The fact that adobe hadn't released a price for lightroom and the fact
that some commitment to each product is involved I decided to give the
new version of aperture a trial now they have realised that is
shouldn't need mega expensive hardware and run even on the new minis.
I think bot apple and adobe misjudged the market, there are a lot of non
pros after this sort of thing as well.
I was impressed, from my point of view they both offer about the same
functionality. performance wise I think they are about the same although
I think my import into aperture was slightly faster and I found that
part nicer to do with aperture. Aperture has the loupe which is also
quite a nice feature, but I think lightroom is slightly easier to use,
but I would certainly not dismiss aperture. It seems to me that they are
merging in functionality and performance - which I guess is to be
expected as they are intended to make the digital workflow more efficient.
Forget previous versions of both and download the latest. The libraries
add about 10 percent to the disk space used if you build the previews
for both products, but with disk space cheap the rewards in performance
outweigh that for me.
I find they work fine on the macbook, using a mini 120gb hard drive - at
the moment I have two one with the photos (11,500 mostly ORF) lightroom
library on the other one with photos and aperture.
IanW
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|