dipfico’s dustbin

My girlfriend has been going on and on for months about how super impressed she is with her super smart, handsome, rich, ivy league educated married boss. Whatever. It did not matter until she told me they fucked in Las Vegas last month during a business trip. Her digital camera also had 30 or so shots of them naked in the hotel room in various sex acts appearing very drunk and happy. I found the disc last week and she admitted what happened. I told her the relationship is over and kicked her ass out. I own the house which we have lived in for a bit over a year. I told her to pick up her shit today. Over the weekend I fowarded the pics to her boss, his wife(after I told her what happened over the phone), and her boss's boss. Well...Everyone who got the pics ain't too happy. My now ex girlfriend's boss called me on Sunday and told me I ruined his marriage, job, and life and he said he was going to sue me after he beat the shit out of me and gouged out my eyes. Then he started to cry over the phone. I laughed and told him he can come over my house any time he likes. I had a cop friend of mine call him back and scare the shit out of him regarding the threating phone calls. He left 3 threatening messages on my machine before I picked up. My ex took the day off from work today to pick up her shit. Well...she loves clothes and shoes. Lots of good names too like Chanel, Guccci, Versace, etc.. All her good stuff I took to an uppper class consignment store so I can make a little cash and every other piece of her clothing from underwear to gym clothes were burned in a beautiful bonfire fueled with gasoline last night. I gave her back all her other stuff but not ONE stich of clothing. For numbers....60 or so pairs of shoes and the designer duds....40 or so dresses/suits. When she asked for her clothes this morning I pointed to the remains of my bonfire. I thought she had a heart attack. I told her. To get the fuck off my property and never speak to me again. I also told her if she or her boss decide to seek revenge on me her digital pics from Vegas as well as the 10 or so homemade porn films we personally made together could accidentally end up at her parents house or get splahed all over the internet. She left numb. I feel much better now than I did last Friday. My friends by the way always told me they thought she was a condesending bitch. They were right. I guess I just was use to the great sex. Now time to move on. I already have a date for Fri. with a hottie from my gym. She looks like Daisy Fuentes but with bigger tits. I will still watch my back for a while but if they try anything. I will be ready. Thanks for letting me rant. It has been a shitty 5 days. http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/bos/55265713.html

Mooi zo!

Hmmmmmmmmmm oooooooi!

Booring

Dat lijkt me nu nog eens handig sé!

Leerrijk!

Ok, als ge dat er allemaal moet bijkopen dan kan je beter ineens ne Red Cam kopen.

Move your mouse. Via MrBobbyhimself

Iets voor @c_concepts

5 Reasons To Stay with Lightroom (and not switch to Aperture)

By mattk on Tuesday, February 16th, 2010 at 1:59 am | Lightroom Tips, News.

Obviously there's been a lot of buzz around lately about Apple's Aperture 3. I read an article yesterday titled "Five Reasons For Switching from Lightroom 2 to Aperture 3" by a gentleman named Marco. So I figured I'd take a stab at my own rendition of the "5 things" article (no offense to Marco) and write about 5 reasons to stay with Lightroom.

Let me just get one thing out from the start though. Will this article seem Lightroom biased? You betcha! Because I am Lightroom biased (you're at a blog called Lightroom Killer Tips if you haven't noticed). I've been using it for over 4 years. I know it like the back of my hand. However, as an expert in the industry I can't just go around saying "my program is better than yours" without testing the other one. I had a copy of Aperture 3 installed the day after it was announced and have been kicking the tires since then. Here's what I've come up with.

Reason #1: Enjoying the Digital Darkroom (this was reason #1 from Marco's article)
I'll go head-to-head with this one because I think Lightroom is better here. One big reason is that in Lightroom (the LR3 beta) we have Collections in the Develop module which keeps me from bouncing back and forth (something I found myself doing a lot in Aperture). And when it comes down to it, the only difference is tabs in Aperture compared to modules in LR. Aside from wishing the Develop module had Folders and Collections in it (like I said, LR3 beta has Collections now), I don't find myself cursing the modules in Lightroom. If its not a module I need to use then I simply just don't click on it. And the reason why LR has more modules than A3 has tabs, is because Adobe has located two key areas (slideshow and web) there instead of a menu up at the top.

Reason #2: Camera Calibration, Effects, Collections, Vignettes and other stuff
Remember when Camera Calibration profiles came out for Lightroom? You should because everyone absolutely loved them. It's one of my favorite panels in Lightroom. But it's not in Aperture. Lightroom 2/3 beta has better effects when it comes to adding grain and vignetting. And in the article referenced above, he dings Lightroom for not having "Books, Loupe, Light Table and Full Screen Mode". Books definitely go into the win column for Aperture (see #3 below). But Lightroom does have a Loupe view. Even though its different, it still does the same job. Light Table%u2026. eh, its cool but is it worth switching for? And of course we do have Full Screen mode in Lightroom. Just press the F key.

Reason #3: Printing
This is one of those areas where you can argue either way but I think Lightroom makes a stronger case. Lightroom has custom print templates (in LR 3 beta) and an entire Print module, that you have to admit, is one of the most robust in the industry. Aperture has books but that's about it. They're both important. Some portrait and wedding pros swear by Lightroom's Print module and some folks swear by the great looking books in Aperture. Which is more important? That's up to you. Personally, I'll take the Print module in Lightroom. I can still print books elsewhere, but I can't get Lightroom's Print module anywhere else. Do I wish Lightroom had both? Yep. But it doesn't so I have to make a choice.

Reason #4: Noise Reduction
This one definitely goes in the win column for Lightroom. If you look at Aperture 3's feature list, it doesn't even mention the word noise and as you know, noise removal is BIG. I ran quite a few images through the noise removal settings in both programs. Aperture doesn't even come close in my opinion. Two things I noticed when comparing them: 1) The noise removal (luminance and color) is noticeably better and the edges seem more crisp as opposed to blurred in Aperture and, 2) Lightroom photos retained more of their color even after cranking up the Color Noise removal setting pretty high.

Basically, when it comes down to reading the raw data and doing something useful with it (demosaicing, sharpening, and noise removal), my money goes to Adobe. You've gotta realize that being the best at raw processing has to rank up pretty high in Adobe's priority list. I'm not so sure where it would rank with Apple.

Reason #5: This isn't an "I'm in the mood for%u2026" game
I'm going to directly disagree with #5 from his list (supporting competition) and say ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY, NO WAY! As a consumer, your (and my) job is not to support competition. It's to support the best product out there and to reward that product by opening your wallet. Your job is to pick the best tool for your job regardless of whether there's 10 companies that do the same thing or none. Here's something to chew on. This isn't a game. Your photography workflow shouldn't be "sure, I'll use Lightroom today but maybe Aperture tomorrow". There's always going to be features in one program that you like better than another. It happens in every aspect of our lives. Ever buy a car one year only to find out the next year's model (or a competing model you looked at previously) has something really cool you wish you had? Do you go out and trade your car in for a huge loss and get the new model? Some of you do I'm sure. But it's surely not economical to do so, and it takes a lot of your time, energy, and money to play that game. The rest of us, are happy enough with our existing car and we work with it. Your goal is to pick the program that works best for you at the time you're looking for one, and then stick with it. Whether you're a working pro or an avid hobbyist, nobody has the time to play the "switcharoo" every 18 months.

Reason #5.5 (this is just a joke): Did Aperture Really have to copy the Cyanotype preset from Lightroom?
I mean, of all the presets to copy from Lightroom, they picked Cyanotype? Does anyone even use that preset? I can think of no better reason to just stick with Lightroom, because at least they were the first to use that horrible effect as a preset :-)

Final Thoughts
If you're a current Lightroom user, you're among the group of the most used photo management/processing software in the world. There's a reason why when you do a search for buzz, news, tutorials, presets, etc%u2026 on Lightroom vs. the same for Aperture, you find much more about Lightroom. It's an awesome program and like anything out there, will just get better with time. Be happy with it. If your curiosity just has to get the best of you then by all means, download the free trial of Aperture and give it a try yourself. Maybe you'll switch. If that's the right thing for you then go for it. Just don't do it because it's new and different. As always, leave a comment. I welcome your thoughts on the topic (just be nice) :-)

Bookmark It

Lightroom Tips, News.--> Comment form for this post

25 Comments For 5 Reasons To Stay with Lightroom (and not switch to Aperture)

Subscribe to comments with RSS

1. Arnel Garcia says:

   February 16, 2010 at 2:15 am

   Very well said Matt. And Yes, we have better things to do than play %u201Cswitcharoo%u201D every 18 months.

   Reply

Uwe Kempf says:

February 16, 2010 at 2:49 am

Dear Matt,
I agree. I used to use Aperture and switched to Lightroom.
But one thing I like about Aperture:
It%u2019s a bit more fun browsing you pictures. The Interface is really nice.
It%u2019s (of course very Apple-like%u2026
Uwe

Reply

WRB says:

February 16, 2010 at 2:57 am

Printing in lightroom is very strong. I printed side by side with the new AP3 LR much sharper color truer.

Reply

Daniel Austin Hoherd says:

February 16, 2010 at 3:01 am

They both have benefits%u2026 I think the integration with iLife and iWork is one of the biggest benefits of Aperture, but yet it was left off the list.

Honestly, LR2 is just amazing software. LR was the first app to really get the experience right, everybody else is just playing catch-up. I even attended the Hasselblad H4D event last week in Palo Alto and even their Phocus software was ripping off the UI goodies from LR.

Adobe has proven that they know how to stay on top of the game, especially with LR1 to LR2. That history instills faith that whatever features tempt us to switch to other apps, LR will probably respond in turn with something equally compelling.

Reply

bb says:

February 16, 2010 at 3:05 am

I%u2019m contemplating switching for one major reason, I use 5d2 and Aperture will catalog video file for me, and its slideshow can incorporate the video file. Lightroom 3 should really have this feature, but it doesn%u2019t, a complete and utter failure from my perspective. Adobe really misses it.

I am a photographer first, but I do use video ocasionally, and having to juggle video file completely separately gets very annoying, Aperture 3 support only cataloging and not editing, but that%u2019s good enough at least for now.

Other than this reason, I prefer LR for everything else. With Aperture, I have to fire up Photoshop more often for NR and other fixes, so unfortunate.

Reply

Mike Kang says:

February 16, 2010 at 3:06 am

I%u2019ll get back to you on this debate when Apple makes a PC version of Aperture.

Reply

CCarlson says:

February 16, 2010 at 3:10 am

I started my photo management with Aperture 2. Loved it at first, like all things Mac it%u2019s very intuitive. But then got this weird bug that made the photos all black after one minor (or major) edit and I would have to quit the program and reopen Aperture to do anything again, clearly not an efficient way to work on your photos. After searching online I discovered that this is a bug Apple hadn%u2019t figured out how to fix and once it started affecting your system, you%u2019re done folks, nothing you can do. In the end, Aperture was a waste of money and I moved to Lightroom and never looked back. Aperture%u2026all hype. Lightroom%u2026all that. Stick with LR folks.

Reply

Eric says:

February 16, 2010 at 3:39 am

Very true.

I usually import my SD cards to Lightroom before formating them on my D90.
Well, too bad for my videos if I forgot to manually copy them somewhere.

Instead of telling you that some video files hasn%u2019t been copied, LR should just copy those damn .avi or .mpg somewhere along the pictures.

It shouldn%u2019t be too hard to just extract a thumbnail & add it to the catalog.

Reply

Urkel says:

February 16, 2010 at 3:41 am

I%u2019m someone who actually wants to switch to Aperture. I%u2019m not a pro, I like the OS integration and I love the output offerings like slideshows, books, mixed media etc.

But the thing that is really keeping me from Aperture is Apple%u2019s %u201Ctrust me%u201D attitude with apps like iPhoto, iTunes and Aperture. You get the option to %u201Ccontrol%u201D where your files are but they really try to simplify too much and almost hide the true file locations from you.So if you%u2019re one who tends to rename or move files you end up breaking links and losing things.

Personally, I want a plain old directory tree where I can rename or move folders freely. Lightroom gives me that. Aperture does not.

Reply

Thomas says:

February 16, 2010 at 3:42 am

Mr Matt K, close connected to Adobe. He knows when to make a statement. This really indicates that Lightroom 3 is near. Great news.

Reply

Chase says:

February 16, 2010 at 4:23 am

The biggest reason for me not to switch to Aperture is the switcheroo factor. I%u2019ve invest months and months (not to mention thousands of photos) into my Lightroom catalog, I%u2019d really prefer not to have to go back and reorganize all that.

Also, having played with Lightroom 3 Beta, I feel that some key areas that I personally use a lot set it apart from Aperture 3 are; the watermark tools, I find them to be much more intuitive and flexible in LR3, as well as the printing module is more flexible, and the web module is phenomenal.

No question, if I were starting out, I would take a serious look at both, but this late in the game, I%u2019m a Lightroom man.

Reply

Will says:

February 16, 2010 at 4:43 am

I started in Aperture and the Lightroom 3 demo had me convinced I would switch as soon as LR3 comes out of Beta. but then aperture 3 came out and I got all excited. I played with it for a while and I am impressed, but I still going to switch to LR and here are 5 reasons why.

1. Aperture 3 Crashed in the first 10 mins. I am now running in 32bit mode and things seem fine, but it was not a good way to start.

2. Photoshop Integration. I can%u2019t open files as smart objects, or multiple files as layers or create panos directly out of aperture.

3. The new adjustment brush in Aperture is cool but I poured through the documentation and I can%u2019t figure out a keyboard shortcut to change the brush size. I am so used to changing the brush size with the bracket keys %u2013 the slider makes me crazy.

4. The fill light slider. I just love that little guy.

5. the Gradient tool. %u2019nuff said.

OK so to be fair there are a few things I hope The Lightroom steals from Aperture 3 and slides into the LR3 release.

1. Real curves. I%u2019d like to be able to to have access to the individual R G and B channels in the curves like in A3 thats cool.

2. Slide shows in LR suck. the new stuff in A3 is slick

3. Video. Apple got this right in A3

4. I don%u2019t expect LR to add faces and places but they are in the win column for Aperture for sure.

5. The ability to assign names to the colored flags is pretty useful.

6. You can do more with the brushes in Apeture3 than LR. Why is there no vibrance brush in LR. and the polarize brush is kinda cool.

Reply

Fabio says:

February 16, 2010 at 4:59 am

Hi Matt!
Unfortunately I still have to buy both applications%u2026. Aperture for making books and Lightroom for everything else.

Fabio

Reply

ingo says:

February 16, 2010 at 5:10 am

I%u2019ve been a Aperture 2 user for about a year before I switched to LR2. I was also very excited when Aperture 3 came out but I will stay with LR for following reasons:

1. History and Snapshots of adjustments -> for me the main reason to stay with LR
2. DNG saves me around 20% of storage space (5DMKII RAW files are 25MB)
3. Gradient tool

I actually would prefer to switch back to Aperture mainly for its Mac OS integration (Media browser) and video support but they first have to give me at least 2 of the 3 mentioned points above.

Reply

Thilo says:

February 16, 2010 at 5:39 am

What will be LR3%u2019s answer to face detection?

I have about 20k photos in iPhoto and am about to switch to LR. I like the face detection part of iPhoto and hope something similar will be part of LR3.

What%u2019s the likelihood this will happen now that A3 got it?

Reply

Richard Hales says:

February 16, 2010 at 5:43 am

LR supports Slide Show Pro and I can upload them directly to my website unless A3 does the same I%u2019m going to stick with LR. Also, in old version of A it had a odd way of handling files that was a tad annoying

Reply

Jon says:

February 16, 2010 at 5:45 am

Agree whole-heartedlly. That%u2019s my experience exactly %u2013 I was an Aperture devotee until I tried the local adjustment tools in LR. I particularly use the local adjustment of exposure with the gradient tool %u2013 great for rescuing landscape shots where I should have used an ND grad (or I overused one!). Despite all the new tools in A3 there is still no real local adjustment of exposure %u2013 very strange.

Reply

pixelmixture says:

February 16, 2010 at 6:03 am

i always found the vignette gamma feature of aperture nicer

Reply

Lloyd says:

February 16, 2010 at 6:28 am

I was a long time user of Aperture and I can tell you even in it%u2019s previous version it was a most capable and user-friendly tool. I switched to Lightroom about a year ago now primarily because I got fed up with Aperture%u2019s digital asset management and the lack of non-destructive localised adjustments. However it does do some things better for sure. I do prefer Aperture%u2019s workflow interface as having to be in the %u2018right%u2019 modules at times is frustrating (i.e. when it causes you to flip from one to another and then back again). Also let%u2019s not forget about Aperture%u2019s in-built tethered support!

On balance though Lightroom is the better tool for me. I can however see why some would disagree.

Reply

Ivan says:

February 16, 2010 at 6:51 am

I%u2019ve used LR 1 and 2 and really loved it most of the time.
Right now I%u2019m trying out A3 in trial mode.
If Adobe could just come clean with all features LR3 will have, the switch decision might be easier.
But the Beta 3 is totally bugged for me. I can%u2019t import pictures sometimes. Import from iPhone totally hangs the LR3 if it encounters a video file, which is so annoying.

What I digg about LR:
- easy to use
- presets
- development technology

What I digg about A3:
- faces
- places
- projcets / folders

If LR3 just had Google Maps integeration I might consider staying with LR3.

Reply

Richard Hollingworth says:

February 16, 2010 at 6:52 am

I%u2019m using A3 at the moment due to 5D MK ii video. However, I am a little worried. One definite win for LR and Adobe in general is the amount of development, updates and attention they give all their products. I have to question Apple%u2019s commitment to the Pro photographer.

Reply

Kris Mitchell says:

February 16, 2010 at 7:02 am

Reason 6: DNG and the fact that all my little non-destructive edits are stored nicely with it. Not in some sidecar alongside the file that I need to worry about.

Yes, there%u2019s some flaws %u2013 the Beta 3 hasn%u2019t really light a fire under my backside, but I%u2019ve got a workflow that works for me, and has been trimmed down over the years to allow for a lean & mean edit.

LR for me please.

Reply

Jase says:

February 16, 2010 at 7:09 am

I%u2019ve been going through the whole switch to AP3 vs wait for LR3 too%u2026 along with some mates %u2013 one mentioned another good reason

the Chromatic Aberration in LR3 is MUCH better than anything in AP3

Although I love places, faces in AP3

Faces %u2013 I had 30% hit rate and this was on a ton of photos of my kids %u2013 so not really effective

but the Places is MAJORLY better than anything in LR %u2013 hope LR3 final version does something to improve geocoding of photos including integrating a visual map/finder

I think i%u2019ll still stick with LR%u2026

Reply

Greg says:

February 16, 2010 at 7:45 am

Damn right %u2013 all your points.

I can%u2019t wait for the LR 3 final version%u2026the beta is little bit slow. Hope it%u2019s coming soon.

regards,
Gregor

Reply

Jeremy says:

February 16, 2010 at 7:58 am

Reading through these comments you%u2019d think that Lightroom and Aperture were the only choices available. You want killer raw conversion? Go to DxO Optics Pro. Now you want super-slick DAM with a great %u201Cfinal tweaks%u201D facility that stays out of the way until you need it? Aperture.

Reply

Submit Your Feedback Here

Leave a comment on this page using the form below.

Click here to cancel reply.