Lightroom Vs. Aperture 192
Nonu writes "Adobe has officially released its Aperture killer, Lightroom, and the reviews are starting to come in. Ars looks at Lightroom and concludes that it's a better choice for those without bleeding-edge hardware. 'Aperture's main drawback is still performance as it was designed for bleeding-edge machines. On a quad Core 2 Duo Xeon, it is very usable but Lightroom just feels faster for everything regardless of hardware. Since Aperture relies on Core Image and a fast video card to do its adjustments (RAW decoding is done by the CPU), it's limited to what the single 3-D card can do. Lightroom does everything with the CPU and so it is likely to gain more speed as multicore systems get faster.'"
Video card limited (Score:2, Interesting)
I'd be interested to see what a system with a 7950 or (if/when they're supported) an 8800 would do with aperture. All this talk about how fast video cards are these days at doing things other than playing games intrigues me. I think aperture may have gotten it right. Those if Lightroom supports multi-core well, then it'll probably do ok going forward, as well.
Do they know anything about Aperture? (Score:5, Interesting)
I prefer Aperture (Score:5, Interesting)
But, probably the main thing that I like about Aperture is the full-screen editing/viewing mode. iPhoto 6 also has this, and when you're working in the smaller real estate of a 15" laptop display, it makes a huge difference. Maybe if I had a 20-30" external display it wouldn't be such a big deal. But, for laptop users, full screen mode is a must-have.
Also, iPhoto 6 doesn't have all the capabilities for workflow stuff. But, it's a pretty good alternative for non=professionals.
Re:How Professional are You? (Score:3, Interesting)
So it's basically (again, for me) just a $200 Bridge upgrade.
Re:I still prefer the Darkroom (Score:3, Interesting)
Besides, 4x5 is generally too small to contact print. You really need to try FP4+ in 8x10.
If you got an enlarger big enough for 4x5 for $75, I'm impressed. Btw, just yanking your chain. I have a couple boxes of Agfapan 100 in 4x5 stashed away for a trip when I'm inspired and on my game.
That need is overblown. (Score:3, Interesting)
There actually is not that great a difference between Lightroom and Aperture performance on most hardware, I have found - the real difference is perception. Lightroom does, as noted elsewhere, respond instantly to what you are doing - you make an adjustment and right away you see it is doing something. However, it can take as long as or longer than Aperture to actually finish what it is doing - so in the end, both programs finish work about the same time.
I have not checked this in version 1.0 yet but this actually led to problems in the beta. When adjusting exposure for instance, any change to the exposure slider in lightroom instantly reduced the resolution by 4x or so (so the image looked very blocky at 100%). So the slider responded very quickly BUT you couldn't really evaluate what effect the exposure had on fine detail (single pixel highlights).
Aperture instead opts to respond in real-time to the full image. For careful changes to an image at 100%, this is a better model even if the slider behaves a little more slowly. As I said, I have not carefully looked over Lightroom 1.0 to see if this has been addressed, so they may have fixed it - I just wanted to note that speed may not be entirely beneficial in a UI if it comes at the expense of ability.
Re:Lightroom is ... nice. Really nice. (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd buy it in a second if I stored my photos on my PC/Mac.
However, woe unto you if your photos reside on an external server. For whatever reason, Lightroom
chokes (i.e., consumes huge amounts of RAM and swaps like mad, eventually bringing
the machine to its knees) when "reference-in-place" importing photos from non-local storage.
If you you can manage to import a small number of non-local photos, operating on them results
in similar hangs and hiccups.
(This the result of testing on multiple different systems (Mac, PC) on different
100-BT and 1000-BT networks.)
For comparison, Aperture and Picasa have no such issues with non-local files.
My only guess is that Lightroom's multithreading doesn't play well with the longer
latencies introduced by networked storage. My support queries went unanswered,
so I'm not positive.
Dear Adobe: Please Fix! Love, cmcguffin