Comments on: Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 2 is available today!

By: CJ

CJ — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 12:53:01 +0000

“Only Just” getting into Bridge / Lightroom (until few months ago done everything manually). Am curious of V2. From the Adobe site Trial is 62MB, wheres the full version is 97MB. What do we “NOT” get to see in the trial, as clearly in the full version, there is half as much again, file wise that is. Cant find anything about limitations of the trial anywhere. ???

By: Paul

Paul — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 16:45:43 +0000

I just installed LR2 and it runs doggedly slow on my PC. I have Vista, Pentium 4 HT 3.2ghz, nVidia 7900 GT, and 3 GB RAM.

Is my bottleneck my aging CPU?

By: Dwaas

Dwaas — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 10:54:40 +0000

Tja… I use Lightroom v2.0 love it for my workflow and I really like the tight integration with PS cs3. The reason I don’t use aperture is very easy… I use windows

Dwaas

By: Jeff Heusser

Jeff Heusser — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 22:54:42 +0000

As a Mac user I tried both Aperture and LR when they first came out. I chose Aperture. One main reason is integration with AppleTV and iPhone… the ability to make a smart album in Aperture like ** or more, this week, this month and such and have that synced to my iPhone every time I sync is huge. This automates having my favorite and most recent photos with me.

For me not using Aperture would be like not using iTunes for music… you can do it but you lose a lot of integration with the whole system.

Jeff

By: Dan

Dan — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 09:56:04 +0000

I’m definately going to get the 30 day trial installed and give it a whirl, I’ve got a bunch of photos I want to tweak up and this will give me the kick up the arse I need to get it done.

As a Windows user, Aperture isn’t available as an option to me so LightRoom may well be the way to go because, although I have PhotoShop CS3, it’s bloody long winded to do the stuff that LightRoom will probably do in a few clicks.

By: Ryan Ray

Ryan Ray — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 20:24:44 +0000

I definitely choose aperture just for the interface. I can’t stand crap interfaces. Aperture works fairly quick as well. I might have to give a go at LR2

By: Ed Lau

Ed Lau — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 19:22:07 +0000

I also swear by Lightroom and yes, I have used Aperture. I thought my workflow was more efficient in Lightroom, especially since I migrated to Macs.

I don’t really see a big deal with iPhoto…what problems are you anticipating between the two programs?

By: Christopher Blunck

Christopher Blunck — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 13:28:27 +0000

I used Aperture extensively for the last year and a half for post processing a lot of sports photos. I ran over 200 photosets through Aperture, each with hundreds of photos. I ran this on a MacBook Pro 2.16GHz Core 2 Duo with 3GB of DDR2 RAM and a 5400RPM internal hard drive. I can say, without hesitation, and Aperture 1.5 was the slowest editor I’ve ever used.

In some instances it took over 5 minutes to Aperture 1.5 to load. Once it was loaded it was relatively snappy but the pinwale seemed to always make an appearance. Aperture 2.0 was better (the load time improved), but it enforced other annoying restrictions on me (e.g. I couldn’t create a vault on a network server). Eventually I ran out of disk space on my internal drive and had to look at another image management system. The lack of solid IPTC “profiles” was a real kick in the pants. Photojournalists need that kinda stuff! That’s when I found LR.

LR is fast, has more features, seems more robust, and a lot more polished than Aperture. Plus I can set up IPTC profiles for frequent assignments. This works fabulously for me because most of my teams play in the same venue day-in and day-out. Re-typing all that IPTC data into Aperture sucked and LR is much better at it.

LR also allows me to drag my image folders over to other devices really easily. I can make copies of albums and drop them onto an AFP/NFS mount, or I can slide them over to a USB hard disk. Aperture always “hid” the location of the files from me. Not good when you’re shooting 500-700 exposures per event and you sometimes shoot multiple events per day.

I wrote more about my Aperture 2 woes over on my blog. Feel free to click over there and criticize my opinions. I’m glad I switched to LR and I’ll be happily sending Adobe a check in the next 30 days for freeing me from the entanglement of Aperture.

By: Patrick

Patrick — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 12:21:39 +0000

I used Aperture when it came out but with my G4 it was a pain in the bum to use, very slow. So I moved to Lightroom V1 more than a year ago and i’am quite happy with it. The V2 add some cool features that make me use PS3 less which is a real plus when you have a slow computer.
I’am still exploring V2 trial but i’am quite happy with it.

Both aperture and Lightroom are great tool for photographer (amateur or pro) and quite similar, moving from one to the other is not a big deal.

By: Spike

Spike — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 12:02:05 +0000

I jumped on the Lightroom bandwagon back when both first launched because I was still running sub-1 GHz G4s and Aperture didn’t support those. I’ve been tempted to switch occasionally, but haven’t found a truly compelling reason to do so. I’ve already installed LR2, but it’ll be a few weeks before I get to play with it.