: Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 1.0


Captstn
Feb 16th, 2007, 04:02 PM
Adobe released Photoshop Lightroom 1.0

http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshoplightroom/

The system requirements are less than what Apple's Aperture and costs less money :clap:


Macintosh
Mac OS X v.10.4
PowerPC® G4 or G5 1GHz processor or Intel® Core™ Duo processor
768MB of RAM (1GB recommended)
1GB of available hard-disk space
1,024x768 screen resolution
CD-ROM drive

jhollington
Feb 16th, 2007, 05:01 PM
While I haven't looked at the final release, I played with the previous betas quite a bit. The key difference, IMHO, is that Photoshop Lightroom lacks any of the more serious library or cataloguing features that Aperture has.

While the actual photo workflow seems a bit cleaner and more user-friendly with Lightroom, it's library management features are fairly weak, and in fact I preferred to continue using iPhoto for that aspect when I was using Lightroom. Aperture, on the other hand, replaces iPhoto for all intends and purposes.

However, it's true that Lightroom performs better on lighter hardware, and it also supports more RAW formats than Aperture does (which is constrained by OS X's RAW format support limitations).

Pelao
Feb 16th, 2007, 05:04 PM
it's library management features are fairly weak, and in fact I preferred to continue using iPhoto for that aspect

Not sure if you are referring to the Beta's or the final release, but in the latter the library management is quite evolved.

mguertin
Feb 16th, 2007, 05:10 PM
I prefer Lightroom's catalog functions to Apertures for sure. The nested tags are great :)

jhollington
Feb 16th, 2007, 07:27 PM
As I said, I haven't looked at the final release, so if they've improved it, then that's definitely a good thing. The earlier versions turned me off of it due to their lack of these capabilities, and I went with Aperture instead simply because Lightroom didn't seem to be doing anything to improve that aspect of it.

thejst
Feb 16th, 2007, 07:43 PM
I've tried both, and I love Aperture. It's become a dream of a photography program.
Now I just need a 30" display.

sim.all
Feb 16th, 2007, 09:48 PM
Aperture gives me the ability to have all my photos on an external HD and have previews on my current HD, which is a big plus because of the small internal HD I have (macbook eh) and the number of photos I have.

-On the other side, Lightroom supports my camera's RAW (k100d) and is at least 2 times faster on processing Jpegs than aperture. Still, Aperture, library feature beats that.

jhollington
Feb 17th, 2007, 07:15 AM
Yes, the expanded RAW format support was something else that made me originally lean toward Lighroom (I use a Sony DSC-R1). However, I actually don't shoot RAW all that often, and when I do, the Adobe DNG Converter actually works very well to get them into a DNG format that Aperture can handle.

Kirtland
Feb 17th, 2007, 12:56 PM
I tried the first couple of the beta releases before I decided on Aperture. I am not going to get into which one is the best program as I am sure they both have their strong and weak points. I love Aperture and have no second thoughts on choosing it. I am glad to see Lightroom released as now there are two major players. The Corporate competition will now begin and that will benefit all users, no matter which of these two you are using.

mguertin
Feb 17th, 2007, 03:47 PM
Aperture gives me the ability to have all my photos on an external HD and have previews on my current HD, which is a big plus because of the small internal HD I have (macbook eh) and the number of photos I have.

-On the other side, Lightroom supports my camera's RAW (k100d) and is at least 2 times faster on processing Jpegs than aperture. Still, Aperture, library feature beats that.

I think that the final version of Lightroom allows this as well, having images in "offline" drives, but the library still holds all the previews and such.

My biggest beef with Aperture is that it brings my laptop to it's knees, is almost unusable where lightroom runs ok.

jhollington
Feb 17th, 2007, 03:50 PM
Yeah, Aperture's specs are most definitely more demanding than Lightroom's, although I find it actually runs tolerably on my 15" Powerbook G4 (with 2GB of RAM). I'm happy with it as it is, and will probably be much happier when I get my new MacBook Pro :)

To be fair, a downside of the early beta releases of Lightroom is that the lack of certain features was a let-down. I didn't care for Aperture 1.0 too much either, but when 1.5 came out I did a comparison of what was available in the Lightroom Beta at that particular time, and Aperture 1.5, and the decision seemed pretty obvious to me.

mguertin
Feb 17th, 2007, 03:54 PM
Yep .. now they are both in release, so we'll see what happens to the playing field. I have nothing against Aperture really (aside from it runs poorly on my setup) :) It's good to have 2 big companies going head to head on something like this. Makes it better for everyone involved :)

Moscool
Feb 19th, 2007, 09:26 AM
Lightroom 1.0 still doesn't have as good library functions as Aperture but everything else is much more intuitive and faster. Now that they have added the dust removal tool, there are fewer reasons to go into Photoshop. In other words LR can be a simple workflow solution.

I expect Apple to release Aperture 2.0 on or before the PMA. This should more or less coincide with the formal launch of Lightroom 1.0 proper and the expiration of Beta 4.1. Unless they do this, I think they will have missed the window of opportunity for many Mac users. With no other choice for Windows users, LR would become the de-facto standard. Judging by the quality of the product, it wouldn't be the end of the world...