Adobe Lightroom Beta, Review

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by cjcampbell, Feb 25, 2006.

  1. cjcampbell

    cjcampbell Guest

    Adobe has released Lightroom Beta 2. It is their answer to Apple
    Aperture, developed by Adobe's subsidiary, Macromedia. You can download
    it at the Adobe web site. Lightroom is currently available only for OS
    X, but a Windows version is planned.

    The beta appears stable and relatively bug free. The biggest omission
    is the Help screens.

    Now, I use Aperture and paid full price for it. If you think that has
    an effect on my review of Lightroom, well, you may be right.

    Aperture and Lightroom look somewhat similar. Thumbnails of your images
    are at the bottom of the screen, and adjustments panel is at the right
    hand side, and a file information panel or file tree is at the left
    hand side. The selected image or images are in the center. Adobe's
    selection of fonts, colors, and general layout is not as pleasing to me
    as that of Aperture, itself no winner of any beauty contest. Just when
    you thought things could not get any uglier...

    As you would expect, Aperture has some features that are lacking in
    Lightroom, such as the ability to create smart folders, books, and web
    sites in which the content varies according to selected filtering
    criteria. Aperture organizes its files in projects within a proprietary
    Library. Lightroom does not offer web files and books at all; Adobe
    probably feels that anyone using Lightroom probably already owns a CS2
    suite which has far more powerful publishing tools than anything
    Aperture has to offer. Aperture has only very limited capability to
    edit web pages and books, but the finished samples offered with the
    program are much slicker than the templates that come with CS2.

    Aperture reads most types of RAW files, with the notable exception of
    DNG digital negative files. Lightroom reads DNG files. Aperture stores
    files in a special file called a Library. Lightroom allows files to
    remain where they are and thumbnails will be created in a regular file
    folder used by Lightroom. Aperture has the innovative concept of
    stacks, which sound great, until you find out that images cannot be
    used in books, some folders, and web sites without removing them from
    whatever stack they are in. Actually, the more I have used Aperture,
    the more I have had a tendency to get lost in the myriad versions,
    masters, and stacks it creates. There is no road map that keeps track
    of everything.

    Lightroom offers several workable organizational models for your image
    folders and allows you to customize them. It does not offer stacks.

    Editing in Aperture is imprecise, to say the least. Apple likes the use
    of color wheels and dots for image adjustment, but these are too small
    to work with effectively. Lightroom works with Photo shop for editing
    and allows choosing another external editor, but it only allows that
    editor to work with TIFF files. Aperture allows its single external
    editor to work with either TIFF or PSD Photoshop files, which is kind
    of funny, if you think about it.

    Editing in Lightroom tends to use slider bars, which I like a lot more
    than trying to pinpoint a mouse cursor on a dot not much bigger than
    the cursor. Most importantly, response is much faster. Lightroom's
    smaller overhead results in a much leaner, faster program with almost
    instantaneous response. Aperture is unreasonably slow; much slower even
    than Bridge.

    My recommendation right now: if you have not decided to use Aperture,
    try the Lightroom beta first.
     
    cjcampbell, Feb 25, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. cjcampbell

    nospam Guest

    In article <>,
    cjcampbell <> wrote:

    > As you would expect, Aperture has some features that are lacking in
    > Lightroom, such as the ability to create smart folders, books, and web
    > sites in which the content varies according to selected filtering
    > criteria. Aperture organizes its files in projects within a proprietary
    > Library.


    true.

    > Lightroom does not offer web files and books at all;


    sure it can - go to slideshow, click export, and choose html or flash.
    however, lightroom does lack the ability to create books.

    > Aperture reads most types of RAW files, with the notable exception of
    > DNG digital negative files.


    <http://www.apple.com/aperture/specs.html>

    Native RAW import and editing from leading dSLR cameras (see camera
    model listing)
    CRW, NEF, TIF, CR2, OLY, DNG
    Compatible with all major still image formats
    JPEG, GIF, TIFF, PNG, PDF, PSD

    > Lightroom reads DNG files. Aperture stores
    > files in a special file called a Library. Lightroom allows files to
    > remain where they are and thumbnails will be created in a regular file
    > folder used by Lightroom.


    and that folder isn't all that small...

    > Aperture has the innovative concept of
    > stacks, which sound great, until you find out that images cannot be
    > used in books, some folders, and web sites without removing them from
    > whatever stack they are in.


    it handles them fine - it uses the topmost photo of the stack. there
    is no need to unstack them.

    > Actually, the more I have used Aperture,
    > the more I have had a tendency to get lost in the myriad versions,
    > masters, and stacks it creates. There is no road map that keeps track
    > of everything.


    it can get a little confusing if you have a lot of versions but the
    confusion will happen in lightroom too. also, the inability to stack
    in lightroom makes it that much worse.

    > Lightroom works with Photo shop for editing
    > and allows choosing another external editor, but it only allows that
    > editor to work with TIFF files.


    lightroom can also export jpg, although that isn't really any better.
    what is most surprising is that it doesn't create a photoshop file and
    manage that. it seems obvious that it would since both photoshop and
    lightroom are adobe products. hopefully it is on their list of things
    to do.

    > Aperture allows its single external
    > editor to work with either TIFF or PSD Photoshop files, which is kind
    > of funny, if you think about it.


    what about it do you find funny?

    > Editing in Lightroom tends to use slider bars, which I like a lot more
    > than trying to pinpoint a mouse cursor on a dot not much bigger than
    > the cursor.


    i prefer using photoshop for anything more than minor changes.
    however, lightroom has quite a lot of adjustments available.

    > Most importantly, response is much faster. Lightroom's
    > smaller overhead results in a much leaner, faster program with almost
    > instantaneous response. Aperture is unreasonably slow; much slower even
    > than Bridge.


    overall lightroom is faster, but it can take a while to generate the
    thumbnail cache.

    > My recommendation right now: if you have not decided to use Aperture,
    > try the Lightroom beta first.


    since lightroom is currently free, it is a no-brainer to check it out.
    however, it is also not done and a lot of stuff is going to be added.
    aperture is also due for the free universal binary update which will
    probably have some bugfixes and feature additions as well.
     
    nospam, Feb 25, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. cjcampbell

    cjcampbell Guest

    nospam wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > cjcampbell <> wrote:
    >
    > > As you would expect, Aperture has some features that are lacking in
    > > Lightroom, such as the ability to create smart folders, books, and web
    > > sites in which the content varies according to selected filtering
    > > criteria. Aperture organizes its files in projects within a proprietary
    > > Library.

    >
    > true.
    >
    > > Lightroom does not offer web files and books at all;

    >
    > sure it can - go to slideshow, click export, and choose html or flash.
    > however, lightroom does lack the ability to create books.


    Thanks for your comments. Are you and I the only ones interested in
    this subject, though?

    The thing that I found funny is that Aperture supports Adobe's PSD file
    format and Adobe's Lightroom does not. It just struck me as slightly
    ironic. Well, maybe I was just tired when I thought of it.
     
    cjcampbell, Feb 27, 2006
    #3
  4. cjcampbell

    Ray Fischer Guest

    cjcampbell <> wrote:
    >Adobe has released Lightroom Beta 2. It is their answer to Apple
    >Aperture, developed by Adobe's subsidiary, Macromedia.


    Macromedia isn't a subsidiary - it no longer exists.

    Lightroom isn't a "response" to anything - it started development
    years ago and not by Macromedia.

    > You can download
    >it at the Adobe web site. Lightroom is currently available only for OS
    >X, but a Windows version is planned.


    Ya think?

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Feb 27, 2006
    #4
  5. cjcampbell

    Annika1980 Guest

    > You can download
    >it at the Adobe web site. Lightroom is currently available only for OS
    >X, but a Windows version is planned.


    >Ya think?


    The fact that Adobe had to release it before it was "ready"
    shows how much of a threat they consider Aperture to be.
     
    Annika1980, Feb 27, 2006
    #5
  6. cjcampbell

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Annika1980 <> wrote:

    >> You can download
    >>it at the Adobe web site. Lightroom is currently available only for OS
    >>X, but a Windows version is planned.

    >
    >>Ya think?

    >
    >The fact that Adobe had to release it before it was "ready"
    >shows how much of a threat they consider Aperture to be.


    And why did Apple release Aperture before it was ready?

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Feb 27, 2006
    #6
  7. cjcampbell

    nospam Guest

    In article <>,
    cjcampbell <> wrote:

    > Thanks for your comments. Are you and I the only ones interested in
    > this subject, though?


    apparently. :)

    > The thing that I found funny is that Aperture supports Adobe's PSD file
    > format and Adobe's Lightroom does not. It just struck me as slightly
    > ironic. Well, maybe I was just tired when I thought of it.


    gotcha. yes it is ironic. hopefully photoshop support will appear
    soon. i can't imagine that they won't support their own format.
     
    nospam, Feb 27, 2006
    #7
  8. cjcampbell

    Guest

    nospam wrote:
    hopefully photoshop support will appear
    > soon. i can't imagine that they won't support their own format.


    Lightroom has a different engine from PS. PS is pixel based and LR is
    not, hence there is no support yet for layers. Where they go with it
    will be interesting as gut feeling says they won't introduce layers and
    invade the PS market. When Aperture imports PSDs are the layers intact
    or are they flattened?
     
    , Feb 27, 2006
    #8
  9. cjcampbell

    nospam Guest

    In article <>,
    <> wrote:

    > nospam wrote:
    > hopefully photoshop support will appear
    > > soon. i can't imagine that they won't support their own format.

    >
    > Lightroom has a different engine from PS. PS is pixel based and LR is
    > not, hence there is no support yet for layers. Where they go with it
    > will be interesting as gut feeling says they won't introduce layers and
    > invade the PS market. When Aperture imports PSDs are the layers intact
    > or are they flattened?


    lightroom currently creates a tif or jpg file to send to photoshop. it
    isn't that tough to create a single layer .psd file instead. right
    now, there is no way to edit in photoshop and keep the file as a .psd
    and tracked by lightroom, something aperture does quite well.

    aperture imports .psd files without flattening, however, it uses the
    embedded preview for display and processing, which has the net effect
    of flattening it. however, the file is not touched and it can be
    exported with all layers intact. if aperture creates the .psd file
    that is later edited in photoshop, it will track it properly and
    maintain layers as expected. there are ways to get around importing
    existing .psd files and getting aperture to recognize them but it is
    definitely not ideal. this is a *huge* shortcoming for users who have
    an existing library of photoshopped files.
     
    nospam, Feb 27, 2006
    #9
  10. cjcampbell

    nospam Guest

    In article <260220062317408697%>, nospam
    <> wrote:

    > aperture imports .psd files without flattening, however, it uses the
    > embedded preview for display and processing, which has the net effect
    > of flattening it. however, the file is not touched and it can be
    > exported with all layers intact. if aperture creates the .psd file
    > that is later edited in photoshop, it will track it properly and
    > maintain layers as expected. there are ways to get around importing
    > existing .psd files and getting aperture to recognize them but it is
    > definitely not ideal. this is a *huge* shortcoming for users who have
    > an existing library of photoshopped files.


    update - aperture 1.1, announced today and shipping in march, fixes
    this!

    <http://insideaperture.com/Site/Aperture PMA Updated 1.1 Feature
    s.html>
     
    nospam, Feb 27, 2006
    #10
  11. cjcampbell

    cjcampbell Guest

    Ray Fischer wrote:
    > Annika1980 <> wrote:
    >
    > >> You can download
    > >>it at the Adobe web site. Lightroom is currently available only for OS
    > >>X, but a Windows version is planned.

    > >
    > >>Ya think?

    > >
    > >The fact that Adobe had to release it before it was "ready"
    > >shows how much of a threat they consider Aperture to be.

    >
    > And why did Apple release Aperture before it was ready?


    OUCH! Man, that is cold. And true.
     
    cjcampbell, Feb 27, 2006
    #11
  12. nospam wrote:
    > In article <260220062317408697%>, nospam
    > <> wrote:
    >

    << Snipped bits out >>

    Started using it a few days ago on some smaller projects, although I
    looked at Beta 1 a bit a while ago. My intuitiveness ran out trying to
    export a dozen adjusted photos; no matter how I selected them all, only
    one jpg was created. (Jpeg is in this case the desired end product.)

    --
    John McWilliams
     
    John McWilliams, Feb 27, 2006
    #12
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. wayne

    Adobe Lightroom for photographers in public beta

    wayne, Jan 9, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    299
    wayne
    Jan 9, 2006
  2. C Wright

    Adobe Public Beta - Lightroom

    C Wright, Jan 10, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    323
    Paul J Gans
    Jan 10, 2006
  3. Rutger

    Lightroom beta for windows

    Rutger, Jul 19, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    32
    Views:
    947
    Richard Smith
    Jul 31, 2006
  4. Adobe Lightroom now up to Beta 4.1

    , Nov 13, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    330
    Hebee Jeebes
    Nov 13, 2006
  5. Mark²

    Adobe Lightroom Review?

    Mark², Mar 23, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    319
    k-man
    Mar 25, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page