is Lightroom's. OK. Fine. He is not an idiot or failed photographer. Nor am I.

The fact of the matter is that Aperture is being discontinued. In a free market, that would suggest it has not been popular enough to keep it alive. Apple may be making one of its well known distributions of its own software/hardware. It may be shifting away from the "professional" market and moving more to the "pro-sumer" market. The new Photos, combined with plug-ins may create a raw pipeline that allows third-partys to extend the non-destuctive functions and completely leap-frog the other raw converters on the market. The fact of the mater is that we do not know. And may not know for some time. Or Apple may preview the plan any day they choose.

The main issue for me is what other options do I have, as an Aperture user, if I wish to go another way. Lightroom is one way, but for me it is not "better." Capture One Pro is another way, but so far it does not seem to be "better" to me. There may be nothing I like "better." So I may have to adapt my workflow to what is available.

Or I may have to stick it out with Aperture, trusting that Apple will protect my investment in time over the coming months by ensuring all my metadata, organization and image adjustments transfer intact to Photos. Will Photos then be "good enough" for my needs? That's what I'd be betting on. Apple's secrecy and lack of previous development on Aperture make it hard to know.

Which ever way I go, it will not be "wrong." It may be wrong for someone else, and that's fine.
Logged

Bob
-----------------
Robert J. Rockefeller
Richmond Hill, GA
www.bobrockefeller.com
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2904



WWW
« Reply #113 on: July 10, 2014, 09:24:21 AM »
ReplyReply

Well, you (in the sense "one") don't have to make a decision right now, do you? And seriously why would you? If you're happy with it, won't Aperture be fine throughout the life of Yosemite? That takes us into 2016, doesn't it? After then, I'm not sure about the risk areas (printing?) but wouldn't you expect it to continue to work for most important purposes?

As for Photos, how many plugins will one need for an equivalent experience? And how soon will you wish you were back in 2005 when Apple quite rightly saw that people were fed up of a string of programs and wanted their workflow to be in a single pro-oriented program?
Logged

Robert Roaldi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 505


WWW
« Reply #114 on: July 10, 2014, 10:15:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Well, you (in the sense "one") don't have to make a decision right now, do you? And seriously why would you? If you're happy with it, won't Aperture be fine throughout the life of Yosemite? That takes us into 2016, doesn't it? After then, I'm not sure about the risk areas (printing?) but wouldn't you expect it to continue to work for most important purposes?

I only half agree. You (meaning "one" again) don't HAVE to make a decision now. But I can see where you'd want to. It all depends on how much supplier uncertainty bothers you or not. Some people might decide to bet that Photos will eventually do what they need. Others might decide otherwise. Since there are no facts yet, that decision is a crap shoot. But it would make sense for those who believe the former to investigate alternatives and make a decision now. If they don't and choose to stay with Aperture, it may mean that one day they might have to make an even greater conversion.

What you choose to do depends on your decision time horizon and your tolerance for uncertainty.
Logged

--
Robert
robertroaldi.zenfolio.com
Robert Roaldi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 505


WWW
« Reply #115 on: July 10, 2014, 10:16:17 AM »
ReplyReply

You know, at some point we need to stop trying to figure out which program is "better," and recognize that different folks have different priorities and different workflows. One is not "right" and the other "wrong."

My preference is Aperture's approach. John's is Lightroom's. OK. Fine. He is not an idiot or failed photographer. Nor am I.

The fact of the matter is that Aperture is being discontinued. In a free market, that would suggest it has not been popular enough to keep it alive. Apple may be making one of its well known distributions of its own software/hardware. It may be shifting away from the "professional" market and moving more to the "pro-sumer" market. The new Photos, combined with plug-ins may create a raw pipeline that allows third-partys to extend the non-destuctive functions and completely leap-frog the other raw converters on the market. The fact of the mater is that we do not know. And may not know for some time. Or Apple may preview the plan any day they choose.

The main issue for me is what other options do I have, as an Aperture user, if I wish to go another way. Lightroom is one way, but for me it is not "better." Capture One Pro is another way, but so far it does not seem to be "better" to me. There may be nothing I like "better." So I may have to adapt my workflow to what is available.

Or I may have to stick it out with Aperture, trusting that Apple will protect my investment in time over the coming months by ensuring all my metadata, organization and image adjustments transfer intact to Photos. Will Photos then be "good enough" for my needs? That's what I'd be betting on. Apple's secrecy and lack of previous development on Aperture make it hard to know.

Which ever way I go, it will not be "wrong." It may be wrong for someone else, and that's fine.


This is much too reasonable for the interweb. Smiley
Logged

--
Robert
robertroaldi.zenfolio.com
David Grover / Phase One
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1011



WWW
« Reply #116 on: July 10, 2014, 10:17:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Aperture's full screen and tabbed view are two different interfaces for one program, as if they couldn't decide which to choose.

Making all tools available just isn't the logical conclusion though. The Quick Develop tools are the ones most people need at that stage in the typical workflow when you're supposed to be making those keep / cull / rate decisions, organising or adding metadata. Instead of putting all the tools there, Lightroom presents a workspace that's dedicated to the relevant task. And at that point, you just don't need to be playing with Curves - or to start loading the full image data - since the Highlights and Shadows sliders are the go-to tool for blocks of contiguous shadows or highlights. I might agree if you had suggested cropping and straightening though.

Or let the user decide how they want to arrange their workspace(s) and be able to save them?

i.e. Capture One.  Wink

Logged

David Grover
Business Support and Development Manager, Software.
Bob Rockefeller
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 161



WWW
« Reply #117 on: July 10, 2014, 11:17:05 AM »
ReplyReply

I only half agree. You (meaning "one" again) don't HAVE to make a decision now. But I can see where you'd want to. It all depends on how much supplier uncertainty bothers you or not. Some people might decide to bet that Photos will eventually do what they need. Others might decide otherwise. Since there are no facts yet, that decision is a crap shoot. But it would make sense for those who believe the former to investigate alternatives and make a decision now. If they don't and choose to stay with Aperture, it may mean that one day they might have to make an even greater conversion.

What you choose to do depends on your decision time horizon and your tolerance for uncertainty.

My point exactly.

The time I see I invest in the workflow in into organization, metadata and image adjustments.

If you believe Apple will produce a Photos app that will cover your needs as a photographer, that investment could be safe. If you don't believe that, it's time to move the investment as soon as possible.

When will Apple stop adding new camera support to Aperture? At what OS X update will Aperture no longer open? There are no facts and no way to know.

When will Photos be "ready" to handle your needs? In version 1.0? In version 1.5? When NIK produces a plug-in for Photos? There are no facts and no way to know.

So, as the man said, it's a crap shoot.
Logged

Bob
-----------------
Robert J. Rockefeller
Richmond Hill, GA
www.bobrockefeller.com
ButchM
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 188


« Reply #118 on: July 10, 2014, 01:11:04 PM »
ReplyReply


As for Photos, how many plugins will one need for an equivalent experience? And how soon will you wish you were back in 2005 when Apple quite rightly saw that people were fed up of a string of programs and wanted their workflow to be in a single pro-oriented program?

The number of plugins required would depend upon individual needs of what is desired above and beyond the actual capabilities that the new Photos app will offer on it's own. Currently, even the Apple engineers working on the OS X Photos app quite likely don't know what v1 will actually offer ... it's early days. It could be no plugins at all for at least a few users ... to a rather lengthy list for others ... Just as it is for Aperture and Lightroom users today. Some use no external plugins ... others have a lot they rely on for their workflow.

If, for example, Nik or onOne could offer their suites as part of the RAW pipeline with the Photos app as the baseline for browsing, culling, metadata and basic image processing ... that would be all many users would likely require. I know I would be much more inclined to invest in plugins if they would fit into the workflow without resorting to creating derivative files to accommodate the use of plugins.

Yes, in 2005, Apple "rightly so" offered up a singular option ... their ceasing further development of iPhoto and Aperture may not be a reversal of that intent. That concept is over a decade old now (since the time development began) they could very well be onto a newer, more advanced concept that is even more "rightly so" for this point in time.

We do not know all the facts yet as to what this new offering will be capable or exactly how third party extensibility will all fit together ... I have a feeling that it won't be quite like "plugins" as we are accustomed to ... but a furtherance of a more seamless use where the user experiences little difference between where the parent app ends and the supported extensions begins.

Which is exactly what I had hoped at one point was Adobe's intention for Lightroom. If they had chosen to focus on solely providing Library, Develop and Print package of modules ... then open up additional module development to other developers ... it would be an awesome foundation while the lesser modules could be addressed for the various niche markets like slideshow, books and web ... or even others. In that respect, I think Adobe may have missed the boat.

I think it is a bit early to pass judgement on how it all fit together until we see a bit more of what Apple has envisioned.
Logged
Bob Rockefeller
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 161



WWW
« Reply #119 on: July 10, 2014, 01:33:53 PM »
ReplyReply

As for Photos, how many plugins will one need for an equivalent experience? And how soon will you wish you were back in 2005 when Apple quite rightly saw that people were fed up of a string of programs and wanted their workflow to be in a single pro-oriented program?

There are no facts.

Will plug-ins be like multiple programs from 2005? No one knows.

Will plug-ins be the next clever thing from Apple that blows the doors off the competition? No one knows.

We simple do not know what Photos will, or will not, be. Nor do we know what will come for Photos in the months after release.

So let's not speculate, poke fun, criticize, predict or suggest what others need to do.

Should you leave Aperture? Should you take up Lightroom? Or Capture One Pro? We have no facts to go on.
Logged

Bob
-----------------
Robert J. Rockefeller
Richmond Hill, GA
www.bobrockefeller.com
Pages: « 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad