Any Aperture users thinking of switching of switching to Lightroom?
Discussion
Have been a happy Aperture 3 user for 3.5 years. Like many I was waiting patiently for version 4 but I understand apple have now announced that will never happen. Marvellous.
So I'm thinking of making the switch to LR but am concerned about the swap over process. Anybody made the move already?
So I'm thinking of making the switch to LR but am concerned about the swap over process. Anybody made the move already?
Gad-Westy said:
Have been a happy Aperture 3 user for 3.5 years. Like many I was waiting patiently for version 4 but I understand apple have now announced that will never happen. Marvellous.
So I'm thinking of making the switch to LR but am concerned about the swap over process. Anybody made the move already?
On another forum I visit there was a huge rush of people joining saying they had moved to the new software because Apple was dropping Aperture and they did not want to head to Photoshop for one or another reason - mostly to do with adobe pricing model is seemed. So I'm thinking of making the switch to LR but am concerned about the swap over process. Anybody made the move already?
I'm not sure they had thought it through especially as most of them then started to go on about their new choice of software being unlike Aperture in a number of respects. One would have to give them 10/10 for observation on that - except that they had an option to undertake extensive testing first had they chosen to do so.
I was puzzled. Clearly these are mostly long term Apple/Aperture users so why the sudden kneejerk reaction to the announcement that Aperture would be no more some time NEXT YEAR when iPhoto (or whatever the new product branding is to be called) has been successfully launched.
As far as I can tell from the information available there is no need to rush to another application and it would seem that Apple expect the new product to support the needs of existing Aperture users.
They may be wrong in their expectation but no one will know for a while. Meanwhile so long as you like what Aperture does for you now the only risk you would have would be support for new cameras (are you planning to buy one about a year from now?) and an 'bugs' that badly affect your usage but are unlikely to be fixed before development is stopped.
So at the moment I can't see why there should be a rush to jump ship.
Take your time, work out what you really really need from your Photo Editing tool(s) and then go from there starting with gathering all the information you can find about the new Apple application.
Much can change in a year.
LongQ said:
On another forum I visit there was a huge rush of people joining saying they had moved to the new software because Apple was dropping Aperture and they did not want to head to Photoshop for one or another reason - mostly to do with adobe pricing model is seemed.
I'm not sure they had thought it through especially as most of them then started to go on about their new choice of software being unlike Aperture in a number of respects. One would have to give them 10/10 for observation on that - except that they had an option to undertake extensive testing first had they chosen to do so.
I was puzzled. Clearly these are mostly long term Apple/Aperture users so why the sudden kneejerk reaction to the announcement that Aperture would be no more some time NEXT YEAR when iPhoto (or whatever the new product branding is to be called) has been successfully launched.
As far as I can tell from the information available there is no need to rush to another application and it would seem that Apple expect the new product to support the needs of existing Aperture users.
They may be wrong in their expectation but no one will know for a while. Meanwhile so long as you like what Aperture does for you now the only risk you would have would be support for new cameras (are you planning to buy one about a year from now?) and an 'bugs' that badly affect your usage but are unlikely to be fixed before development is stopped.
So at the moment I can't see why there should be a rush to jump ship.
Take your time, work out what you really really need from your Photo Editing tool(s) and then go from there starting with gathering all the information you can find about the new Apple application.
Much can change in a year.
Cheers LongQ. I'd read a little more on the issue yesterday after my posting and must admit I'm marginally more reassured than I was when I first posted. I'm not sure they had thought it through especially as most of them then started to go on about their new choice of software being unlike Aperture in a number of respects. One would have to give them 10/10 for observation on that - except that they had an option to undertake extensive testing first had they chosen to do so.
I was puzzled. Clearly these are mostly long term Apple/Aperture users so why the sudden kneejerk reaction to the announcement that Aperture would be no more some time NEXT YEAR when iPhoto (or whatever the new product branding is to be called) has been successfully launched.
As far as I can tell from the information available there is no need to rush to another application and it would seem that Apple expect the new product to support the needs of existing Aperture users.
They may be wrong in their expectation but no one will know for a while. Meanwhile so long as you like what Aperture does for you now the only risk you would have would be support for new cameras (are you planning to buy one about a year from now?) and an 'bugs' that badly affect your usage but are unlikely to be fixed before development is stopped.
So at the moment I can't see why there should be a rush to jump ship.
Take your time, work out what you really really need from your Photo Editing tool(s) and then go from there starting with gathering all the information you can find about the new Apple application.
Much can change in a year.
There are still some concerns for me though in the short term at least. One big frustration is that I have a Fuji XF1 compact, and despite it being released to market in the back end of 2012, there is still no raw conversion support for Aperture 3. My suspicion is that there might never be though I'm sure 'photos' will address that next year. I think for now though, I'm prepared to sit tight.
Gad-Westy said:
LongQ said:
On another forum I visit there was a huge rush of people joining saying they had moved to the new software because Apple was dropping Aperture and they did not want to head to Photoshop for one or another reason - mostly to do with adobe pricing model is seemed.
I'm not sure they had thought it through especially as most of them then started to go on about their new choice of software being unlike Aperture in a number of respects. One would have to give them 10/10 for observation on that - except that they had an option to undertake extensive testing first had they chosen to do so.
I was puzzled. Clearly these are mostly long term Apple/Aperture users so why the sudden kneejerk reaction to the announcement that Aperture would be no more some time NEXT YEAR when iPhoto (or whatever the new product branding is to be called) has been successfully launched.
As far as I can tell from the information available there is no need to rush to another application and it would seem that Apple expect the new product to support the needs of existing Aperture users.
They may be wrong in their expectation but no one will know for a while. Meanwhile so long as you like what Aperture does for you now the only risk you would have would be support for new cameras (are you planning to buy one about a year from now?) and an 'bugs' that badly affect your usage but are unlikely to be fixed before development is stopped.
So at the moment I can't see why there should be a rush to jump ship.
Take your time, work out what you really really need from your Photo Editing tool(s) and then go from there starting with gathering all the information you can find about the new Apple application.
Much can change in a year.
Cheers LongQ. I'd read a little more on the issue yesterday after my posting and must admit I'm marginally more reassured than I was when I first posted. I'm not sure they had thought it through especially as most of them then started to go on about their new choice of software being unlike Aperture in a number of respects. One would have to give them 10/10 for observation on that - except that they had an option to undertake extensive testing first had they chosen to do so.
I was puzzled. Clearly these are mostly long term Apple/Aperture users so why the sudden kneejerk reaction to the announcement that Aperture would be no more some time NEXT YEAR when iPhoto (or whatever the new product branding is to be called) has been successfully launched.
As far as I can tell from the information available there is no need to rush to another application and it would seem that Apple expect the new product to support the needs of existing Aperture users.
They may be wrong in their expectation but no one will know for a while. Meanwhile so long as you like what Aperture does for you now the only risk you would have would be support for new cameras (are you planning to buy one about a year from now?) and an 'bugs' that badly affect your usage but are unlikely to be fixed before development is stopped.
So at the moment I can't see why there should be a rush to jump ship.
Take your time, work out what you really really need from your Photo Editing tool(s) and then go from there starting with gathering all the information you can find about the new Apple application.
Much can change in a year.
There are still some concerns for me though in the short term at least. One big frustration is that I have a Fuji XF1 compact, and despite it being released to market in the back end of 2012, there is still no raw conversion support for Aperture 3. My suspicion is that there might never be though I'm sure 'photos' will address that next year. I think for now though, I'm prepared to sit tight.
One thing that might be worrying a lot of people is that Apple now sells more cameras than any other manufacturer. Thus their future product strategy might be oriented more towards the phone snapper than the "serious" photographer, pro or amateur.
But then to some extent the entire camera market seems to be heading for something closer to the smartphone format end of the market than high end dslrs or low end consumer throwaways. If Photos, or whatever it is called, comes out with an Apple cross platform (Mac/iPad/iphone/ipod/iWatch, etc.) capability many may feel that would count for more than ever broader and more complicated functionality, especially in the "connected" world of digital publishing.
None of this is especially pertinent to me - I have no Apple products - so I can observe from a distance.
It would not be unusual if there were a few challenges along the way, especially for the early adopters of new technology (e.g. camera bodies and potentially very new sensor designs that might make RAW file conversion an area full of new pitfalls for the unwary) but I really can't see that there is a great need to rush headlong into a new world just yet, especially if you use and like the DAM facilities that Aperture offers. Right now converting from Aperture to another tool might not be a simple exercise. However if other software developers spot a an option to attract paying refugees they may well put things in place over the next few months that will smooth such a process. Time will tell.
Your XF1 issue is another matter entirely - one that I suspect will be replicated by other manufacturers in the near future as they seek ways to differentiate themselves from what is left of their competition.
Lightroom is very good and a doddle to use as well as as fairly powerful (i have no experience with Aperture). You wont need to move any files around etc, you can just point lightroom at them and it will creae a catalog of where your file are. In terms of pricing, Lightroom is still available as a stand alone product as a one time purchase either digitally or physical media. If you want maximum quality in terms of raw conversion (if you shoot raw) then I'd say Capture Pro 7 by PhaseOne is the better but its not as intuitive to use.
Lightroom is very good and a doddle to use as well as as fairly powerful (i have no experience with Aperture). You wont need to move any files around etc, you can just point lightroom at them and it will creae a catalog of where your file are. In terms of pricing, Lightroom is still available as a stand alone product as a one time purchase either digitally or physical media. If you want maximum quality in terms of raw conversion (if you shoot raw) then I'd say Capture Pro 7 by PhaseOne is the better but its not as intuitive to use.
Caimbeul2000 said:
Lightroom is very good and a doddle to use as well as as fairly powerful (i have no experience with Aperture). You wont need to move any files around etc, you can just point lightroom at them and it will creae a catalog of where your file are. In terms of pricing, Lightroom is still available as a stand alone product as a one time purchase either digitally or physical media. If you want maximum quality in terms of raw conversion (if you shoot raw) then I'd say Capture Pro 7 by PhaseOne is the better but its not as intuitive to use.
I think the challenge is that if you have used the DAM/Catalogue/Whatever one wants to call it features of a previous program AND to somehow retain the edits applied without a need to re-edit ... then things are not always quite so straightforward. Moreover the way the applications work compared to the way we would like things to work can be a real stumbling block especially after a few years of exposure to a particular approach. This could of course be just as true for Aperture users going to whatever will be offered by the replacement.
andrewcliffe said:
You'll have to relearn some techniques and methods, but Aperture and Lightroom work in similar ways. I understand Adobe are releasing an Aperture migration tool to make the process of being able to ditch Aperture easier.
Thanks for the input chaps. To be honest I'm reasonably comfortable with the transfer of files aspect though I'll need to ensure that everything is where it should be before the swap (or just move it all afterwards which might be simpler). My big concern is the edits that I've carried out to the images and whether these will translate. It's the one disadvantage of non-destructive editing as Aperture itself stores the recipe for each photo. Will be interesting to see if Adobe come up with a solution for that in their migration tool but I'm spectical due to the entirely different editing structures. Will see.I was concerned about it. But right now do nothing. Stick with aperture and wait to see what photos offers.
Aperture will recurve an update to work with Yosemite. Don't migrate everything to photos straight away. Give it a year or so before apple (hopefully) migrate all the power functions of aperture to photos.
Aperture will recurve an update to work with Yosemite. Don't migrate everything to photos straight away. Give it a year or so before apple (hopefully) migrate all the power functions of aperture to photos.
mojitomax said:
I was concerned about it. But right now do nothing. Stick with aperture and wait to see what photos offers.
Aperture will recurve an update to work with Yosemite. Don't migrate everything to photos straight away. Give it a year or so before apple (hopefully) migrate all the power functions of aperture to photos.
Sound advice and probably what I'll be doing. I wouldn't even be thinking about it if Aperture supported XF1 raws. You'd think it would given the camera has been around nigh on 2 years. Aperture will recurve an update to work with Yosemite. Don't migrate everything to photos straight away. Give it a year or so before apple (hopefully) migrate all the power functions of aperture to photos.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff