topic Re: Lightroom vs. other options (Aperture? what else?) in Camera Software

Lightroom vs. other options (Aperture? what else?)

jfo — Mon, 19 Nov 2012 07:49:36 GMT

I'd hate to make just a really vague topic, but I'm curious what others are using for their stills workflow. I use Lightroom, and so do most others I know, but I want to make sure I'm not in an echo chamber and not even aware of what I'm missing.

My workflow is entirely Lightroom-based: from import, sorting, basic editing, more advanced editing with Photoshop if necessary (but LR integrates this very seemlessly), and then jpg export (I currently don't do prints or web galleries, just delivery to clients via Dropbox).

Thoughts? What are the advantages of other options out there?

Re: Lightroom vs. other options (Aperture? what else?)

Peter — Mon, 19 Nov 2012 11:21:14 GMT

Photo Ninja, UFRaw, RawTherapee, DPP, Silkypix, Darktable, Rawstudio, ACDSee, Capture one, Picasa.

I think Photo Ninja will make you happy.

Re: Lightroom vs. other options (Aperture? what else?)

SGFFX — Sat, 25 Jan 2014 03:26:26 GMT

Also consider Photoshop Elements 12. It includes an Organizer, RAW editor, and Elements Editor. Lots of features with an interface for the novice and another for the expert.

Re: Lightroom vs. other options (Aperture? what else?)

ebiggs1 — Sat, 25 Jan 2014 14:09:41 GMT

"My workflow is entirely Lightroom-based: from import, sorting, basic editing, more advanced editing with Photoshop ..."

This is the best that is currently available. 99% of pro, money making shops use that combo.

Re: Lightroom vs.. Other options (Aperture? What else?)

SGFFX — Sat, 25 Jan 2014 14:25:05 GMT

I did not realize the poster was a pro. Thanks for pointing this our.

I offered the thought about Elements because in the right situation it is a value proposition because it is highly functional at significantly less cost than Lightroom plus Photoshop. It is less cost because is does not have some of the high end functions of Photoshop. Not everyone needs those. Pros (paid photographers) would certainly need those. Amateurs and prosumers might want to spend more on their hardware and less on software while still getting a capable software package. I offered up the suggestion only as an alternative to consider not knowing the posters Pro status.

Re: Lightroom vs.. Other options (Aperture? What else?)

ebiggs1 — Sat, 25 Jan 2014 14:40:50 GMT

"I offered up the suggestion only as an alternative to consider not knowing the posters Pro status."

And I offered up the suggestion simply to show what the "pros" are using. If you want the best that is it. Pro, prosumer, consumer, or whatever. The choices are numerous and everyone is free to decide where to put their coin.

The fact remains that an over whelming number of the great photographs in the world go through Photoshop.

Re: Lightroom vs. other options (Aperture? what else?)

TCampbell — Tue, 28 Jan 2014 19:33:56 GMT

Aperture is only available for the Mac -- since it's Apple software.

Some time back... in Apple's way of doing things, they recognized that Photoshop -- though quite powerful -- wasn't very practical for everyday use nor did it have any management capabilities. They recognized that a typical photographer probably shoots a large number of images which are all related -- they belong to the same event or project, etc. They also recognized that if you shoot enough, you fill up your hard drive and need a way to deal with offline storage so that you can archive the shots you aren't working with NOW and yet not lose track of the fact that you have them. They also recognized that 98% of the time, you're "adjusting" images and not doing wholesale edits (you're not creating composite images, etc.) Lastly... they realized that the Photoshop editing process is not protective of the original image and is also QUITE bulky (files really have a filespace "bloat" problem becasue of the nature of the "layer" system.)

So they created Aperture -- which deal with all of this.

Adobe... feeling threatened by this new product (and rightly so) responded by creating Lightroom -- more or less a shameless rip-off of Aperture.

The two are roughly equal in terms of what they can do.

I have long felt that Adobe is exceptionally proud of they software and thing it should be priced as if they were selling gold bars. When Aperture debuted... it was $200. When Lightroom debuted it was $300.

Lightroom is available on both Windows and Mac. Aperture is only available on Mac.

Recently I've noticed Apple seems to be drastically lowering the cost of software -- if not giving it away for free. And further... they seem to consider everything to be a "family pack" in that once you buy something from the App Store you are allowed to install it on every computer YOU legitimately own. Adobe is still in the "one computer" world.

Aperture is now $79. Lightroom is $149.

I tried Lightroom in it's pre 1.0 beta days but even after release and watching several revisions, it was too much like Aperture (I suppose that's a good thing) so I saw little value in swtiching. It doesn't work with Photoshop any better than Aperture does.

I use a lot of tools on my Mac and I find that Aperture (not-surprisingly) has better integration with everything else on the Mac.

As such... I pretty much treat this like a Coke / Pepsi thing and don't feel that one of them is truly "better" than the other and it's more a matter of personal taste.

Re: Lightroom vs. other options (Aperture? what else?)

ebiggs1 — Tue, 28 Jan 2014 20:28:55 GMT

"... nor did it have any management capabilities."

Since CS2 to CS6, Photoshop has had Bridge. Bridge has nearly the same, if not exactly the same, file management features as Lightroom or Aperture. Plus it is nearly seamless with Photoshop. It is included free with Photoshop.

Unless there has been a recent release, Aperture is getting a little long in the tooth.

If you have not tried LR 5.3, I urge you to do so.

But I will say after working at Hallmark for so long, that Photoshop would be hard for me to abandon. So I must admit a certain bias toward Photoshop. And although there were several hundred Mac's, they all run Photoshop and Lightroom.

Re: Lightroom vs. other options (Aperture? what else?)

TCampbell — Tue, 28 Jan 2014 20:48:41 GMT

Bridge works a bit more like a file browser -- but with some photography specific tagging and filtering capabilities. It lets you search by rank & keywords but it's not as robust as what you find in a digital asset management system.

As an example, in Aperture, when I bring in images I can choose to have them "managed" or "referenced". "managed" images live inside the Aperture library (and you can have more than one library if you want). "referenced" leaves the files wherever you want them (more like Bridge).

BUT... Aperture is designed for massive volume. So you could have projects or events that live on external disks and aren't actually connected to your computer at all times. But Aperture can manage the the offline images... it knows where they are even when the disk is gone. It maintains a library entry, thumbnail, and if you want it can even maintain a lower-quality JPEG "preview" image. This allows you to search for images that aren't even on your computer -- and when you find the one you want, it'll tell you it's on a disconnected drive and it'll tell you the name of the drive so you can go get it and connect it to the computer.

We can also tag en-masse (e.g. apply tags to everything shot at the same event) -- or even apply adjustments en-masse (apply, say, a white balance adjustment to every image shot in the same lighting setup.) Bridge opens Photoshop to do any changes and in Photoshop you can copy an adjustment from one image to another, but it's a bit more cumbersome to do it.

I haven't seen how Lightroom behaves, but I think I read that it had the same ability to manage disconnected images (images stored on drives that are not currently connected to the computer.)

Re: Lightroom vs. other options (Aperture? what else?)

ebiggs1 — Tue, 28 Jan 2014 21:42:36 GMT

Tim it must have been some time since you have used Bridge, Photoshop and Lightroom.

Except for the off-line drive thingy, which I would never use and have no intention of using, Bridge will do all that.

There are several "Tools" and the 'Image processor' is one. Yes, it uses Photoshop because that is the whole point of Bridge but it will batch process many photos all at the same time. Metadata, ratings, all that normal stuff.

I currently have five 2 TB hard drives and I prefer to use Lightroom but Bridge will do nearly exactly the same things. If you consider it is connected to Photoshop, it will do very much more. Plus it is a free ad-on.

I guess if you are comfortable with Aperture, I can see a reluctance to change and everyone must decide what is best for their needs. It's all good.

Re: Lightroom vs.. other options (Aperture? what else?)

digital — Mon, 10 Feb 2014 16:04:17 GMT

Lightroom is a unique developer. I was a die hard DPP user for many years. DPP is simple, has as great conversion engine and you just can't beat Canon for color, particularly for skin tones. Now that LR offers camera profiles it is much better. Still a little more yellow in the skin tones than I was used to with DPP but it is pretty darn good. Adobe has come a long way as I hated their color several years ago.

If I used DPP every image was converted to a TiFF and then it would wind up in PS. OK for hobby shots but for mass edits it was time consuming and could be very frustrating.

I'm a supporter of the 3 phases of sharpening 1. Capture 2. Creative 3. Output . Steps 1 and 3 being most important.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/image-sharpening.htm

DPP only offers step 1 which in turn had me completing my editing in PS. Another huge advantage to both LR and ACR is the masking slider in the sharpening pallet. Edge sharpening prevents any sharpening of existing noise in smooth areas. It is part of the capture sharpening phase and I usually set it to about 80. Adobe NR is very good as well.

Creative is local sharpening of eyes, lips, etc.

Output or phase 3. The LR export page is excellent. It offers output sharpening for media type and amount. I had hard time accepting this sharpening because it offers - Low, Standard and High. In PS I have my own edge sharpening/resizing actions and have full control over it. After multiple tests I started to trust it.

I then later discovered that the Pixel Genius group developed the sharpening for the LR export page. The late great Bruce Fraser - the creator of the 3 phases of sharpening was member of the Pixel Genius group. I'm pretty sure there is some edge sharpening and other things going on in the background we don't know about. The results are excellent.

So in a nut shell LR is an excellent one stop PP software. I occasionally export an image to PS for advanced editing mostly for complex cloning. I still can't get used to LR's clone tool. If I had to I could manage using just LR. A local award winning photographer works strictly with LR. I still use DPP and ACR for hobby shots but for mass edits LR is the one for me.

If Canon had come out with a developer as good as LR I would have paid for it. I understand that Canon cameras are being packaged with LR in Europe. It would be cool if LR adopted Canon's RAW conversion engine. Lightroom - Canon RAW edition. I'd definitely pay for that.

I tested all types of RAW converters but know I just use the 3. DPP, ACR or LR depending on what I'm doing. I really like this sharpening method I use for output with PS. It is edge sharpening and you can over sharpen because you can feather it back at the end. No two images are alike. I created actions for this. Not practical for mass edits as it would just take too long.

I'm really picky about sharpening. One of the best methods I have found to date and I look all the time or new methods.

http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/photoshop-really-smart-sharpening.html?search=edge+mask&bool=and

Re: Lightroom vs. other options (Aperture? what else?)

Peter — Tue, 11 Feb 2014 11:05:08 GMT

In the beginning I used DPP. After that I used RawTherapee. Now I use Darktable, the most Lightroom look a like around the open sorce softwares.

Edited in Darktable:

http://kameratrollet.se/allt/bild1.jpg

Re: Lightroom vs. other options (Aperture? what else?)

digital — Tue, 11 Feb 2014 14:35:17 GMT

Looks interesting. Thanks. I bet that would look good in B&W as well.

Re: Lightroom vs. other options (Aperture? what else?)

digital — Tue, 11 Feb 2014 15:02:21 GMT

Not working for me. I went to thier site, chose OSX and there is only one link. It downlowded and when I try to open it I get this.

There a no clear instructions for this message.

Only for this one. What to do with dialog saying ""darktable" can't be opened because it is from an unidentified developer":

Re: Lightroom vs. other options (Aperture? what else?)

ebiggs1 — Tue, 11 Feb 2014 15:12:55 GMT

The last time I looked, Darkroom would not run on WIndows machines. And only a few Mac OS's.

Also from what I have seen, it is like Gimpshop, a just a wanna-be.

Re: Lightroom vs. other options (Aperture? what else?)

digital — Tue, 11 Feb 2014 15:15:03 GMT

If I can get it to work I'll try it out for hobby shots. I looked at the manual and don't see export sharpening unless it is somewhere else. If it does nott have this I'l stick to lightroom for mass edits.

Re: Lightroom vs. other options (Aperture? what else?)

TCampbell — Tue, 11 Feb 2014 15:15:44 GMT

A ".xz" file is a compressed archive... much like a ".gz" (gzip) file, except ".xz" claims to have better compression. You'll actually have to search for, download, and install an ".xz" utility (I'm told StuffIt can open .xz files.) There are numerous .xz compression tools -- most are free.

As for the application not being opened because it is from an "unidentified" developer, that's a Mac OS X security setting. Open "System Preferences", select "Privacy & Security" and in the "General" tab (left-most tab of the window), you'll see the security settings. Change the setting temporarily to "Anywhere", then open the app (it'll do a "are you sure?") and after it's been opened one time, OS X will flag it as being trusted by you. You can then switch the security back to whatever it was before (this reduces the possibility of malware on your computer because anything a website would manage to download will not actually be permitted to run without your explicit permission.)

Re: Lightroom vs. other options (Aperture? what else?)

digital — Tue, 11 Feb 2014 15:20:19 GMT

Thanks.

Re: Lightroom vs. other options (Aperture? what else?)

ebiggs1 — Tue, 11 Feb 2014 15:25:18 GMT

I know the open source software is appealing because it is free. But there is a reason it is free.

I also know that Lightroom, and PS and Photoshop Elements cost money but they have there benefits.

I have seen LR for as low as $89 bucks but even the regular $149 is not unreasonable.

PSE is also been on sale, or even free with the purchase of some cameras, for $69 dollars. Pretty reasonable?

Re: Lightroom vs. other options (Aperture? what else?)

Peter — Tue, 11 Feb 2014 15:32:51 GMT

No export sharpning. Just the ordinary sharpning in the "Darkroom" and the Highpass filter. If you want to batch several images and sharp them, then use ctrl+shift+c in the "Lightboard" tab.

To find out all the stuff you will need to use the software, I recommend these videos http://www.youtube.com/user/rhutton86/videos

I am using Linux, so installing Darktable on OS X is nothing I know about more than it is possible. Darktable doesn't support Windows.