Thread: Adobe Releases Photoshop Lightroom 3 Beta

Quote: Originally Posted by Bubba Satori That comment reveals that you have absolutely no idea what LR is for. Completely different program than PS. Since most photographers use a mere fraction of Ps (and it's mostly the same mere fraction ), why not create a game changer and add just those parts of Ps into Lr? Because they have to protect the Ps/CS market share? Apple could create a game changer by doing this with Aperture, if they did...

Quote: Originally Posted by FrankieTDouglas Actually, no, Lightroom is being promoted to the same people who use Photoshop. As two different tools. Quote: Originally Posted by FrankieTDouglas I work in the photography industry . I deal with these people and this software everyday. Then it's rather frightening for "those people" that you don't understand the difference between the two programs. Quote: Originally...

Most photographers I know who use a workflow tool use either Lightroom/Capture One or Aperture. These tools are designed to get the tedious work out of the way (colour correction, basic cropping, dust) with the advantage of also being a library function. Though some of the new features such as the filter mode and Adjustment brush are a welcome addition. I hardly use PS anymore for my work, most corrections for me can be made in Lightroom....

I would like to report back that on my Macbook after letting it render the standard and 1:1 previews (which took longer than an overnight on about 7k photos) it is now very very snappy, instant loading of even 21mp Raw files. Im afraid to start it on my mac pro because it will take forever, but boy does it make an improvement!

Quote: Originally Posted by sud That would be great thanks! looking forwards to your feedback. T MacPro has been at the apple store getting worked on lately so no updates from me Next week I should be able to test it out more when I get that machine back.

Quote: Originally Posted by John.B Because Adobe posted a slow-as-molasses beta of the next Lr version? Because Adobe has more resourced behind LR than Apple does have Aperture. Updates are non-exist for Aperture.

Quote: Originally Posted by John.B Since most photographers use a mere fraction of Ps (and it's mostly the same mere fraction ), why not create a game changer and add just those parts of Ps into Lr? Because they have to protect the Ps/CS market share? Apple could create a game changer by doing this with Aperture, if they did we would see Adobe add it to Lr in a matter of weeks (and, no, I'm not holding my breath in either case). It...

Thanks for all the input. I am definitely not in a hurry to make this decision, so I think I'll just download the lightroom 3 beta and play around with it to see if it will work for me. If so, I'll get the full version when it comes out. From what people have said, it sounds like the current version of aperture is a little iffy, and i'll likely be kept from any future updates (intel only), as Im not planning on upgrading from...

Quote: Originally Posted by scratchh I am looking to upgrade from iphoto (i know, i know) for my photo management, and trying to decide between aperture and lightroom. note that i work on a G5 and so snow leopard/intel native issues are not relevant to me. also note that this is just for management, any serious editing is done in photoshop. This seems like the best place to ask for feedback. i tried out the demo versions long ago when they...

Quote: Originally Posted by John.B If he goes with Lr 2.x it'll cost him $300 today plus another $100 to upgrade to Lr 3. True, though Aperture is $200 itself. The question is: is the difference worth it?