Digital Media | Spotlight: Photography | Inside Aperture | Blogs
The tale of two tools
When Lightroom 2.0 emerged out of beta, not a few Aperture users might have felt exactly the same thing that some Lightroom users may have felt when Aperture 2.0 was released. It's a feeling, a sensation, a nagging suspicion that, comparing the two software on the basis of their current iteration, one or the other is now deemed to be better.
Out of curiosity, it would not be surprising that some photographers may even have both installed, the licensed one of the preferred and actual working tool, and the other on a tentative, limited-day trial basis, just to see what's in there and to figure out what might be missing. The grass, as they say, appears to be always greener on the other side.
This is the apparent case whenever there are two, or even three or four very strong contenders, battling it out in the public arena for the same market segment or for a well-defined growing market segment. To a typical software user, and in the case of Aperture vs. Lightroom, this seemingly never-ending one-upmanship can pssibly be viewed as tiring, exasperating, disruptive, and quite literally, crazy. Which is actually the idea--to introduce a force that is hopefully strong enough to upset the balance, and tilt the favor to one side or the other. But it can also be exciting. It moves the platform to a newer, higher, better level. We've seen this happen before in other markets and with other products, and the thrill is really in constantly watching the developments, where these developments are heading, and maybe, figuring out who will "blink" first. And then there are the bets.
In the crossfire, meanwhile, are the users who are apparently caught in middle, being pulled here are there, while analysts constantly check which side is gaining grounds, and in the process, perhaps even bravely and boldly predicting timelines eventualities. But of course, underneath the dynamics of it all, the fierceness of cutting-edge development, coupled with well-carved marketing and promotions, will in the end just really benefit users. Competition, in this case, is good. Very, very good. For all intents and purposes, both camps are on their toes. (So to speak, but this is a presumption of course.) Because we, as photographers, still hold the power of choice. And we can expect nothing less from companies, Apple and Adobe both, but to continue developing and pushing their respective products, Aperture and Lightroom, each in their own ways and means.
The photographers' need for an all-inclusive digital photography post-production tool has been nearly already clearly defined, and the race, again so to speak, is on. But then again, this is just stating the obvious.
11 Comments
Leave a comment
Stay Connected
©2009, O'Reilly Media, Inc. (707) 827-7000 / (800) 998-9938 All trademarks and registered trademarks appearing on oreilly.com are the property of their respective owners. |
About O'Reilly
Academic Solutions Authors Contacts Customer Service Jobs Newsletters O'Reilly Labs Press Room Privacy Policy RSS Feeds Terms of Service User Groups Writing for O'Reilly |
Content Archive Business Technology Computer Technology Microsoft Mobile Network Operating System Digital Photography Programming Software Web Web Design |
More O'Reilly Sites
O'Reilly Radar Ignite Tools of Change for Publishing Digital Media Inside iPhone O'Reilly FYI makezine.com craftzine.com hackszine.com perl.com xml.com Partner Sites InsideRIA java.net O'Reilly Insights on Forbes.com |
Awesome article!
"But then again, this is just stating the obvious."
indeed,..
what was the point of this article?
What was the point of your comment. Or mine?
My concern is that in a culture of constant "improvement", what starts out as a great tool for the novice becomes increasingly complex and bloated.
Aperture, in its present state of development is more than enough for the emerging photographer. I am afraid that in trying to compete with Adobe, Aperture will become as intimidating as Photoshop now is to the beginner.
Aperture not intended to be a novice tool. Apple's tool for casual users and beginners is iPhoto. It has all the basics and doesn't present an overwhelming interface to someone just starting out.
Aperture is targeted toward intermediate to advanced hobbyist users, as well as freelance pros. This segment includes folks who are generally familiar with image manipulation, or willing to spend some time learning tools that promise to help them improve the quality of their work. I'm not saying that professional studios aren't interested in improving their work, just that they typically have different, much more expensive tools to do it.
Whatever happens, I'm not worried about Apple's ability to ship a full featured product that doesn't sacrifice usability. It normally takes them a couple of iterations to get the features in there, but I think Aperture 2.1 is pretty much there, so I'll stick with it.
I would like to see the ability to open RAW files as smart objects though. That's the one thing that's really missing for me. The export/reimport workflow is hackish at best.
@Kieffer: I agree with you completely on the opening RAW as Smart Objects between Aperture and Photoshop. I posted a similiar point on John Nack's Adobe Blog. He said he'd like to see the Open as Smart Object feature opened up to other programs as well, but it "may be" trickier to accomplish than we think. Time will tell, but I think that ball is mostly in Adobe's court for now (an Open as Smart Object SDK anyone?)
Don't believe smart objects are that secret a sauce. They are accessible via Photoshop's scripting engine.
As for the post, I've got to agree it's a bit "motherhood and apple pie". Who would disagree that competition is good? OTOH so is controversy, and the "versus debate" helps users caught in the crossfire see who's firing marketing spin at them.
I am always temeted by the other soft ware when my new camera is not supported by working horse. I hurts to see the other software supporting my beloved new camera which I cannot really put to use due to missing support. My New camera? Nikon D700. Adobe supports it Apple does not!
I have both Aperture and LR2 and right now LR2 is ahead in my book, mainly because of the tools that are available within the application and the reduction in 'round-tripping' that allows. Plus I am disappointed by the high cost of some Aperture plug-ins, and the slower speed of adoption of new RAW formats.
Having said that I love Apple's products and Aperture is good to work with. I look forward to what Apple will do next.
The worst thing that could happen to photographers would be that one of both products wins the whole war. The current back and forth pull is the best thing that could possibly happen to us.
www.archive.org