I was thinking about the difference between what our photographers do and what I can do. I'm an uncle Bob - sort of. As Jeff Youngren can attest, I stay out of the way of the pros and shoot my own stuff. I'm really basically looking for one image that I can give my friends as a gift after the event. (Jeff shot my closest friend's daughter's wedding). Frankly, that event really brought this subject home for me.
I've been shooting since I was 11 years old. I currently own a Canon 5D Mark2 and a 5D. I have a 70 200 2.8L IS, a 24-105 4.0L IS, a 17-40 4.0 L, and a 50 1.4. I’m buying a 24-70 2.8L right now. I also own and know how to use a 580EX. (all in, that’s about $8K worth of gear). So here's the deal ... The equipment I have isn't just as good as the equipment the pros have, it's the same. But does that mean I can shoot an event? In a word, no.
First off, I only have one of each. Having a spare body is nice, but if my flash died I’d be up the proverbial smelly creek. Each of my lenses is useful, but if I knocked my 24-105 on something, or God forbid dropped it, the 17-40 is not a stand in. Granted, I can use the 50 for most things, especially with half decent post production skills. (which I don’t have because Kevin Swan hasn’t taught me how to use Lightroom yet and Jason Aten is too busy to teach me Aperture. Yes, I’m still trying to decide). But the real thing is it’s not about equipment.
My very best images are average for a professional. Their command of light and focus and their vision gives them an enormous advantage. If I see something that works, it’s basically luck. A professional creates their own luck. They are aware of the light sources. They are experienced with the events themselves, and the flow. They physically move to places that allow them to take full advantage of the venue. They are tireless.
Once the event is shot their expertise in post-production takes over. They know how to use the new software to their full advantage, and they have the good stuff. They’re not using iPhoto to de-noise an image because the presets in Lightroom or Aperture work way better. They have an ability to see the hidden gems in an otherwise unremarkable image, and then reframe the image to highlight them. They will make the entire event look contiguous. They do this by manipulating the colors, but what you’ll notice is that it looks like everyone is wearing the same clothes for the whole event. You won’t see green dresses in one setting and blue dresses in another. You won’t be healthy and tan in one image and sickly pale in the next. There won’t be a blemish, a crumb or a smudge on any of your images.
I own the higher end software products, but I have a day job, so I don’t really know how to use them. Likewise, I own some of the best camera gear that money can buy, but I have no idea how to change my white balance in camera to deal with the florescent lighting in the room, which creates an ugly, green hue. I am too slow to capture you on the move and I will likely miss important moments because I’m in the wrong place.
Am I a bad photographer? No. In fact, it’s not unusual for people to look at my stuff and ask me whether or not I’m a pro. It’s just that for me the ratio of good to bad is like 1 in 50, and every once in a while I will miss something that I really wanted to get. (I’m sorry Edgar, Tera, Steph and Sean!)
Take it from me, hire a pro. You’ll be happy you did.
63 comments:
This week, you and me, Lightroom. I'll screen share with you.
And, there's no contest. Until Aperture can do presets (and please, don't start talking about Lifting & Stamping — it's a kludgy work-around; and presets for individual settings aren't time savers).
Aperture has some nice file management, but Lightroom's is totally sufficient. Aperture has the ability to do album layout in the application, which is cool, but not required. Ultimately, the failure to be able to easily save and apply presets is what kills Aperture.
$.02
PS: 1 to 50 is a pretty good ratio... Maybe you should quit your day job?
(Please don't)
Yeah Jim, please don't quit your day job, hehe! And 1 in 50 is not bad at all for great images. I prefer Lightroom for sure, because I find the presets totally invaluable.
And I must say, the 17-40 and a 50 can for sure replace a 24-105 or 24-70. When I shoot a wedding, my main lenses are the 17-40, 50 1.2, and a 70-200. I have a 24-105, but rarely use it, and I've never used a 24-70.
When it gets dark or we go inside (luckily for me since I love being outside most of my weddings are outside), I do have a 28 1.8, and an 85 1.8 which I use in addition to the 50, plus I use a 100 2.8 macro for details.
I'm really loving moving towards shooting mainly with primes, they just have a look about them that you don't get with zooms except maybe the 70-200.
Kevin, you and ME - Edit-Off at PartnerCon. You can even bring Nate :)
Jim, as we talked before, I suppose it depends on what you want to use it for, but honestly as an all around work tool - Aperture is FAR better. Hit me up on iChat JasonA10 and I'd be happy to walk you through our workflow.
1. It manages your files so much better - you can't even really call LR a file management solution.
2. It integrates with everything else (AppleTV, iWork, everything) seamlessly
3. The editing tools are far superior and the color management is best in class.
4. Album tool is as good as anything else out there - and it's INTEGRATED :)
5. Presets. Sure LR has them. Aperture has the ability to save your favorite adjustments (and I don't just mean by group), and you can L&S if it's really that important to you.
It depends on how you edit them. Besides, I have it on reasonably good authority that the next version will pretty much Kill LR for good (like FCP did to Premiere)
Jim,
This was a fabulous writing and very well put together. We all as photographers see the Uncle Bobs regularly. I admit I don't know the tricks to LR or Aperture like some of the others... ehem... someone feel free to educate me if you would like.... :)
guess that as well as other reasons is why I will be continuing to try and educate and learn everything I can to improve myself on my work daily... thanks for this and see you in NOLA!!
Whitney Beth
>>Kevin, you and ME - Edit-Off at PartnerCon. You can even bring Nate :)
Since I introduced Nate to LR, probably not required. :)
1. It manages your files so much better - you can't even really call LR a file management solution.
That's a statement out of ignorance. I have both applications, and am comfortable in both. I've also used LR to house all my shoots for 3 years, over 150,000 photos, on 3 different drives, all in a single catalog without difficulty. I'm now doing single shoots per catalog for different reasons, and it works fabulously that way, too.
So, when you say it's not a file management solution, please cite an example of where it fails.
2. It integrates with everything else (AppleTV, iWork, everything) seamlessly
Um, so? Not really relevant or required in a pro workflow. I haven't had that seamless integration for the 5 years I've been shooting and I don't seem to mind. My Apple TV is linked to iPhoto, which has some of my favorite weddings to show prospective couples. iWork? You need to drop photos in your spreadsheets or contracts or something?
3. The editing tools are far superior and the color management is best in class.
Completely anecdotal statements without any real substance. Define "far superior." If you mean a more confusing interface, then I'll grant you that. If you mean it takes more steps to accomplish the same thing in LR, I'll even grant that. but how are the editing tools superior? What can you do in Aperture that you can't do in LR?
Color management is "best in class." Again, define this. LR supports all profiles and export options. It can apply color adjustments to files, as they come into LR, based on a camera's serial number (because even 2 of the same bodies don't always produce the exact same color). What can you do with color in Aperture that you can't do in LR?
4. Album tool is as good as anything else out there - and it's INTEGRATED :)
As mentioned, it's handy to be able to do layout in Aperture, but it's not as good as InDesign, so it's not as good as "anything else out there." There are many ways to skin an album, including farming it out, or the free Photojunction, or Album DS (if you like Photoshop). All of which have more functionality than Aperture's basic layout module. Integration is nice, but not enough to sway me to use a less-functional tool.
5. Presets. Sure LR has them. Aperture has the ability to save your favorite adjustments (and I don't just mean by group), and you can L&S if it's really that important to you.
I said don't mention Lift and Stamp, and here you go. That's not a preset. Having to go copy settings from one photo and then paste them to another is not efficient. Please admit that Aperture doesn't have presets, it will feel better to be honest.
Presets are "really that important to me." Since it allows me to edit a wedding down from 6,000-7,000 images to 1,000 images, completed, finished, edited, no PS required, in about 5 hours. Aperture can NOT function as efficiently. Without presets, you're stuck. LR's simple ability to select multiple images, do mass adjustments, apply presets, etc. makes it the clear winner in any mass-shot environment.
If you're only shooting a few photos, or enjoy editing every image singularly (which you can certainly do in LR as well), then the presets are not as valuable.
To a wedding photographer, though, it's a life saver.
It depends on how you edit them. Besides, I have it on reasonably good authority that the next version will pretty much Kill LR for good (like FCP did to Premiere)
Yeah. And the last time I spoke with the developers about Aperutre, nearly 2 years ago, they were saying the same thing. At least the guy who was in charge of the project, forget his name, admitted that they totally screwed up presets.
Incidentally, I work with Adobe on developing LR. You think they've been sitting around, counting their money since releasing LR 2? That would be a silly assumption.
K
Oh lord, I agree with Swan! LR is very easy to manage files, presets,color profiles for cameras can be found on many sites to work with LR, many 3rd party templates,slideshows, plug ins for LR make workflow easier(maybe Aperture has this, I don't know).
Yes, presets alone make LR stand out for wedding,portrait,landscape,commercial photographers.
Sounds like the old Zeiss vs Leica, then Canon vs Nikon, Photoshop vs ? , now LR vs Aperture.
Oh and Jim, I'd be more than happy to email you some great custom B&W LR presets. Don't be afraid to switch those awful WB images to B&W. :)
I love all of this! For me the challenge of LR is going to sound fun to you guys. I predominantly use editors to make images look better for web and presenting, not for printing. (I know - I'm lame, but that's actually what I do .. Until someday I can figure out how to improve my awful white balance stuff and make money the way you do).
LR takes my images out of their native directories (on my MAC - probably because i have it set up wrong) and then I have to export the images to use them in presentations which is inconvenient.
Chris ... I know I can change them into black and white, but I want to get better so I don't have to.
Jason - I fixed the spelling of your name. Sorry - every once in a while I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
jc
LR takes my images out of their native directories (on my MAC - probably because i have it set up wrong) and then I have to export the images to use them in presentations which is inconvenient.
You can import without moving your images. When you are at the import screen, select the "import images at their current location" (or something like that). No matter what software you're using that does non-destructive editing (which means they don't alter the original image), you'll have to export. Aperture functions the same way. You can post straight to the web from LR with some excellent website presets. You can also purchase some really great slideshow add-ons (like Slideshow Pro, my personal favorite!).
Those will export straight to your website without you having to do anything outside of LR.
"Chris ... I know I can change them into black and white, but I want to get better so I don't have to"
Just trying to get you to think B&W, that's all. We'll start slow...:)
Alright Kevin.
LR has Presets. Aperture doesn't. Happy ;)
Except the argument for a good workflow goes SO far beyond "presets." I don't use them - so I don't much care that LR has them and Aperture doesn't. I didn't care when I used LR (which I did until Aperture 2 came out).
So, let's look at it from the perspective of which is better for an actual workflow - start to finish - which is what Aperture does. I can edit an entire wedding (usually around 2500-3000 images) down to a finished product (including an album pre-design) in about 3.5 hours. No kidding. I'm willing to let you watch me do it.
How? Because Aperture is better at everything else (everything besides presets). Saying it sucks because it doesn't have presets is a strawman.
So, back to my statements.
1. LR doesn't even come close to the organization that Projects/Folders/Albums AND ESPECIALLY SMART ALBUMS give you in Aperture. LR is a great editor, but NOT a great image management tool. Sure, you're making it work - that's great. You've found a workaround.
Apparently workarounds are okay in some areas, but not presets ;)
The ability to completely manage, or reference all the files in my libraries is HUGE. I can store and backup all my master files anywhere I want, and then reference them in any project I want.
2. Why does integration matter? Here's how it matters to me.
- I can directly sync my images for review to my AppleTV - no need to go through iPhoto. If I make a change to an image, or add images to a smart album - my slideshow on AppleTV automatically updates. I use this multiple times every week when I meet with clients.
- It integrates seamlessly (and effortlessly) with mobile me. Why does this matter? because I can upload a password protected gallery for a vendor, or a client. I can allow them to directly download selected images, or an entire gallery. And, again - if I make changes to such a gallery - it automatically updates them for me.
This is HUGE for me when I provide images to vendors.
- When I click "email" it automatically resizes all the images to email size, opens a new mail message with all the appropriately sized images attached - with ONE CLICK. All I have to do is type an email address, and select a pre-set signature. Again, perfect for sending to vendors (or family/friends/etc).
- iWork. yes - it matters. I can create customized templates in Pages and do everything I need to for a lot of our marketing pieces. Yes, I've used InDesign since 1999 (back when it was code-named K2), and yes - it's the best page layout program out there. Sometimes I don't need a powerdrill, I just need a screwdriver.
Besides, given it's integration, Pages is pretty robust.
3. Tools - Interface
Perhaps it's a personal preference, I don't know. But most of the enhancement tools in Aperture deliver results that are objectively superior than LR (Recovery, Highlights/Shadows, Definition, Contrast, and Vibrancy).
The clone-repair and healing brush tools are killer. In fact, I find them to be better than even PS - meaning I can even do retouching in Aperture.
LR clearly has the leg up with localized adjustments - I'd love those in Aperture - but not enough to switch.
Re: Interface
Maybe that's a personal preference too. I found that the Aperture interface is not only more intuitive - it's much faster since I have access to the things I need or want without having to switch "modules," or whatever adobe calls them.
The ability to use full screen with an overlay HUD is also a great UI feature.
Re: Color:
Apple uses the same engine that the FCP suite uses for selective color management, allowing individual hue adjustments, controlling multiple saturation values. Great for correcting images where there were multiple light sources with different color temps. Does LR do that?
4. Album Designer
For me, the key is that it SAVES ME TIME. Is it as robust as InDesign? Of course not. It doesn't need to be. It's an album - not a newspaper. Aperture's book designer does everything a book designer should - and none of the things you don't need.
That it allows you INSTANT access to your images, as well as the ability to make adjustments to your images in real time is HUGE. (SAVES TIME). It also makes saving templates really easy (I know InDesign also has templates).
5. Presets.
Aperture doesn't have "Presets." Again, so what. Don't confuse that with a lack of ability to make Mass adjustments. In fact, L&S is FAR better at mass adjustments than presets in real world applications. I can toggle on or off any adjustment in a profile that I want to apply to mass images. How is this inferior?
In the real world, Aperture is MUCH faster for me. I don't think I'm the exception - I think Aperture is a much better ALL AROUND tool than LR.
LR = better at presets
Aperture = better at everything else
everything else = saves me time!
1. LR doesn't even come close to the organization that Projects/Folders/Albums AND ESPECIALLY SMART ALBUMS give you in Aperture. LR is a great editor, but NOT a great image management tool. Sure, you're making it work - that's great. You've found a workaround.
Apparently workarounds are okay in some areas, but not presets ;)
The ability to completely manage, or reference all the files in my libraries is HUGE. I can store and backup all my master files anywhere I want, and then reference them in any project I want.
Not seeing anything (including programmable smart albums) here that LR can't do. Still confused why LR fails at file management.
- I can directly sync my images for review to my AppleTV - no need to go through iPhoto. If I make a change to an image, or add images to a smart album - my slideshow on AppleTV automatically updates. I use this multiple times every week when I meet with clients.
Neat, but not necessary. I don't really update my "what I show clients" stuff often. In fact, by the time they meet with me, I just have a screensaver on in the background, because we never look at images; they've already seen everything online that they need to see.
- It integrates seamlessly (and effortlessly) with mobile me. Why does this matter? because I can upload a password protected gallery for a vendor, or a client. I can allow them to directly download selected images, or an entire gallery. And, again - if I make changes to such a gallery - it automatically updates them for me.
This is HUGE for me when I provide images to vendors.
I use Pictage for any gallery that I want clients or vendors hitting. I don't use mobileme for any pro function, just personal (and keeping my 4 macs in sync). If I'm providing images to vendors, I want my logo on them (which I use LR to export, just like all my watermarks on my blog—LR automatically puts the logo on them to upload.) Does Aperture support watermark exporting? I forget.
So, again, neat, but nothing earth-shattering.
- When I click "email" it automatically resizes all the images to email size, opens a new mail message with all the appropriately sized images attached - with ONE CLICK. All I have to do is type an email address, and select a pre-set signature. Again, perfect for sending to vendors (or family/friends/etc).
Handy, but all that can be done by dragging any image to my Mail icon in the dock. One click. You can resize the image in mail with the little "small/med/large/full size" if you want. Not saying it's not cool, but sorta irrelevant to overall "getting things done."
- iWork. yes - it matters. I can create customized templates in Pages and do everything I need to for a lot of our marketing pieces. Yes, I've used InDesign since 1999 (back when it was code-named K2), and yes - it's the best page layout program out there. Sometimes I don't need a powerdrill, I just need a screwdriver.
Again, neat, but I don't do any advertising, for starters. Secondly, if I was going to do a marketing piece, I wouldn't dream of using Pages for it. I love pages, but it's a word processor.
3. Tools - Interface
Perhaps it's a personal preference, I don't know. But most of the enhancement tools in Aperture deliver results that are objectively superior than LR (Recovery, Highlights/Shadows, Definition, Contrast, and Vibrancy).
Guess who invented the "vibrancy" tool? hahha.
The clone-repair and healing brush tools are killer. In fact, I find them to be better than even PS - meaning I can even do retouching in Aperture. LR clearly has the leg up with localized adjustments - I'd love those in Aperture - but not enough to switch.
I do all my retouching in LR. I don't ever open an image in Photoshop. The tools are superior to Photoshop, and LR is so much faster than PS, it's not even a contest. Being able to change the brush size with the scroll-wheel is a huge time saver. Layers upon layers of retouching, localized brushes, localized gradients, etc. It's infinite, and it's all editable. I don't think Aperture can win in a functionality battle for editing tools.
Re: Interface
Maybe that's a personal preference too. I found that the Aperture interface is not only more intuitive - it's much faster since I have access to the things I need or want without having to switch "modules," or whatever adobe calls them.
The ability to use full screen with an overlay HUD is also a great UI feature.
Yeah, hitting the "d" key to switch to develop mode is pretty stressful. Of course, you only have to do that if you want to go deep, most the basic editing can be done in the library. For instance, select 30 images, convert their white balance, adjust levels, increase saturation, pump up the blacks, adjust clarity (a feature Aperutre lacks), adjust sharpening—all can be done with a few clicks or short-cut keystrokes, and all the images change immediately—something you can't do in Aperture at all. LR is built to handle deep edits or slight edits of individual OR mass numbers of images. Aperture is designed around editing single images.
Re: Color:
Apple uses the same engine that the FCP suite uses for selective color management, allowing individual hue adjustments, controlling multiple saturation values. Great for correcting images where there were multiple light sources with different color temps. Does LR do that?
Yup. And the interface is much more intuitive. You can select colors by any number of identifiers. The 7 basics: red, orange, yellow, green, aqua, blue, purple, magenta... you can adjust hue, saturation, lightness of each color individually. It's a beautiful thing. Split toning is equally easy.
4. Album Designer
For me, the key is that it SAVES ME TIME. Is it as robust as InDesign? Of course not. It doesn't need to be. It's an album - not a newspaper. Aperture's book designer does everything a book designer should - and none of the things you don't need.
That it allows you INSTANT access to your images, as well as the ability to make adjustments to your images in real time is HUGE. (SAVES TIME). It also makes saving templates really easy (I know InDesign also has templates).
I'd like for there to be an album design module in LR, and it's been bantered about. But it's certainly not a great stretch to export the JPEGs and design the book. The images have to be exported to upload to Pictage, which I do before the book is designed, so there's no great time savings here for my workflow.
5. Presets.
Aperture doesn't have "Presets." Again, so what. Don't confuse that with a lack of ability to make Mass adjustments. In fact, L&S is FAR better at mass adjustments than presets in real world applications. I can toggle on or off any adjustment in a profile that I want to apply to mass images. How is this inferior?
This can easily be done in LR as well. you can toggle ANYTHING in a preset (when you copy settings from one image, even, it pops up a dialogue with every attribute that image could have, you can check the boxes of what you want to copy and apply).
You can't, in Aperture, select 30 images and simply bump up the exposure a stop and see the effect real time, then bump it down a half-stop if you've gone too far. (repeat with any number of adjustments)
In the real world, Aperture is MUCH faster for me. I don't think I'm the exception - I think Aperture is a much better ALL AROUND tool than LR.
In your world, it's faster. But it's because that's what you're used to and what you've invested in.
LR = better at presets
Aperture = better at everything else
everything else = saves me time!
Sorry, you haven't demonstrated that successfully to me.
Alright, I gotta go make my wife dinner... so just a few quick ones
Does Aperture support watermark exporting? I forget.
yes
Guess who invented the "vibrancy" tool? hahha really, cause the best part about the one in Aperture is that it doesn't mess with skin tones. I just tried using it on an image in LR and it made the image all orange. What is the vibrancy tool in Aperture supposed to do?
adjust clarity (a feature Aperutre lacks), nah, it's there - Aperture just calls it definition, and IMO it's a cleaner tool (again, just my opinion)
and all the images change immediately—something you can't do in Aperture at all. LR is built to handle deep edits or slight edits of individual OR mass numbers of images. Aperture is designed around editing single images
Kevin this isn't true at all. Aperture is based around the ability to be a full workflow tool - editing ALL your images as quickly and as effectively as possible.
Aperture can absolutely batch (or mass if you will) make individual adjustments to exposure, et all. Just select the images, and choose your adjustment. Seems easy to me?
In your world, it's faster. But it's because that's what you're used to and what you've invested in. It's what I invested in because it was the best tool for the job. Apple doesn't pay me to talk about Aperture. I even paid full price for my copy :)
Hey Jim,
You get one good one out of 50? You think that's a poor ratio? Ansel used to say that if he got one keeper a year he was pleased!
Shoot on!
Rick
So basically, if I don't need to show prospective clients any images, I don't need to do any marketing, and I use Pictage for my vendor galleries (really? definitely better options for that) then Light Room is the tool for me :)
Guess who invented the "vibrancy" tool? hahha really, cause the best part about the one in Aperture is that it doesn't mess with skin tones. I just tried using it on an image in LR and it made the image all orange. What is the vibrancy tool in Aperture supposed to do?
I assume you mean LR in the last sentence. And, using some "i tried it, it didn't work" evidence is kinda silly. I use the vibrance tool all the time and don't get skin tones going orange. My point was simply that LR has the tool, and LR was the one who came up with the idea.
Kevin this isn't true at all. Aperture is based around the ability to be a full workflow tool - editing ALL your images as quickly and as effectively as possible. Aperture can absolutely batch (or mass if you will) make individual adjustments to exposure, et all. Just select the images, and choose your adjustment. Seems easy to me?
I'm recording a little video. I'll upload it in a minute. I'm curious if you could show how you can edit multiple images quickly in Aperture.
It's what I invested in because it was the best tool for the job. Apple doesn't pay me to talk about Aperture. I even paid full price for my copy :)
In trying to be clever, you've actually stepped in it. First, I don't like the implication that my opinion can be bought. Second, I didn't pay for -either- copy of Aperture or Lightroom, so (unlike you) I don't have a dog in the fight. As you said, you paid full price for your copy, so you have an investment in the product and admitting that it isn't the perfect tool for the job would mean admitting you've chosen wrongly.
Actually, I wish Aperture was better, since I'm an Apple stock owner. I own no stock in Adobe. I'm not paid by Adobe.
I switch platforms, applications, entire workflows at the drop of a hat if I see something better. I worked nearly a year as an alpha tester, then beta tester for Omni Group on OmniFocus. When it got too bloated and unwieldy, I abandoned my free copy and purchased "Things" because it was a better tool for the job. I shifted my entire workflow over because Things was slightly better.
If Aperture takes the lead, I'll shift to Aperture. I've been working computer systems since I was 6, and it doesn't take anything for me to jump systems, so I seek the most efficient tool to make sure I'm maximizing productivity and profit in my business. Until Apple can implement presets and immediate batch edits, it can't compete with LR for productivity.
Video forthcoming...
So basically, if I don't need to show prospective clients any images, I don't need to do any marketing, and I use Pictage for my vendor galleries (really? definitely better options for that) then Light Room is the tool for me :)
My images are all exactly where I want them: all over my blog, in slideshows, on Pictage, and on Facebook. I never said I don't show clients images. I just don't need my Lightroom Library to tie to my Apple TV.
I don't know what you mean by "vendor galleries." I use Pictage for my clients to purchase. I let vendors identify images they may want for their websites. If I wanted to use LR for uploading galleries, it has -hundreds- of options that are all pretty powerful. I think they've even developed some exports that tie right into the various shopping carts people use. I find Pictage to work great for my business. I've never had a complaint, and I haven't lifted a finger. Heck, the ability to run credit cards for my clients albums (I just sold one yesterday for $9800 and that's not including parent copies), and only pay 1.5% is worth the price of admission for me.
As far as advertising goes, he was saying how convenient it is that Aperture connects to his word processor, Pages, because he builds some marketing tools with it. I don't see that as any tremendous advantage. If I need to build a marketing piece, I'm not going to do it in a word processor, so.. exporting an image and using it in my design software doesn't seem to be a deal breaker.
Yes, I recognize you were being sarcastic. But I also see a pretty shallow argument.
Kevin - I love Pictage, and we use it for everything involving our clients, but I do not like to send vendors there. We make quick easy galleries of what's pertinent to them and send them the link.
Jim,
I'll be glad to walk you through Aperture anytime you want. Seriously.
-Dave W.
Kevin, you keep constructing straw men instead of answering Jason's arguments. Nowhere does he say Aperture is the only workflow solution, and so the fact that you have alternatives in other software to do the things you can do in Aperture in no way an argument against the completeness and efficiency of Aperture.
Get over your little tantrum that Apple didn't listen to the almighty Kevin and include "presets" and let people use the tools they think are best. All the workarounds your described for the things we do so easily in Aperture seem terribly inefficient to me. But that's just my opinion, you obviously think it works pretty great for you, and I have no interest in trying to change your mind.
But to discount a piece of software because it lacks one feature you want while it does a host of things other people find very valuable (which you've had to find other solutions for) is just small minded.
Nancy's point is a good (and humorous) one. In your rush to be "right," you have disassociated downplayed tasks that most wedding photographers spend a lot of time on.
-Dave
Huh, I must have met a different Dave Wittig in Chicago--or he was a good liar about how he felt about me. Good to meet the real man.
It wasn't that Apple didn't "listen to the almighty Kevin" as you so delicately put it. The head of development was talking to me about what they planned for upcoming versions. He said they knew they dropped the ball on presets, and that LR leapt forward largely due to that feature. This was right after they fixed their embarrassing RAW conversion. Apple was saying their next version was going to be a LR killer, as Jason pointed out. I was only saying that we've heard that before and it just hasn't happened.
I've never discounted Aperture, I've said it's not as fast or efficient at processing large events as LR. There are things I really love about Aperture, but it can't work as quickly at the core of what these applications are supposed to do: process images , so it's not in my normal toolset. The fact that it ties into word processors and Apple TV are cool, but they're just peripheral.
Nowhere have I said LR is the only workflow solution. And as far as having all these "work arounds" you talk about, the only one I see is that you can't do album design in LR. So, not sure what else there is that I'm terribly inefficient at.
You also speak of "most wedding photographers" and knowledge of what they spend their time on. I'm curious how you came by that information? This all seems very anecdotal. What do most photographers spend a lot of time on, building advertisements in Pages? Having their working library tied into their Apple TV? I'm not sure what you mean.
I'm very sad. My iShowU is failing for some reason. It starts out recording fine, and then it just shows one screenshot with only the audio continuing. I've tried making this video 3 times! hahah. I'll restart and see if that pleases the little thing.
My images are all exactly where I want them: all over my blog, in slideshows, on Pictage, and on Facebook. I never said I don't show clients images. I just don't need my Lightroom Library to tie to my Apple TV.
That's great Kevin. But the point is, Aperture is an integrated workflow tool - that DOES allow the ability to seamlessly share your images in ways that really do add VALUE to a photographers business. That you do you not perceive the value does not make Aperture an inferior product.
I don't know what you mean by "vendor galleries." I use Pictage for my clients to purchase. I let vendors identify images they may want for their websites. If I wanted to use LR for uploading galleries, it has -hundreds- of options that are all pretty powerful.
Great, it doesn't fit in your workflow. That's fair. But again, Aperture offers a better overall image management system. You asked me to back it up - yet you don't seem to acknowledge that these things have real value. I can, with one click - provide a vendor a downloadable (and yes watermarked) gallery. If I make a change to an image - no need to export and re-upload. Aperture will keep the images sync'd.
As far as advertising goes, he was saying how convenient it is that Aperture connects to his word processor, Pages, because he builds some marketing tools with it. I don't see that as any tremendous advantage.
I didn't say advertising did I? I said marketing. Of all people, you would know the difference. For example - www.jasonatenphotography.com/weddingprices.pdf. Using Pages, I can create (and edit this) to update it with any of my images already available. Can I do it in InDesign? Sure, but pages does it just as well, and my image library is already there.
If I need to build a marketing piece, I'm not going to do it in a word processor, so.. exporting an image and using it in my design software doesn't seem to be a deal breaker. "Pages is both a streamlined word processor and an easy-to-use page layout tool. It allows you to be a writer one minute and a designer the next, always with a perfect document in the works." That's from Apple's site. It has both canvas and word processing modes. It's a pretty robust page layout program.
Of course ALL of these avoid the real issue.
I've never discounted Aperture, I've said it's not as fast or efficient at processing large events as LR. There are things I really love about Aperture, but it can't work as quickly at the core of what these applications are supposed to do: process images , so it's not in my normal toolset. The fact that it ties into word processors and Apple TV are cool, but they're just peripheral.
Go back and re-read your very first post. You said that because Aperture can't do one thing that you value more than any other - that there is no contest. My whole point is, that while that one thing is critical for you - it's less important to me, and all the other things Aperture does so much better than LR are far more significant to my business.
In trying to be clever, you've actually stepped in it. First, I don't like the implication that my opinion can be bought. Second, I didn't pay for -either- copy of Aperture or Lightroom, so (unlike you) I don't have a dog in the fight. As you said, you paid full price for your copy, so you have an investment in the product and admitting that it isn't the perfect tool for the job would mean admitting you've chosen wrongly.
Actually, thanks for making my point for me. I purchased Aperture 1 (and 1.5). I ditched it when LR came out. I paid for my copy of LR also. I liked a lot about it. Then, I tried Aperture 2.0 and switched back. This was after I spent a good amount of money on LR but Aperture was worth it to me because it was a better tool. So, I've paid for all the dogs in this fight - it just happens that the one named Aperture is winning the fight.
Further, I don't think I choose wrongly when I started with Aperture (although the first version was an actual "dog,") or when I switched to LR - or even back to Aperture. I wanted the very best tool... and when I found it, I walked away from the program I had previously used - and paid for. And I bought the better tool.
here are things I really love about Aperture, but it can't work as quickly at the core of what these applications are supposed to do: process images , so it's not in my normal toolset.
Finally - it clearly does work as quickly - and it saves me time overall. You said it takes you 5 hours to edit a wedding using LR. I told you it takes me 3.5 INCLUDING an album design - and I'm willing to back it up by letting you watch me go through a wedding.
Heck, send me one of yours (you shoot more images than me) and I'll set up a time delay cam so you can watch the whole experience :)
I found that Aperture imported images faster, handled RAW faster, built previews faster, allowed adjustments faster, AND believe it or not - I found that L&S was more efficient and effective for me than Presets were. I USED LR, and found that Aperture was a better tool. Was it subjective - of course. Isn't that the point?
Jason, I said the thing I value more than others is the ability to process images—that's what the programs' core competency is supposed to be. Presets are the thing that allows me to process images quickly. There is quite clearly no "right" or "wrong" answer. I have no doubt I could run my business with Aperture, and if this next version truly is all you're teasing it will be, I'm sure I'll go get it and play with it (yes, I'll even buy it).
Frankly, the joy of this has vanished after David's post, so I'll just throw a few responses:
The 6-7k images are when I have six-figure events that span a couple days (rehearsal, rehearsal dinner, party, wedding, post wedding, etc.) I have 3-4 shooters... So we have a lot of images. Being able to completely process that event in 5 hours seems pretty exceptional. No touch-up post, those images are exported and uploading to Pictage.
On regular weddings, like this weekend, Shaun and I only took 3k total mages. So, editing that will be much simpler/faster.
Album design time isn't apples to apples. I don't know what your designs look like, how many images or pages you include. Mine typically start out at around 80-120 pages and have 2-300 images in them. My albums are the first things my clients see, and they typically see them Friday after the wedding.
As far as features, while we can't match the integration with iWork or Apple TV, we have better Bridge, Photoshop integration.
We can set our time and date for any or all images in any kind of fashion we like. We can have it change the RAW file's encoding (if it was wrong on the camera), all in LR.
The ability to do localized gradient and selective editing is huge. I tried to show this in my video, but iShowU is completely sucking, and I refuse to try to do it a fifth time. I'm sure your semi-familiar with the functionality of these tools, but they have completely eliminated the need for Photoshop for me and others. I'd be very surprised if Aperture didn't have this in 3.0, it's too good.
Filtering is badass in 2.3. You can quickly click on things like "camera serial number" and then it shows you the options for that camera (and not options that don't exist) like lenses, then you click the lens, and it can further drill down to horizontal or vertical, etc. It's very fast and simple.
I don't believe Aperture supports XMP and LR does. But it's been a while since I've looked at Aperture's file architecture. XMP sidecars can be saved with any image edit, which means all my modifications can be seen in programs OUTSIDE LR, as long as they support XMP (and many do).
LR supports many more camera models.
LR is faster on older/slower architecture computers, which many photographers use. It also has 1/3 the disk space requirements for the libraries. Granted, Aperture is faster on a fully loaded, new machine.
Aperture does support scripting, which means people can make 3rd party plugins (and they do) that can be pretty cool.
As far as sending you a wedding, they're over 100gigs (the big ones). I'd rather just see a video of you editing, so I can understand how you're doing mass editing in the library mode.
There is also the issue of acceptance, 1540 pro photographers responded to a survey in 2008 (by infotrends) as to the tools they use to edit (they were told to 'check all that apply, so the total can be more than 100%):
Photoshop Camera Raw Plug-in 62.2%
Lightroom 35.9%
Aperture 7.5%
On the Mac Platform Only (since Aperture isn't avail for Windows)
Lightroom 40.4%
Aperture 14.6%
I would never advocate that the bigger numbers mean better product, but what it will tell you is that Adobe is making some $$ on LR, which will likely result in more resources being devoted to it, better support, faster updates to the product (when was the last time Aperture had a significant upgrade?), and more people developing plugins, modules, etc. for it.
Lastly, I have no expectations that I'm going to change your mind to use LR, but, personally, I'm always excited about new software, and so I'll be all over Aperture 3 when it comes out. I hope it's everything you are touting!
hey Kevin,
I was wrong to let my own hot head attempt to reason with another hot head, so I do apologize for my tone in my last post.
I'm not sure what you think "I felt about" you but my opinion of you has remained basically unchanged. When you were here I believe I said something along the lines of you running a highly regarded album company and a successful photography business in Indianapolis. I also think you have some interesting ideas. I still think those things today and I honestly don't know what other impression you thought I had of you. We can discuss it over email if you want, but does it really matter what I think of you? (Aren't we a little old for this?) Weren't we talking about Aperture?
I'm off to edit. Email if you want to chat.
We were talking about Aperture and Lightroom, David. And then you got personally ugly. Still not entirely sure why, but that's what it was. At the PUG, you were very friendly—that's the impression I was talking about.
It matters to me what you think of me, yes. I respect you and your work. As for being too old... for what, dealing with something without personal attacks? Apparently not.
I'm done editing, cause I use Lightroom. That's why I have so much free time to hang out on Jim's blog. hahahah.
Jason:
I am playing with Aperture now. I select 5 images, I go to the contrast, I bump up the contrast, only one image changes.
How do I select 5 images, hit the contrast button, and have all 5 images increase or decrease in contrast?
That's what I mean by mass image editing quickly in LR. Being able to select a bunch of images, click an adjustment in the quick-edit panel, and seeing them all change before your eyes as you make the adjustment. Is that possible in Aperture?
(I, Kevin Swan, (henceforth "Author") hereby disclaim any attempt to attack Aperture (henceforth "Program") or, more specifically, those who use the Program. This post constitutes a genuine and legitimate question that the Author has about the functionality of the Program, and has, in no way, been laced with any sarcasm or intentional innuendo. The Author also hereby wishes to declare his love for users of the Program.)
I don't mean to undermine all the hard work that's been put into defending Aperture, but I do actually think its slower - and I still prefer it. It takes me much longer than a lot of other people (especially you and Jason) to edit a whole wedding and I think its better that way. [for reasons I don't have time to properly articulate because I have to go edit :-P)
As to your question about Aperture, you can't do things the way you want to do them in Aperture. It's a different system. It's like a *nix user wanting to know why MacOS doesn't boot into a prompt. Yes, you can make a prompt come up, no, that's not the fastest or best way to use a Mac.
In my opinion It doesn't make sense for you or any other longtime Lightroom user to switch (at this point), but for new users I think its a much more clear and important debate.
As for being friendly, I hope I continue to give out that vibe when people visit.
I disagree. If a system is better, I will learn it and adopt it. It makes great sense to me, since I work on a lot of weddings. If I slow down on one or two to be more efficient on 30, it's well worth the investment.
As for the question about editing images. I'm just talking about simple UI intuition. In LR, you select 1 photo, use the quick edit to brighten it, and it is immediately brighter. Logical. Aperture functions the same way. In LR, I then select 5 or 60 images, I click the "brighter" button, and they all are immediately brighter. Intuitive (and extremely effective from a quick-edit standpoint). In Aperture, I select 5 or 60 images, I click "brighter" and one image is brightened. Non-intuitive.
I'm simply asking if I'm missing something, or can Aperture NOT edit en-masse like that? Jason claimed it was built for editing lots of photos at once, so that's how I'd expect it to do it. Just wondering if I don't have a toggle toggled or something. How do you edit lots of images together?
With your reasons you can't articulate, I'm getting the "art vibe." That you want to learn from editing your shooting, improve, that you have time to lovingly attend to specific images, etc. That's all good. But both programs can go slower and give you that pace. It's when you want to put the pedal down that I'm interested in how they perform.
And, really, it doesn't matter directly to me much any more. I don't edit my own weddings or design my albums. I'm looking at this from a pure efficiency standpoint as a business owner. Jason says Aperture is faster, I don't see how if you can't edit multiple images at a time. I'm just trying to figure that out.
As for being friendly, I'd think you would want to give that vibe off all the time.
Happy editing.
How the heck did I miss out on all the fun?!? LOL! Jason, I've seen you do a live demo before, and frankly it wasn't very convincing. I'd be curious to see a fresh demo as well. Post a video! :)
Nathan! Help me fix iShowU hahah. I tried to record a video 4 times.. it keeps crapping out on me. It records all the audio, but the video stops updating about 2 min in. :(
Welcome to the funhouse.
k
How the heck did I miss out on all the fun?!? LOL! Jason, I've seen you do a live demo before, and frankly it wasn't very convincing. I'd be curious to see a fresh demo as well. Post a video! :)
Hey nate!
I have a little time this morning - so I will post a video :) Although it's a little unfair to say you saw me do a "live demo" that was unconvincing. You had a specific question, and I demo'd a specific process in Aperture. We were talking about presets.
It's fair that you don't like the way Aperture handles "presets" (ie: it doesn't, but there are viable workarounds if that's important) - but you acknowledged during the demo that you learned something new. I didn't know I was supposed to be convincing you of anything - just demonstrating.
I will work on that video before the one-year-old gets up!
Hey Jason! Yeah! Post it up! And even better, do it with 50 images that Swan and I can do a video with too, and post a link to download those images.
I wasn't going to bring up the fact that you did an individual demo for me, but since you did.... :) You touted how great Aperture did at handling batch processing minus presets, and yet you stumbled through the demo and did no convincing there.
I'm just curious to see how your workflow compares. 3.5 hours does sound impressive. Just curious to see it (or a fraction of it) on video or live. :)
Oh and by the way, another feature not mentioned that Lightroom trumps Aperture on is BUILT-IN workflow keyboard shortcuts. And no, Aperture's supposed customizeable keyboard shortcuts really don't amount to much as far as the basic processing of images are concerned.
Nathan
I'm still waiting to hear an answer to my question...
Can you select a group of images and adjust them together (seeing the adjustments live as you click the buttons)?
That's such a huge time-saver and I can't imagine how NOT being able to do it is faster.
Still waiting..
I wasn't going to bring up the fact that you did an individual demo for me, but since you did.... :) You touted how great Aperture did at handling batch processing minus presets, and yet you stumbled through the demo and did no convincing there.
wow, now I guess I know what Kevin meant when he said it wasn't fun anymore. You already had brought up the fact that you saw me do a demo - but apparently I wasn't very "convincing" because I "stumbled" through it.
Sorry, I don't make my living doing online demos of software - I shoot wedding, edit them, make my clients happy, and help other photogs when I can. I'll work on my online demo skills for another time.
Can you select a group of images and adjust them together (seeing the adjustments live as you click the buttons)? I'd love to answer your question, but I'm not sure I 100% understand it. I think the answer might be no for things like contrast, etc. I'd love to see how/why you would use it this way.
In Aperture, you can make an adjustment to an image from a selection and then apply to all the images in the selection, but I'm guessing this is different than what you mean. How is it beneficial to look at how contrast slider effects 100 or 200 images?
I would still be happy to do a "demo." Send me 50 images, I'll record how I edit it and post it. You can do the same. Sound reasonable? Just be nice - because apparently my online demo skills are lacking.
Kevin,
Sorry I meant to add - that for ranking/keywording/tagging/etc - you absolutely can simply select a bunch of images and hit "5" or whatever.
It doesn't seem to make sense that you would do that for "exposure." Maybe it makes sense - I don't see it though. Can you really look at 100 images after you've done that quickly and see how it effected them?
Wow - this got a little intense a little fast! It's great, though seeing both sides of the argument in one place, so thanks Kevin and Jason for articulating your points.
I think it would be FABULOUS to see a demo of Aperture vs Lightroom on 50 of the same images. How about I grab 50 from a recent even of ours and have both of you edit them so there's no bias?
Hey Jason... Sorry dude... Didn't meant that as a personal attack. Just talking LR vs Aperture, but I can understand how that would have come across.
Let's let a neutral party post a link to 50 RAW images! Someone just do it already!
I'm in... Jeff - post it up :)
and thanks Nate, all is good :)
It doesn't seem to make sense that you would do that for "exposure." Maybe it makes sense - I don't see it though. Can you really look at 100 images after you've done that quickly and see how it effected them?
Maybe not 100, but I sure can see 5-10 and adjust them together with ease. I do it all the time. It's 5-10 times faster than adjusting them individually.
So, Aperture can't edit multiple images at once. That's a point for LR, since we can edit one image at a time (like you can) OR we can edit en masse. Like you said before, just because you don't see the value in it, doesn't mean it isn't valuable.
Can you adjust the shoot time of a photo (or group of photos) if the camera's clock was set wrongly? (This happens ALL the time when you have multiple shooters who each have multiple bodies, and may be from different time zones.) I know you couldn't at one point in Aperture, but they may have changed that.
Where are those images, Jeff? I have some, if you want to just get going. In fact, I'm sure we all have them. Someone want to post them?
K
Swan- sorry, I just got back from sailing with some buddies! I'll grab some images, upload them, and then shoot you guys a link.
Onward!
Sailing! You must use Lightroom to have that kind of free time.
:)
Alright, Gentlemen, I've got some RAW files uploading as we speak, and I'm sending you each the link to download them.
I'm uploading images from an engagement session since that's probably the most versatile thing for wedding and portrait photographers, alike. I chose this session because the couple is getting married this Saturday and it seemed fitting :)
Be sure to note the start time when you record your screen cast so we can see the time required, start to finish.
Oh and Kevin, you're right - I was out sailing today because of all the extra free time LR grants me!!
Maybe not 100, but I sure can see 5-10 and adjust them together with ease. I do it all the time. It's 5-10 times faster than adjusting them individually.
I'll be interested to see you demonstrate how helpful this is.
So, Aperture can't edit multiple images at once. That's a point for LR, since we can edit one image at a time (like you can) OR we can edit en masse. Actually, you can still "edit" in masse, AND you can batch process. Just because it isn't done exactly like you do it in LR doesn't mean it's not capable AND-OR just as efficient. It just might be different.
Like you said before, just because you don't see the value in it, doesn't mean it isn't valuable. Isn't this the argument that you shot down when we talked about all the valuable things Aperture offered that LR didn't. You didn't think they were valuable, so you completely disregarded them?
Can you adjust the shoot time of a photo (or group of photos) if the camera's clock was set wrongly? (This happens ALL the time when you have multiple shooters who each have multiple bodies, and may be from different time zones.) I know you couldn't at one point in Aperture, but they may have changed that. Yes - on import. You can also batch modify metadata after import as well.
Hah. Dude. I never "completely disregarded" anything. I've said I like the features you're hyping. YOU said I was. I was joking with you, since you took a great feature of LR and said that you didn't see how it made sense.
I will play with aperture today, but I didint think you could adjust the capture time by, say, 35 seconds, on a group of photos. You say it's in there now, though. Cool.
On this shootout.. Nathan and I are on older laptops. What will you be working with? It should be similar, no?
Kevin, What's even cooler, is that Aperture can sync your cameras before you even shoot ;)
I'll edit on my MacBook Pro.. It's the slowest thing I got :) It's a 2.2Ghz w/ 4GB RAM.
Here's my proposal... I'm cool if we want it to just be a timed thing, but realistically, with only 100 images - we could probably both be done in 10 minutes... there's really very little "editing" (culling, etc) to be done on that few images.
I'm guessing it's most helpful if we explain what we are doing so people can see how the two programs' workflows stack up. Naturally, if we explain it - it takes a little longer. Is that cool? Or is it more valuable to simply time it and see who gets done first?
I'm up for either way, but I'm guessing it's more valuable to actually explain it.
I plan on talking about what I'm doing as I edit. So, I'm not just going for full-on speed. I expect you'll be able to see the differences in the applications even if we're not all running pedal down.
10 minutes, to me though, is more than enough to make people suffer through! hahah.
How we edit and what the final images look like will be different. e.g., just making something black and white, vs. doing something more involved (spot re-touching, spot editing -- oh, yeah, Aperture can't do that... :) ). So, I don't think just a full on timer will do.
Start the recording on launch of the application and before import of the images, right? I'm going to create a blank catalog just so there's nothing else confusing people in the video.
K
(spot re-touching, spot editing -- oh, yeah, Aperture can't do that... :) )
Actually, it does have spot retouching, healing, cloning and repair brushes. It does NOT have local adjustments for things like curves, highlights, etc... LR definitely beats Aperture there... but the other tools I mentioned are VERY solid.
any comments on my thoughts about the actual editing? I think nathan should be involved, too.. I don't do much editing any more, I'm rusty! hahah.
I say that for the actual editing, the recording ought to start prior to the launch of the application, and should last 10 minutes or so. I also agree that it would be beneficial for you guys to briefly talk through what you're doing - in a cursory sense. Meaning, not like you would if you were making a LR or Aperture tutorial, but still briefly touching on what you're doing.
In other words "Alright, I'm going to import the images" instead of "Alright, go to File, Import, navigate to the directory, select the images, blah blah blah."
I think it's totally fair to have Nathan do it - he's another LR Guru. Would Nathan edit and Kevin do the voiceover then?
LOL, I am going to start writing Aperture vs. Lightroom posts on my blog ... maybe I can get 50+ comments :)
btw. Lightroom > Aperture ;)
Great post!
Oh, I'm not THAT rusty. I'll do my own video. Just thought it would be interesting to see nathan's editing style.
Ohhhhh, I get ya! Well he could do one too! This kind of resource is something super cool to see. Maybe we could get Sara to do a little thing too - then it wouldn't be just the two of you....
Yeah, get Sara to do it too :)
Are we uploading to our own server and sending a link, or will Jim be uploading the videos here?
I was just going to go to YouTube.
sounds good...
OK. Mine is done. I chat it up quite a bit, talking about what I'm doing and why... so not really sure what a hard-core editing job would be. I thought, though, that we wanted to explain what we were up to.
Hopefully I didn't do it wrong. :)
It's uploading now to my mobile me site (was too long for youtube. I'll fire over a link in the morning. Or should I wait and we all submit links at the same time, so your videos aren't influenced by my videos?
Kev
Obviously, this party has moved:
http://lifenotes-justuff.blogspot.com/2009/08/aperture-vs-lightroom-competition.html
Post a Comment