Chris,
do you have photoshop?, if you have try the experiment of exporting from
aperture to photoshop and then without any changes print an image,
compare that with the Aperture direct print, I got OK prints from
Aperture but the ones via photoshop were clearly better AND easier to
get consistent results. I still prefer Aperture for some tasks and with
the new multiple library function I can start using LR4 from this year
or just export whatever photos I want to print to it. On the other hand
I may just export all the edited jpegs from aperture and import to LR4,
I have all the original RAW files on disk outside any application
library (about 1.2 TB now) should I ever need to go back and of course I
still have the aperture and its libraries
IanW
On 06/03/2012 17:11, Chris Barker wrote:
> Ian
>
> Thanks for that. I have had very good results with Aperture and my lovely new
> Pixma 9500-II. It looks as if LR4 is catching up with Aperture in some
> respects, soft-proofing, for instance. But I know that many people prefer LR
> to Aperture.
>
> I'm waiting for the next version of Aperture; I can't afford the time to
> change systems now.
>
> Chris
>
> On 6 Mar 2012, at 14:48, SwissPace wrote:
>
>> With my recent printing woes from aperture I gave LR4beta a try and I
>> must be honest printing wise it wins hands down compared to Aperture, so
>> if you have a mac and plan to print images then LR4 is much much
>> better, however despite Bob's views on shadow highlight recovery I think
>> Aperture just edges it, BUT I have been using aperture about 5 years and
>> LR4 5 days. I still prefer Apetures Library functions but the savings
>> in paper alone make it worth me exporting to LR4 for printing (it
>> betters CS5 because its easy to print multiple images on one page).
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|