Aperture and Lightroom style workflow - for or against?

[Ian]

Re: Aperture and Lightroom style workflow - for or against?

i used to use raw shooter essentials until LR came along. my first impressions of LR were that it did way too much compared to the simple single screen in RSE. *then* i got to start using it properly. in short, it saves me so much time compared to how i used to do things that it's unreal. i never thought i'd use the cataloguing side, but do. never thought i'd use the ratings, but do. etc etc. i will confess to only using the first 2 modules as the other 3 have no use for me, however, the ability to just hold the one file is great. the old workflow would involve holding the original, creating a PSD from it, working on the PSD, writing as a new file.
the ability to apply all / a selection of settings to a block of photos in one hit is great and a huge time saver. the ability to save snapshots of different settings to apply to an image is great, allowing you to hold just one source file, yet create multiple 'versions' from this one file.

given that i take anywhere between 25k-50k images per year, it makes life soooo much simpler.

put simply, LR is the dogs danglies.

Of course Raw Shooter Essentials was acquired by Adobe and then integrated into some technology that had been acquired when they also bought Macromedia, and the hybrid became Lightroom

Ian

[Patrick]

Re: Aperture and Lightroom style workflow - for or against?

Of course Raw Shooter Essentials was acquired by Adobe and then integrated into some technology that had been acquired when they also bought Macromedia, and the hybrid became Lightroom

Ian

There were two versions of Raw Shooter the free one, also the paid for Pro version.
Thats how I got my first copy of Lightroom, I used Raw Shooter Pro, and Adobe gave Pro users a free copy of Lightroom 1

Raw Shooter at the time was recognized as one of the very best Raw Converters which is why I presume Adobe bought them.

Patrick

[DerekW]

Re: Aperture and Lightroom style workflow - for or against?

Interesting to read the comments especially the none supportive comments - as far as I use Aperture - all the the non supportive comments are actually strengths in Aperture - it supports my library structure that I have used since I went Digital in 2000. I use the Referenced Masters process ie the master files do not inhabit the Aperture database (actually the database is more of a directory structure than a traditional database)

Yes it protects my master files from corruption and over writing.

It saves me drive space compared to my pre Aperture way of working where I kept a master copy, an edited copy and perhaps a subset of the edited files for printing or exporting to a web page program.

Less drive space means reduced back up times.

If I want to have a different interpretation of an image it will only occupy a small amount of disk space until I export it for printing or displaying.

I used to use JAlbum to create web pages - now I use Aperture

And as for processing a mass of images that require a similar amount of changing then the get the first one correct and then let the rest follow on is great and then just revisit the minority for final tweaking.

The discussions on the use of Raw rather than Jpeg used to intimidate me, however with Aperture it makes no difference as far as I am concerned (apart from the extra information I can get from RAW re Jpeg) the Raw image is as easily viewed as a Jpeg.

Regardless of the type of image I am taking eg family party, holiday or more formal function I take Raw images and let the computer take the strain.

Moving on to Aperture was a great leap forward to me.

[Ian]

Re: Aperture and Lightroom style workflow - for or against?

Just to clarify one point, you CAN (if you like) use Lightroom and preserve your preferred original or 'master' file storage location and structure preference, so that Lightroom only stores thumbnails and previews in its own database, so it's the same as Aperture in this respect.

I've not used Aperture myself but much of what I have read about Aperture seems very similar to Lightroom.

Other programs are now available that, to varying degrees, follow the example set by Lightroom and Aperture, like ACDSee Pro Photo Manager, and IDimager.

Ian

Interesting to read the comments especially the none supportive comments - as far as I use Aperture - all the the non supportive comments are actually strengths in Aperture - it supports my library structure that I have used since I went Digital in 2000. I use the Referenced Masters process ie the master files do not inhabit the Aperture database (actually the database is more of a directory structure than a traditional database)

Yes it protects my master files from corruption and over writing.

It saves me drive space compared to my pre Aperture way of working where I kept a master copy, an edited copy and perhaps a subset of the edited files for printing or exporting to a web page program.

Less drive space means reduced back up times.

If I want to have a different interpretation of an image it will only occupy a small amount of disk space until I export it for printing or displaying.

I used to use JAlbum to create web pages - now I use Aperture

And as for processing a mass of images that require a similar amount of changing then the get the first one correct and then let the rest follow on is great and then just revisit the minority for final tweaking.

The discussions on the use of Raw rather than Jpeg used to intimidate me, however with Aperture it makes no difference as far as I am concerned (apart from the extra information I can get from RAW re Jpeg) the Raw image is as easily viewed as a Jpeg.

Regardless of the type of image I am taking eg family party, holiday or more formal function I take Raw images and let the computer take the strain.

Moving on to Aperture was a great leap forward to me.