Forums
New posts
Articles
Product Reviews
Policies
FAQ
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Digital Lifestyle
Images, Graphic Design, and Digital Photography
Photographer turning Pro... software suggestions?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Doug b" data-source="post: 1207585" data-attributes="member: 59143"><p>I agree with this. Just remember to do one trial at a time. I find that LR's organization/cataloging features are just that much better than Apertures, which is very important to me. For some reason with Aperture, you can't JUST organize as according to your folder hierarchy. Even though you're able to import an entire folder subcursively, Aperture still wants to use the concept of "projects" and "albums", rather than just use your top folder if it's the only one without sub folders. It's not tragic, but it's a quirk I'd rather not deal with. </p><p></p><p>There are other very obvious differences between the two GUI's, and they both have their pro's and cons. But these are things you'd have to experience for yourself over a decent period of time before making any judgments. Ive become proficient with both GUI's and would love to make my own hybrid UI based on both! </p><p></p><p>I haven't learned all the shortcuts in Aperture yet, which could be a reason for my next statement, but I'm quickly working on learning about the things I'll need immediate access to in order to make good comparisons between my workflow on both programs. *Statement*: I find that my importing/culling/selection and editing workflow is more fluid and seamless in Lightroom. Aperture offers a lot of options in its processing HUD, but I've found that a lot of said options are a bit redundant and clutter up the interface when they're all present. </p><p></p><p>I've seen people say that LR doesn't offer the same options to edit point/tone curves as you'd see in PS or Aperture or Silver Efex Pro, which is absolutely false. I suppose they just don't know how to access it. </p><p></p><p>There are more than a few things that LR offers which Aperture doesn't, and really only one thing that Aperture offers that LR doesn't, which I WISH it did, but not sure that it can... This is its selective heal/clone brush. It's non destructive, non pixel level parametric editing done really well. It is able to sample pixels and reproduce them for cloning, yet still does it non destructively. Really awesome. It works with a brush stroke though, no lasso tool here... still very useful though. A lot more so than LR's simple heal/clone circle tool. Heck, even Bibble 5 has better cloning than LR. It's the ONLY single feature I wish that LR had and would make me stupidly happy. </p><p></p><p>I think that the issue with LR not being able to achieve this right now is because everything LR does (also parametrically) editing wise, relies on what is able to be done in ACR for the most part. Though I don't recall that ACR has built in spot healing tools ? </p><p></p><p>Otherwise, I just right click on my image and open as a smart object in Photoshop and do what ever masking or cloning I need there, if I can't get it in Lr. Opening an image as a smart object in PS from LR enables the image to remain on the non pixel level and stays non destructive, which a lot of people don't know, since Adobe is horrible ad advertising these things. </p><p></p><p>More on this later.</p><p></p><p>Doug</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Doug b, post: 1207585, member: 59143"] I agree with this. Just remember to do one trial at a time. I find that LR's organization/cataloging features are just that much better than Apertures, which is very important to me. For some reason with Aperture, you can't JUST organize as according to your folder hierarchy. Even though you're able to import an entire folder subcursively, Aperture still wants to use the concept of "projects" and "albums", rather than just use your top folder if it's the only one without sub folders. It's not tragic, but it's a quirk I'd rather not deal with. There are other very obvious differences between the two GUI's, and they both have their pro's and cons. But these are things you'd have to experience for yourself over a decent period of time before making any judgments. Ive become proficient with both GUI's and would love to make my own hybrid UI based on both! I haven't learned all the shortcuts in Aperture yet, which could be a reason for my next statement, but I'm quickly working on learning about the things I'll need immediate access to in order to make good comparisons between my workflow on both programs. *Statement*: I find that my importing/culling/selection and editing workflow is more fluid and seamless in Lightroom. Aperture offers a lot of options in its processing HUD, but I've found that a lot of said options are a bit redundant and clutter up the interface when they're all present. I've seen people say that LR doesn't offer the same options to edit point/tone curves as you'd see in PS or Aperture or Silver Efex Pro, which is absolutely false. I suppose they just don't know how to access it. There are more than a few things that LR offers which Aperture doesn't, and really only one thing that Aperture offers that LR doesn't, which I WISH it did, but not sure that it can... This is its selective heal/clone brush. It's non destructive, non pixel level parametric editing done really well. It is able to sample pixels and reproduce them for cloning, yet still does it non destructively. Really awesome. It works with a brush stroke though, no lasso tool here... still very useful though. A lot more so than LR's simple heal/clone circle tool. Heck, even Bibble 5 has better cloning than LR. It's the ONLY single feature I wish that LR had and would make me stupidly happy. I think that the issue with LR not being able to achieve this right now is because everything LR does (also parametrically) editing wise, relies on what is able to be done in ACR for the most part. Though I don't recall that ACR has built in spot healing tools ? Otherwise, I just right click on my image and open as a smart object in Photoshop and do what ever masking or cloning I need there, if I can't get it in Lr. Opening an image as a smart object in PS from LR enables the image to remain on the non pixel level and stays non destructive, which a lot of people don't know, since Adobe is horrible ad advertising these things. More on this later. Doug [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Digital Lifestyle
Images, Graphic Design, and Digital Photography
Photographer turning Pro... software suggestions?
Top