[Macworld]

Post your comments for Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4 breaks ground with new core features here

[AndrewRodney]

I think you might be slightly missunderstanding the soft proofing role here along with the gamut overlay. If you calibrated the display correctly to match your print (which is key*), then the soft proof and print should match closer than without the soft proof. You may prefer the way the image looks without the soft proof but that should not be what you see on the print of your CMS is in sync (how can colors the dislay and printer not produce match?) And the idea of the overlay is more educational than useful in terms of trying to remove it (the ICC profiles will do this in a much more robust method than trying to reduce the gamut manually. See: http://digitaldog.ne...softproof2.mov.

The display gamut overlay is useful to show you colors in a wide gamut editing space (Melissa RGB) that are not visisble on your display because they are out of gamut. Useful in terms of not editing colors you can’t see (think cranking up Vibrance or Saturation). The gamut overlay for output shows you colors in the working space you can’t print but the soft proof is useful in helping you decide what rendering intent to use when printing (and honored when you print the VC) and providing a better screen to print match.

*http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/why_are_my_prints_too_dark.shtml

Soft proofing in LR4 is huge for those of us that had to travel to Photoshop to edit based on a soft proof, then move back to LR’s fine print module just to print. The UI is far better for simulating the paper and ink option which is also key (have it set to be one when viewing the print for a match). Really cool is how the paper white fades in, eliminating the shock we see doing the same thing in Photoshop.

[VictoriaBampton]

If you use Apple Mail, Microsoft Outlook, Microsoft Entourage or Eudora as your default Mac mail app, it can create an email using that software rather than entering your email account details. That way you also you also have access to your main address book.

[LiquidD]

I'm no professional photographer (serious hobbyist), but I like Aperture a lot. I've never really played with LR, but I do have Photoshop.

Is this a step above Aperture, personal preference, or not in the same league?

[MacTechAspen]

LiquidD, on 09 March 2012 - 09:39 AM, said:

I'm no professional photographer (serious hobbyist), but I like Aperture a lot. I've never really played with LR, but I do have Photoshop.

Is this a step above Aperture, personal preference, or not in the same league?

My wife is the professional photographer, but I am often her publisher and editor. We are well invested in Aperture and chances are it would be silly to move away, but it doesn't mean we wouldn't consider it is it were worthwhile.

A comparison of current versions of Aperture to Lightroom for large libraries of images (100,000+) would make for an interesting read.

[chrishutcheson]

LiquidD, on 09 March 2012 - 09:39 AM, said:

I'm no professional photographer (serious hobbyist), but I like Aperture a lot. I've never really played with LR, but I do have Photoshop.

Is this a step above Aperture, personal preference, or not in the same league?

I've used both (Aperture in early releases) I find Lightroom faster and better suited to my workflow, which involves shooting a lot of performance images, preparing them for client review, and editing and exporting final selections, usually within 12 hours of the shoot. I found Aperture too slow at the time, and selected Lightroom, which is IMHO faster by a long shot.

[leicaman]

LiquidD, on 09 March 2012 - 09:39 AM, said:

I'm no professional photographer (serious hobbyist), but I like Aperture a lot. I've never really played with LR, but I do have Photoshop.

Is this a step above Aperture, personal preference, or not in the same league?

I'm a professional. And I chose Aperture 3 because of its support for video, and my starting to use cameras with video. Aperture also beat Lightroom when it came to stacks management, book publishing and a few other things. But I've now officially switched to Lightroom 4. It answers all my issues with it in the past, and the benefit of its integration with the Adobe Creative Suite makes it a no-brainer from hereon out. Though it still doesn't quite match Aperture for video management, I have FinalCut Pro. So really, what do I need with video management beyond some basics anyway?

[dahamm]

If you are using LightRoom 3 . The upgrade is only $79.00 .

Dave Hamm

[AdamC]

The new iPhoto can do a better job.

The next Aperture will put another nail into Adobe.

[John__B]

I realize Adobe is trying to compete bullet-point-for-bullet-point with Aperture/iPhoto, but partnering with Blurb for photo book support?

Oh. My. God.

Let's hope that was just a rush decision to get this out the door, and not an exclusive deal that locks out other, higher quality options.

This post has been edited by John__B: 09 March 2012 - 10:55 PM

[whitedog]

AdamC, on 09 March 2012 - 05:47 PM, said:

The new iPhoto can do a better job.

The next Aperture will put another nail into Adobe.

Saying that iPhoto is better then Lightroom is just ignorant - your Adobe animus is showing. Nor will Aperture put any nails in Adobe. You clearly have not followed the development of both products very carefully. Do you think Apple would have cut the price of Aperture so dramatically (it was originally $500 with no trial period) if it was competing successfully with Lightroom? At the same time, Adobe is clearly concerned that the new lower price of Aperture may enable it to cut into their dominant market share, which explains their own drastic price drop for Lightroom 4. In any case, the most that can be said is that both products will continue to compete with one another for the foreseeable future. Remember as well that there is no Windows version of Aperture, so Adobe has that rather large market pretty much to themselves. Of course there are other RAW photo editing solutions out there, some at relatively affordable prices, with which both Apple and Adobe must compete. It's a growing field of endeavor so there is plenty of room for anyone with a decent product to succeed.

[AndrewRodney]

John__B, on 09 March 2012 - 10:52 PM, said:

I realize Adobe is trying to compete bullet-point-for-bullet-point with Aperture/iPhoto, but partnering with Blurb for photo book support?

Oh. My. God.

Let's hope that was just a rush decision to get this out the door, and not an exclusive deal that locks out other, higher quality options.

Specifically what is the issue with Burb?

[spinoza2]

Aperture hasn't been updated in over two years. Apple has either put photo management on the back burner, or, as with some of its other products (iWeb etc), it has lost interest and has moved on. I just took the Lightroom 4 trial through its paces, and it is clearly superior to Aperture now. There's a lot not to like about Adobe's software development in general, but it is doing a good job of managing the Lightroom releases.

[Remiss63]

What I need to know is how much the upgrade cost is from Lightroom 2?