Advertisement
Tell me now.... for you- which and why.......
posted by:
|
New York City
|
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: Lightroom or Aperture.....??
Wed, October 15, 2008 - 10:03 AMOut of curiousity... Why isn't Photoshop on your list? -
-
Unsu...
Re: Lightroom or Aperture.....??
Wed, October 15, 2008 - 10:06 AMMaybe because it's an expensive piece of bloated software and doesn't suit his needs at this time.
Plenty of time to buy an expensive piece of bloated software down the line if his passions prove enduring.
:)
~V~
-
-
Re: Lightroom or Aperture.....??
Wed, October 15, 2008 - 10:15 AM
LOL........ no.. the reason being i already have PS.....
Wait... do u think i wouldnt need them if i already have PS? -
-
Unsu...
Re: Lightroom or Aperture.....??
Wed, October 15, 2008 - 10:21 AMIt seems to me that a streamlined, efficient piece of software will be perfectly appropriate in most cases.
Often, there is no need to skin a catfish with a.....a..............a
Giant boulder dropped from space?
I dunno.
Point being. PS is an absolutely great tool..............................that isn't necessary at least half the time.
~V~ -
-
Re: Lightroom or Aperture.....??
Wed, October 15, 2008 - 11:07 AMI think a better analogy would be...
You don't use a swiss army knife for surgery, unless you have no other choice
that being said, Aperture, its just about the same as lightroom in features, but I think its a LOT more user friendly
(full disclosure: I'm an avid Anti-Apple person, but damnit all if they don't make at least some great software)
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Lightroom or Aperture.....??
Wed, October 15, 2008 - 12:36 PMI selected Aperture after researching user experiences on both; the emergent consensus I discovered was that Lightroom had nifty features, but there was no way it would be allowed to intrude on Photoshop's capabilities. I inferred that it was in essence tethered closely to Photoshop, capable of some sophistication, but no one reviewer appeared to think it would be used without Photoshop. Some discussion centered also on novel tonal relation features in Lightroom, versus Photoshop; but I'm already having these experiences with non-Adobe products, greatly improved automation and ease being among them.
For my workflow, I categorically reject the notion that Photoshop is the center, or even an end-point. Also, some capabilities described for Lightroom were remarkably like Bridge, though with some differences too. These various close collisions bothered me. In particular, while I have the full Adobe CS3 suite, I do not worship Photoshop. I much prefer RAW Developer, LightZone, and Pixelmator; the choice in tools has a profound effect on my workflow productivity.
Aperture worked very well in allowing these external tools to work seamlessly, a feature that I need. It also apparently works quite well multiththreaded, doing several things at once. I found that very impressive, including it's fast performance with light weight loading on the system. In contrast, every time I have to load Photoshop, it feels like hosting a huge monolithic anchor that dominates system resources. IMHO, I'm going to call that what it is: bloatware. I am unlearning the Photoshop user interface, because I believe it's a regressive skill-set to acquire. There are other faster and lighter ways to work; my consideration for Aperture was in how untethered it is from Photoshop.
I am not saying Lightroom is a bad product; I am saying I did not want to use a product that would always be in Photoshop's shadow, because that solution does not match my light/fast and heavily automation-driven workflow. Aperture is not like that.
Your mileage of course may vary, destination fee, dealer preparation, and local taxes are not part of sticker-shock.
Blessings and Light,
M
Your needs and workflow may well be different, and for you, a tighter integration may be rather valuable.
-
Re: Lightroom or Aperture.....??
Wed, October 15, 2008 - 1:23 PMFor reference, this same topic came up before in a thread from last August:
digitalslr.tribe.net/thread/...cf063a65
Additionally, from that thread, here's a review of Lightroom 2 by B&H photo, which delineates the role this tool can play in your workflow:
www.bhphotovideo.com/c/find/...om-2.jsp
Blessings and Light,
Mi -
-
Re: Lightroom or Aperture.....??
Fri, October 17, 2008 - 11:25 AMMuchas gracias, Miguelito....
It is yea verily appreciated.......
I do use PS heavily - but i am now maybe realizing that that is only because i have never considered using anything else, and it has always met my needs......even in the past 2+ years that i have been using it increasingly for my photography, as opposed to mostly for my graphic design......
Is there anyone who has used both that thinks Photoshop makes having either of the others redundant.....??
(maybe a loaded question... you could prob find SOMEbody to say ANYTHING about everything......)
-
-
Re: Lightroom or Aperture.....??
Fri, October 17, 2008 - 2:01 PMI been using CS suite and ver 8, not even up to 4, I don't find light room or aperture really than necessary. I look at it this way how many files do you have, how many of them actually make money for you?
The Bridge or the browser is all one really needs in my opinion.
If you are getting a pying gigs which requires you to be proficient then it is worth it as a good business decision to make your workflow faster, but only if you are using a high end work station in my opinion. One gets good software, need more better hardware etc. -
-
Re: Lightroom or Aperture.....??
Fri, October 17, 2008 - 2:53 PMabject does raises quite a good point. But it's the very point that caused me to look for something like Aperture or Lightroom, which I shall explain.
I should have mentioned that in my application, I have 0.6 million belly dance photos, and growing. Presently, it takes 4TB to store all these photos accessibly and reliably, considering operation for decades of service life. I do not archive these photos on unreliable soft media, which only has a shelf of ~5 years sitting out in the environment. They are stored on a small disk farm, with fault tolerance. I no longer even buy remote hard disks < 1TB. The next major upgrade to the disk farm will be to 16TB capacity; after that it will be to 64TB; after that 256 TB. Most likely, the disk farm of the further future years will ultimately host several Petabytes, and it will take no more volume than what I presently have now at 4TB, and probably less volume.
I will be able to locate and find specific images well into the future, and this will be necessary. I'm already involved in a Legacy Stars belly dance photography project that chronicles stars from 30 years ago, definitely the film era. Where will my digital photos of today's stars be in 30 years? Safely backed up on interoperable equipment not tied to any any particular host, and which has fault tolerance through multiple redundancy. This is the answer to longevity of digital photo data versus film negatives.
So, ultimately I needed software much more sophisticated than Bridge to handle this Unified Belly Dance Photo Collection, because it's intended to have findable photos for decades to come.
Digital is a nomadic media, the data must move in order to survive.
Blessings and Light,
M -
-
Re: Lightroom or Aperture.....??
Fri, October 17, 2008 - 6:08 PMthanks micheal, btw Stef, both my primary work drive at my day job and my back up died, the backup crashed when the bearing died as I attempted a full drive back up to a third copy. Four years of data lost forever. -
-
Re: Lightroom or Aperture.....??
Fri, October 17, 2008 - 9:41 PMabject,
So sorry to hear of this, argh!
Maybe not lost forever? Have you tried having a data recovery expert look at any one the drives that's still physically operable? These people have special software tools. These tools are akin to the compact flash data recovery software, but more sophisticated, due to the larger numbers of disk-based filesystems in modern usage. Also some specialize on Macs, Linux, PCs, etc.
Specialized tools can follow places in the filesystem that are not broken, to recover the data out of those chunks. The host operating system doesn't have capability to mount the file system, so these tools just do a low-level attach, treat your drive like a sick peripheral, and then attempt to obtain any non-sick data by following all paths through the filesystem, and with special heuristics. A completely different way of looking at the drive. Very often, you can get a lot back. Probably not the crashed sectors, but everything else that is good. Additionally, sometimes the filesystem can be recoverably repaired too, at least long enough to get the data out.
Sure hope something like this is possible for you!
I was just writing about this phenomena on a belly dance portal. My workflow storage solution involves using several external drives at low duty cycles. Only temporary data is ever stored on a computer. Some of the backup archive drives are not even powered on, a lot of the time. However, they do have to be cycled every several weeks or so, because otherwise the bearing grease will seized up, rendering them inoperable to spin.
Wish you well.
Blessings and Light,
M
-
-
-
-
-
