Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 47 of 47

Thread: LR vs. Aperture for MF?

  1. #1
    ringthane
    Guest

    LR vs. Aperture for MF?

    Hi all,

    I'm close to pulling the trigger on either a S2 or a Phase One... or maybe a M9. Long story, but my options are open currently and I'm still sussing out what my goals are and what tool/s I want to accomplish them.

    So, my concern -- as a Mac user, I early on adopted Aperture. I've tried Lightroom numerous times and simply can't stand the workflow. It has its own pros and cons compared to Aperture, but I simply can't handle LR's modular approach.

    With that said, it seems like most of the Leica's come with LR. Do the M9 and S2 play nice with aperture in terms of color profiles?

    Also, re: Phase One and Capture One -- does it integrate well with Aperture? How well does Apple stay on top of camera profiles since most MF etc seem to be either a dng or some proprietary flavor?

    There seem to be a lot of Mac folk here -- anybody use Aperture? Or will I eventually be forced to join the dark side, give in and start using LR for PP and image management?

    Thanks!

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Hong Kong / Asia
    Posts
    524
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: LR vs. Aperture for MF?

    I suggest for you to take a real close look at Capture One Pro.

    For myself Capture One beats any other that I have used. LR was never for me, I used Camera Raw for some years, until Capture One revolutionized for me. It is photographic, simple and gives advanced results. It simply matches my brain. They keep updating and adding USEFUL new features to each version.

    Capture One also works very superbly for Leaf backs, thanks to Leaf now being a Phase One company. I use Afi-II 12 and recent upgraded from Aptus 65.

    I can recomment to take a look at Leaf as well.

    Regards
    Anders

  3. #3
    ringthane
    Guest

    Re: LR vs. Aperture for MF?

    Thanks Anders. Does Capture One also serve as an 'digital asset manager' or does it simply serve as a raw convertor/editor? Looks like I need to read up on the Phase One site...

  4. #4
    Senior Member Graham Mitchell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    London/Kiev
    Posts
    1,079
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: LR vs. Aperture for MF?

    I recently tried C1 for the first time in years. Don't like the layout at all. LR is by far my favourite raw processor, so I suppose it comes down to individual preferences.

  5. #5
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: LR vs. Aperture for MF?

    I admit to not using Aperture for a long time and probably should reinvestigate it since some say it is the best at M9 files right out of the camera ... plus I could test it with my S2 DNG files which are quite similar to the M9 files. I have C1 Pro on my machine but have never taken to it no matter how many times I try.

    Like Graham, LR is by far my favorite processor ... the array of localized tools, asset management, and ability to use 3rd party software without leaving LR has revolutionized my workflow. LR even has one click lens corrections for my S2 lenses.

    I'm not sure I understand the OPs "modular" LR comment ... I use the Library Module to cull initial imports, segregate groups of shots by camera or even lens, and for export ... otherwise I never leave the Develop Module until done. The adjustments in Library are just too basic for me.

    Individual preferences for sure.

    -Marc

  6. #6
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,927
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: LR vs. Aperture for MF?

    I use both Lightroom and Aperture, but for different purposes.

    Lightroom is the basis of my photographic workflow. Import, annotate, sort, grade, organize into projects, do adjustments, round trip to Photoshop when needed, export to various forms when done, and print. It does a great job of that for me. Far as I'm concerned, I like Lightroom's handling of native DNG files the best, and its image processing options suit my work perfectly. Lightroom also handles all of the myriad raw format files I have easily. I like its easily configurable defaults and ability to manage alternative and special purpose camera calibration profiles too. For me, it provides the most complete image processing workflow solution.

    Haven't gotten on well with Aperture's image adjustment tools, but Aperture handles the post-image-processing work well by providing good tools for creating slide shows and books, and integrating photos with other Apple apps (iMovie, Keynote, Pages, iDVD, etc.) for presentation and distribution. I use Aperture's face recognition tools to further sort and find photos of friends and family.

  7. #7
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Jupiter, Fla.
    Posts
    1,967
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

    Re: LR vs. Aperture for MF?

    I think it's pretty well established that C1 is the software of choice for Phase files. While many folks rave about the software I find it doesn't suit me. So I'd suggest giving that software a look to see if it works for you. Capture Integration does a bunch of seminars on C1 which might be something for you to consider. With regard to the S2 or M9, I use LR for both (switched from Aperture for some issues which are specific to me) and find it (combined with CS5) does a fine job. The software is a critical part of the workflow so I'd recommend spending some time with that first. It may (probably should) play a part in your choice of what system to ultimately buy.

  8. #8
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: LR vs. Aperture for MF?

    Sorry I am biased here but nothing but C1 pro for me on any cam that supports it.
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  9. #9
    Shelby Lewis
    Guest

    Re: LR vs. Aperture for MF?

    I've never gotten on perfectly well with C1... but have been giving it a shot in demo mode. I'll admit that it is probably my ineptitude, though... I still struggle with the color for skintones in C1. Almost everything you've seen from me has been processed in LR3, but I'll admit that LC11 has some special sauce with my aptus, so I will use it to output full-res tiffs for work inside of PS from time to time.

    As a (ex) wedding shooter, LR is just so efficient, and since version 3 the image quality has really closed the gap on C1. The noise reduction, alone, is worth the cost.

  10. #10
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: LR vs. Aperture for MF?

    Well people forget you can rearrange C1 in many ways to fit a flow you like. There are all kinds of options on this both in the tabs, workspace, display looks and all sorts of options. I know new folks don't really take the time to get to all this and get frustrated. But lots of ways to work
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  11. #11
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,927
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: LR vs. Aperture for MF?

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Mancuso View Post
    Well people forget you can rearrange C1 in many ways to fit a flow you like. There are all kinds of options on this both in the tabs, workspace, display looks and all sorts of options. I know new folks don't really take the time to get to all this and get frustrated. But lots of ways to work
    I spent three weeks working with C1 exclusively to learn it. Didn't really like the UI very much, didn't find any difference with my work from what I could achieve with other tools. Perhaps it has better calibrations for some cameras, but it just didn't pan out to be my preference.

    Whatever tools do the job for you is all that matters... :-)

  12. #12
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: LR vs. Aperture for MF?

    Yes for some it just will not work out. And it does take time to get your workflow going no question. But nothing is better for my Phase files. Everything else is long gone on my machine.

    In all honesty what makes it great for other cams is the ICC profiles they make for each cam. These folks know there stuff. You also have to remember they been doing this longer than most as well.

    But end of day it is what works best for you that counts. But I bought Phase backs because of C1 which i used long before i went MF.

    Also i freely admit my bias here with C1
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  13. #13
    ringthane
    Guest

    Re: LR vs. Aperture for MF?

    Just some things with LR vs. Aperture:

    * Aperture has geotagging and a pretty nifty map feature for printing books (cool for travel/landscape. Overall, Aperture does a much better job with meta data and place tagging.

    * LR wasn't nearly as flexible as Aperture in terms of being a digital asset manager (multiple libraries, etc etc). Maybe flexible isn't the right word... LR was certainly capable, but it wasn't as effortless as Aperture.

    * A big killer for me was that LR could not do individual channel editing, which just seems so ridiculously basic to me. A trick I often do is an inverted s-curve on the blue channel for a retro-ish film look. This is such a basic thing I've got to wonder if Adobe updated LR to address this (I haven't launched LR in almost a year).

    And I apologize, I meant LR's modal workflow, not modular. By modal I mean there are certain things that could only be done in certain sections, or in certain ways (ie, like keywording only in the Library module). It seemed there were always these little things I would want to do, and LR would throw up a stop sign and force me to click over to somewhere else or require extra clicks. It drove me freaking batty and seemed restrictive, but I suppose if certain people are inclined to that it wouldn't pose a problem or even be preferred.

    With that said, LR's lens correction was great and was better at noise reduction... Aperture is simply beyond useless in those two areas.

    I don't mean to turn this into an LR vs Aperture thread, as many people like/use LR... I was more curious if people used Aperture at all and what their thoughts were.

    I *have* read (as someone else mentioned earlier) that Aperture produces great results with the M9, but this was from Ken Rockwell, so grain of salt and all of that.

    What I would be really interested in -- let's say I go for an IQ140 -- have folks used C1 as their import/raw converter, then use Aperture as a DAM (digital asset manager). Aperture is a pretty kick @ss DAM.

    From the screenshots, C1 looks like it would be pretty agreeable to my workstyle. It looks similar to DxO and not unlike Aperture, which is good for me!

  14. #14
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: LR vs. Aperture for MF?

    You can download a free trail of C1

    http://www.phaseone.com/en/Downloads/CaptureOne.aspx
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  15. #15
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,927
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: LR vs. Aperture for MF?

    Quote Originally Posted by ringthane View Post
    Just some things with LR vs. Aperture:

    * Aperture has geotagging and a pretty nifty map feature for printing books (cool for travel/landscape. Overall, Aperture does a much better job with meta data and place tagging.

    * LR wasn't nearly as flexible as Aperture in terms of being a digital asset manager (multiple libraries, etc etc). Maybe flexible isn't the right word... LR was certainly capable, but it wasn't as effortless as Aperture.

    * A big killer for me was that LR could not do individual channel editing, which just seems so ridiculously basic to me. A trick I often do is an inverted s-curve on the blue channel for a retro-ish film look. This is such a basic thing I've got to wonder if Adobe updated LR to address this (I haven't launched LR in almost a year).

    I don't mean to turn this into an LR vs Aperture thread, as many people like/use LR... I was more curious if people used Aperture at all and what their thoughts were. ...
    Nor do I. As I said, I use both.

    I find both Aperture and Lightroom to have deficiencies in metadata handling that are annoying sometimes. That's why I keep the latest copy of EXIFtool handy. Never got into geotagging and don't think I ever will ... I'm only occasionally a travel photographer, and not much of a landscapist by inclination. Jumping back and forth between modules and views in LR seems more seamless to me than the many confusing popup controls and modalities in Aperture when I'm editing IPTC and image adjustments. Aperture's project organization took me a long time to figure out, it's much more complex than Lightroom.

    Regards multiple libraries, Aperture and Lightroom differ in that Aperture can do both fully managed (stored in its own library structure) and "by reference" image management. Lightroom can do only "by reference". What this means is tricky: multiple libraries (catalogs in LR parlance) can exist in both Aperture and Lightroom. Lightroom catalogs can always look at the same original files and can share processing parameters if desired (processing parameters established in one catalog can be written to disk as metadata and read by the other catalog). Aperture can similarly share original image files by reference but is not so friendly about sharing rendering settings, nor can Aperture easily share the contents of one library to another and keep them up to date if you're working in both.

    Lightroom can edit color channels using an eight channel spectrum in the HSV panel, but doesn't implement a curves type editing tool. Same effect in the end, though. Adobe relies more for the tight integration between Lightroom and Photoshop/Camera Raw for this functionality, it seems.

    Different strokes. As I said, I use both for what I find to be their strengths. I think overall Apple's focus and strength with both iPhoto and Aperture is on image management post-image processing rather than image processing, and Adobe's strength is definitely on the image processing workflow. That's why my workflow runs through Lightroom and into Aperture with my completed projects.

    At least there are great choices to be had... :-) :-)

  16. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Czech Republic and Austria
    Posts
    305
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    52

    Re: LR vs. Aperture for MF?

    I use LR3 with the M9 files as well as with DNGs generated by Captureshop from my Sinar eMotion MFDB files. I have tried C1 many times and, while it has some advantages for me (better moire control, useful keystone correction tool) I do not like the layout and workflow. The DNGs from both of my cameras edit really well in LR3 (I have no experience with Leaf files).

  17. #17
    Subscriber gogopix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,383
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: LR vs. Aperture for MF?

    I am sure, as in most professions, tools are personal. That said, even with limits on asset management (actually BRIDGE I find best for keywords) C1 just produces the best files,...for me. I have M9 and P65+ as the main raw, but also DMR and S2 occassionally. I just can't STAND the IMPORT needed in LR
    I think it would be difficult to trade IQ for easier workflow; it jsut isn't a question; why leave quality on the table. ACR just isn't as good, and I believe for selected cameras that has been demonstrated here.
    That said, the newer C1 does a better job with metadata, allows direct access to folders as well as favorites and sessions.

    Did I mention that I just can't STAND the IMPORT needed in LR

    Victor

  18. #18
    Senior Member Graham Mitchell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    London/Kiev
    Posts
    1,079
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: LR vs. Aperture for MF?

    I am playing around with an ISO 800 file from a Leaf Aptus II 12 back right now, and I must say that C1 is doing a much better job of cleaning up the noise than LR. So to the original poster I would add that you should probably do some thorough image quality testing with different kinds of files from whatever camera you end up getting before settling on a workflow.

  19. #19
    Subscriber gogopix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,383
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: LR vs. Aperture for MF?

    Well said, Graham.

  20. #20
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: LR vs. Aperture for MF?

    Quote Originally Posted by Graham Mitchell View Post
    I am playing around with an ISO 800 file from a Leaf Aptus II 12 back right now, and I must say that C1 is doing a much better job of cleaning up the noise than LR. So to the original poster I would add that you should probably do some thorough image quality testing with different kinds of files from whatever camera you end up getting before settling on a workflow.
    Sounds like a nice back for you Graham.

    I do have to agree with you the Phase or leaf backs just sing in C1.
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  21. #21
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    iiiNelson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    3,183
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: LR vs. Aperture for MF?

    I was a HUGE Lightroom 2 user and it was really the only option for me when I was primarily shooting with Micro 4/3 if I didn't want to get stuck with Silkypix. I loved it plain and simple. I upgraded to LR3 when I got the M9 buuuuut...

    By that timeI won a free boxed copy of Aperture 3. Apple is doing a much better job at supporting new cameras more quickly than they did with Aperture 2. That was the main reason Aperture was never a true option for me before. They didn't support the full DNG standard or lens correction profiles prior to Aperture 3 without haveing to "hack" the program.

    Which brings me to Capture 1. Admittedly the last version I used was C1 4 which came with my D-Lux4. I could get good results out it but it didn't "work" with my brain AT ALL. That being said if I were going MF I would seriously consider learning the RAW processor that your camera was "designed"for. That mean C1 for Phase One, Leaf, or Mamiya and LR3 or Aperture 3 for Leica.
    Sony Visible Light & IR Photographer
    http://www.iiinelsonimages.com

  22. #22
    Subscriber Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Napa
    Posts
    362
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    173

    Re: LR vs. Aperture for MF?

    Before I got my Phase One I used a combo of Lightroom 2 (and then 3) with Photoshop. LR did an excellent job of sorting and filing, whereas PS did the grunt work.
    After I got my Phase One I bought C1. I don't use Lightroom at all currently, and I rarely use PS. C1 does it all, quicker, better, and easier. It has features like dust removal that are so obvious and yet Adobe has not incorporated it into their software modules.

    This is being written by someone that was at the 20th anniversary of PS. I know what Adobe plans for LR are, and it will be a superb product as they develop it. But C1 stands above it currently and I will continue to use it until I see a reason to migrate back to an Adobe product. I rather doubt that will be anytime soon...

  23. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Hong Kong / Asia
    Posts
    524
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: LR vs. Aperture for MF?

    Quote Originally Posted by ringthane View Post
    Thanks Anders. Does Capture One also serve as an 'digital asset manager' or does it simply serve as a raw convertor/editor? Looks like I need to read up on the Phase One site...
    Capture One does not but nevertheless have in my experience the most brilliant default means for organizing files and setting up "project directories" with subfolders. It also works when you copy the "project directories" to a new location. Please check Phase One tutorials on Capture One Pro.

    On other hand for someone looking for a photo manager Phase One now also have Media Pro as a compatible option.

    When going with medium format digital, I suggest to consider the critical is the step up in image quality. Thus it can be assumed that one trade off image quality if going with a more general converter such as LR or Aperture, which is not working with an emphasis of e.g. Phase One or Leaf backs. Leaf now being a Phase One company means per my understanding that Leaf engineers are involved in decoding methods in Capture One, thus results should be warranteed compared to LR and Aperture and the likes. However, Capture One is also highly reputable for other cameras since Phase One apperant also specialize on state of art tool for those.

    The tutorials on Capture One really tells you well of the software. When I looked at Capture One around 3-4 years ago I honest did not like it at all. Since then it has improved. I tried it again the other year and was impressed to point of being blown away of it matching my brain; photographically inclined.

    If we speak of Leica S2 or Hasselblad backs, then perhaps their recommended software are the ones that are most suited. I do not know.

    What I can say about the Afi-II 12 (internals same as Aptus-II 12) is that it is not the number of pixels itself that impress me. Sure they are more, but the important is better colors, a finer gradation of colors, larger DR that makes it a significant improvement to my older Aptus 65 and likewise per my impression over the Aptus-II 10.

    Regards
    Anders

  24. #24
    Workshop Member Wayne Fox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Draper, Utah
    Posts
    871
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    134

    Re: LR vs. Aperture for MF?

    A few things ...

    Aperture is cheap now, only $79, and I believe can run on any machine you register in your iTunes account.

    Lightroom is by far the most useful tool when it comes to local adjustments. C1 can do many things now with theirs, but it's a pain, slow and not nearly as versatile. No graduated filters, brush is pretty much blow it to 100%, the brush tool only shows you the entire area being affected but doesn't have a second ring to show you where the transition from 100% starts so it's hit and miss and you can't do anything very accurate. However, for pure conversions, I think it's the best, and the color editor is incredibly powerful.

    So I love LR, and my main procedure is everything gets imported and organized on my machine with LR, I often do quick edits to see what files I like best, but then move to C1 (for my Phase files). In C1, I have one master session file, and basically I just use the Library list to navigate through my files. I don't bother with the session folder structure, I set specific folders for my conversions to be stored, or I tell C1 to store them with the original files.

    Often I'll open the converted tiff file back in Lightroom and do some serious tweaking there with local adjustments, and then will open that in Photoshop including the LR adjustments for things more easily done in PS (usually as a smart layer), including creative sharpening, some luminance masks, etc.

    One thing I can't figure out is keywords and ratings created in LR do not show up in C1 and vice versa. Even if you tell LR to update metadata, seems it won't store it in the actual file. I thought this was a standard so it should work. That would make my workflow even easier ... rate them in LR and then only have those show up in C1.
    wayne
    My gallery

  25. #25
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    69
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: LR vs. Aperture for MF?

    I'll agree with Wayne. I love Lightroom. I love Capture One Pro. I use LeafCapture to uncompress(only non LCC critical files) for use in Lightroom. If you are shooting with a technical camera with LCC's then Lightroom loses, period.

    I use Lightroom for easier processing and some of the extra tools that make it much faster to me. I have seen a comparison done to the same file in both Lightroom and Capture One Pro with the same adjustments. Hands down Lightroom loses. Image quality is night and day better when processed in Capture One Pro. I'll use the canon wide glass compared to Leica M wide glass. Yes, it is that much better. And sometimes you need that. Sometimes, being on the computer 8 hours vs 24 is worth a loss in quality depending on the final use. Only you can make that call.

    When Capture One Pro ads a couple more Lightroom features to it's tool kit, Lightroom will go away from my and I'm sure many computers. Imagine (multiple) white balance linked to your local adjustment layers... Etc. They are updating features often. Yes, I predict more time shooting, less time in the darkroom.

    Robb Williamson



    Quote Originally Posted by Wayne Fox View Post
    A few things ...

    Aperture is cheap now, only $79, and I believe can run on any machine you register in your iTunes account.

    Lightroom is by far the most useful tool when it comes to local adjustments. C1 can do many things now with theirs, but it's a pain, slow and not nearly as versatile. No graduated filters, brush is pretty much blow it to 100%, the brush tool only shows you the entire area being affected but doesn't have a second ring to show you where the transition from 100% starts so it's hit and miss and you can't do anything very accurate. However, for pure conversions, I think it's the best, and the color editor is incredibly powerful.

    So I love LR, and my main procedure is everything gets imported and organized on my machine with LR, I often do quick edits to see what files I like best, but then move to C1 (for my Phase files). In C1, I have one master session file, and basically I just use the Library list to navigate through my files. I don't bother with the session folder structure, I set specific folders for my conversions to be stored, or I tell C1 to store them with the original files.

    Often I'll open the converted tiff file back in Lightroom and do some serious tweaking there with local adjustments, and then will open that in Photoshop including the LR adjustments for things more easily done in PS (usually as a smart layer), including creative sharpening, some luminance masks, etc.

    One thing I can't figure out is keywords and ratings created in LR do not show up in C1 and vice versa. Even if you tell LR to update metadata, seems it won't store it in the actual file. I thought this was a standard so it should work. That would make my workflow even easier ... rate them in LR and then only have those show up in C1.

  26. #26
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Port Orchard, WA
    Posts
    157
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: LR vs. Aperture for MF?

    As a long time Aperture user (Yes, I suffered through Aperture 1 and still use it) I think the Aperture vs LR really boils down to how the tool fits in with how you work. Aperture did a better DAM job when I trialed LR. And the flow through LR just felt wrong and I really wanted it to work as I really wanted to junk Aperture.

    Now shooting MF, I've come, back, to C1. I find it great for single image adjustments. It's clunky as all get out when I've feed it one of my normal jobs ( Canon 1DIII/1DsIII dance images) and using it to cull/sort/separate is slow and tedious and I haven't even tried to get output from C1 on a per routine basis yet.

    The output I've gotten out of C1 has exceeded Aperture.

  27. #27
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,927
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: LR vs. Aperture for MF?

    Wayne

    If you are working with native raw files, LR writes metadata setting in the catalog file and writes out metadata as .XMP sidecar files, not into the raw files themselves. C1 would need to be able to parse and use the .XMP metadata for ratings, etc, to transfer from LR.

  28. #28
    Senior Member dchew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Northeast Ohio
    Posts
    970
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: LR vs. Aperture for MF?

    I too use C1 for developing MF files, then export/import to Lightroom. Like Wayne, i prefer the local adjustments in LR. Also, I find spot removal to be slow in C1, and I sometimes get strange results. Often I will give up and do spot removal in LR after tiff conversion.

    Dave

  29. #29
    Member David Duffin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    77
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: LR vs. Aperture for MF?

    Quote Originally Posted by dchew View Post
    I too use C1 for developing MF files, then export/import to Lightroom. Like Wayne, i prefer the local adjustments in LR. Also, I find spot removal to be slow in C1, and I sometimes get strange results. Often I will give up and do spot removal in LR after tiff conversion.

    Dave
    Dave I've noticed this in C1 too -- it's just as if the program is deciding that what I try to remove isn't really a dust spot so it refuses to remove it.

    When removing spots from an entire session though, IMO C1 can't be beat.

  30. #30
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: LR vs. Aperture for MF?

    Next workshop I will teach you guys how to rip through C1 like no ones business.
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  31. #31
    Member David Duffin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    77
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: LR vs. Aperture for MF?

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Mancuso View Post
    Next workshop I will teach you guys how to rip through C1 like no ones business.
    Ha! It'll be great to know how to process that unremoveable spot

  32. #32
    Workshop Member Wayne Fox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Draper, Utah
    Posts
    871
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    134

    Re: LR vs. Aperture for MF?

    Quote Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
    Wayne

    If you are working with native raw files, LR writes metadata setting in the catalog file and writes out metadata as .XMP sidecar files, not into the raw files themselves. C1 would need to be able to parse and use the .XMP metadata for ratings, etc, to transfer from LR.
    I assumed that, however it seems some metadata should be able to be written into the file itself. If I add keywords to a file or a rating, shouldn't I have an option to put those in the file so every program can see them? I assume that's one thing Phase is trying to do with the EIP format, and maybe Adobe with DNG, but right now it's a pain.

    Of course you have two competitors which both hope you would just use their product, so no real motivation to cooperate.
    wayne
    My gallery

  33. #33
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,927
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: LR vs. Aperture for MF?

    Quote Originally Posted by Wayne Fox View Post
    I assumed that, however it seems some metadata should be able to be written into the file itself. If I add keywords to a file or a rating, shouldn't I have an option to put those in the file so every program can see them? I assume that's one thing Phase is trying to do with the EIP format, and maybe Adobe with DNG, but right now it's a pain.

    Of course you have two competitors which both hope you would just use their product, so no real motivation to cooperate.
    For JPEG, TIFF, PSD and DNG files, metadata is incorporated into the files themselves according to the various (and many) standards for each format, including Adobe's eXtensible Metadata Platform specifications (see http://www.adobe.com/products/xmp/ for details about XMP ... it's designed to be a cross-platform metadata encoding standard which many manufacturers participate in).

    However, native raw files, because they follow proprietary manufacturer rules and are undocumented, are treated as read-only by most software. So appended metadata cannot be enclosed in the original file (who could tell what it might break without testing all possible combinations of metadata and files!). Lightroom writes it into .XMP sidecar files for others to use, Aperture stores it in their own library structure ... i don't know what C1 does, but i'm pretty sure it is never putting it into the native raw files themselves.

    Adobe is a stronger player in the industry which gives DNG and XMP a more secure footing as an industry standard for these sorts of things. After all, Adobe is also the custodian for TIFF format specifications, which is the most generally used "standard" image file format out there besides JPEG.

  34. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Hong Kong / Asia
    Posts
    524
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: LR vs. Aperture for MF?

    Quote Originally Posted by Wayne Fox View Post
    C1 can do many things now with theirs, but it's a pain, slow and not nearly as versatile.
    There are differing views of course which tells that we all have tad different preferences. While C1 could add a tool for making selections more intelligent like LR/Camera Raw (which they hopefully will), I still prefer the way I can work with adjustments and all else in C1 compared to LR/Camera Raw. Lets bear in mind that C1 adjustment functions are also new and they thus will likely keep adding more and more in next coming versions...

    Speed? I am on a Macbook Pro 17" first generation unibody with 4GB but else full spec including SSD. I can say that during adjustments I barely notice change in speed between working on my 80MP Afi12 files compared to 28MP Aptus 65 files! C1 is FAST. Perhaps this is chiefly because it utilize the graphic card directly? The time I do notice slower is when it does not matter too much, during import and processing.

    Regards
    Anders

  35. #35
    Workshop Member Wayne Fox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Draper, Utah
    Posts
    871
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    134

    Re: LR vs. Aperture for MF?

    Quote Originally Posted by Anders_HK View Post
    There are differing views of course which tells that we all have tad different preferences. While C1 could add a tool for making selections more intelligent like LR/Camera Raw (which they hopefully will), I still prefer the way I can work with adjustments and all else in C1 compared to LR/Camera Raw. Lets bear in mind that C1 adjustment functions are also new and they thus will likely keep adding more and more in next coming versions...

    Speed? I am on a Macbook Pro 17" first generation unibody with 4GB but else full spec including SSD. I can say that during adjustments I barely notice change in speed between working on my 80MP Afi12 files compared to 28MP Aptus 65 files! C1 is FAST. Perhaps this is chiefly because it utilize the graphic card directly? The time I do notice slower is when it does not matter too much, during import and processing.

    Regards
    Anders
    by slow, I was not referring to the speed of the computer or the program. I was referring to the time it takes me to create effective local adjustments. The brush itself does not show you what it's doing. Try this ... create a large area of an adjustment with the mask on. Set it to erase, and set the hardness to 100 ... now click. Even though there is no transition the brush guide is useless in letting you know where the edge of the brush is. Despite being on a 12core mac with 24gigs of ram, drawing a local adjustment and using the mask as a guide has to be done extremely slowly. Often it's easier to just swipe quickly and then hit command Z and try it again of you missed.

    So even though the new adjustments are useful, and for simple things OK, they aren't anywhere close to the effectiveness of those in LR. Using them is slow and challenging, although I do use them more than I thought I would. It would be much easier if the brush itself applied at various densities like LR, instead you have to stack multiple adjustments on top of each other. Works OK, but again slow.

    I hope you are right .. I hope they keep getting better so they are more useful. But for now, I find myself using local adjustments on tiffs rendered from C1 in LR or ACR. I don't think this a big quality problem, no worse than doing it in PS, and pretty much what we've been doing for a long time.

    I like C1 and use it. I think I get truer renderings and appreciate the abilty to make direct edits in a levels dialog so I can truely set a white point, and not just a psuedo white point like I get with LR's exposure slider. I do think C1 should read .xmp sidecar files to pull in some metadata (and really believe the metadata portion of all raw files should be standarized, open and accessible to any program I would like to give access), and I hope the local adjustments will get much better.
    wayne
    My gallery

  36. #36
    ringthane
    Guest

    Re: LR vs. Aperture for MF?

    Just wanted to thank everyone for tossing in their .02. It's definitely giving me an idea of what I'm getting myself into!

  37. #37
    Subscriber gogopix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,383
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: LR vs. Aperture for MF?

    Quote Originally Posted by David Duffin View Post
    Ha! It'll be great to know how to process that unremoveable spot
    someone else mentioned C1 and PS in tandem. The workflow I've settled into is
    1. Put files in a sanely defined folder (camera-series-date-a few keywords")
    1a.Copy the raw folder to another drive, WITH the folder name)
    2. Open and Rate in C1, trashing the "no star' pix [remmebr I have a copy of all raw, and actually a second archive on DROBO)
    3. Adjust and process to a Prophoto tiff 16 bit in Develops (I usually only process 3* and above) (this gets a exposed WBed, cropped, enhanced-clarity, MINIMAL sharpening and NR if needed (or defer to Neatimage) as needed pix)
    4. Open in bridge and keyword the 'developed' files (ratings, keywords are flaky in C1; maybe Guy knows, but ratings stick but keywords don't in processed files)
    5. Go to PS with the ones for printing now, and save as whatever in a folder for the shoot (tiff for Qimage, jpg for an older Kodak, and/or web)
    5a. Heal, clone, maybe image size or compose for a collage. Otherwise, C1 gets the developing ALMOST to a printable image...but the spot removal, esp the context sensitive? no.
    6. Open in Qimage and print to size

    That way I get 3 copies of keepers over 3*, copy of all raw 1* and above, and an archive of all. I also have a develops files of best IQ, and usually a "put on my site" set of 2000 pixel, jpgs) and I can find all in ACDSEE with folder search, keyward, date, shoot, category etc.

    Sounds complicated but isnt

    Now, It took me a lot of trial and error. I would love to be ablke to see a workshop to avoid the PS step, but the tools and ad ons like Genuine fractals, Neatimage, Fcoalblade and a few others for special work cant really be done in C1. However, IF they just got the healing brush and a good outliner, then I wlould only need C1 and Qimage. (

    ACDSEE really does a good job for viewing though, and d\searching on keywords works well in PS Btridge.

    Regards
    Victor

  38. #38
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    3,274
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    7

    Re: LR vs. Aperture for MF?

    Quote Originally Posted by Wayne Fox View Post
    I assumed that, however it seems some metadata should be able to be written into the file itself. If I add keywords to a file or a rating, shouldn't I have an option to put those in the file so every program can see them?
    Only if you want multiple programs to be allowed to (constantly) make write commands to your raw files. That sounds like a great recipe for (occasionally, but not rarely enough to be ignored) corrupted files.

    The only time I want a program to make ANY write command to my raw files is when I specifically ask it to (which means I know I have a good backup already and will pay attention for any signs of trouble). That's one of the central reasons many software packages use sidecars (or central databases).

    Now some XMP can be shared with C1. Check in the preferences menu.

    Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
    __________________

    Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
    Phase One Partner of the Year
    Leaf, Leica, Cambo, Arca Swiss, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Broncolor, Eizo & More

    National: 877.217.9870 *| *Cell: 740.707.2183
    Newsletter | RSS Feed
    Buy Capture One 6 at 10% off

  39. #39
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    3,274
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    7

    Re: LR vs. Aperture for MF?

    Quote Originally Posted by Wayne Fox View Post
    by slow, I was not referring to the speed of the computer or the program. I was referring to the time it takes me to create effective local adjustments. The brush itself does not show you what it's doing. Try this ... create a large area of an adjustment with the mask on. Set it to erase, and set the hardness to 100 ... now click. Even though there is no transition the brush guide is useless in letting you know where the edge of the brush is. Despite being on a 12core mac with 24gigs of ram, drawing a local adjustment and using the mask as a guide has to be done extremely slowly. Often it's easier to just swipe quickly and then hit command Z and try it again of you missed.

    So even though the new adjustments are useful, and for simple things OK, they aren't anywhere close to the effectiveness of those in LR. Using them is slow and challenging, although I do use them more than I thought I would. It would be much easier if the brush itself applied at various densities like LR, instead you have to stack multiple adjustments on top of each other. Works OK, but again slow.

    I hope you are right .. I hope they keep getting better so they are more useful.
    I don't think there is any argument that LR has a lead right now in the ease/speed of local adjustments.

    I would argue that the quality of local adjustments (color accuracy with strong adjustments, noise/detail rendition, the fineness of control, the ability to apply moire reduction locally, the ability to render localized color-editor changes etc) is higher in C1.

    By the way, you may find local adjustments in C1 less frustrating once you start using the "m" shortcut key to manually turn on and off the mask (depending on your needs) rather than relying on the auto-show-mask feature. The new "copy mask from" command also helps when you have to stack multiple layers to accomplish a goal.

    But clearly the UI of local adjustments is something that can and should be improved (opacity, gradients, faster drawing), and given that they only released the very first generation of Local Adjustments late last year I'd expect to see some pretty great improvements in this area in the coming months.

    Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
    __________________

    Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
    Phase One Partner of the Year
    Leaf, Leica, Cambo, Arca Swiss, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Broncolor, Eizo & More

    National: 877.217.9870 *| *Cell: 740.707.2183
    Newsletter | RSS Feed
    Buy Capture One 6 at 10% off

  40. #40
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    3,274
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    7

    Re: LR vs. Aperture for MF?

    I don't have time to review my entire workflow, but my personal catalog/workflow works like this:

    C1: Import/Edit/Adjust/Rename the images as a session
    C1: Process the Selects to 16 bit to the output folder of the session
    PS: Open anything that needs retouching (e.g. liquify, texture painting, object removal) / Save
    C1: Process the 16-bit TIFFS (so that retouching is included where applicable) to two final-uses:
    ---- Facebook: Small JPGs with watermark
    ---- Client-DVD: Large High Quality JPGs

    I then burn a DVD with the JPGs, upload the Small JPGs to Facebook, and then delete those files.

    I empty my session trash (by now I can be sure whether I needed to use a crap image for a head/hand/texture/etc).

    I then Import the 16-Bit TIFFs to an Aperture Project. I copy/paste the name of the session. My C1 Sessions and Aperture both have six categories (Weddings, Nudes, Fashion-Portrait, Landscape, Life, Other) so there is very little effort to keep them coordinated.

    The upshot is I can keep the super-select retouched images in a catalog for catalog-required-tasks such as:
    - pulling the years best images for marketing
    - making books/albums
    - showing potential wedding client's complete weddings

    There is no need (in my personal workflow) to have instant access to a raw file behind a catalog'd final image. I VERY rarely would need to go back and retweak a file starting at the raw stage (I do my photoshop in layers, so if I screwed up retouching I could simply reopen the layered TIFF in PS from Aperture and re-shop it as needed). Not having the non-select images in the catalog is huge boon to me; keeping the size of the catalog done, and the "riff-raff" out.

    This basically separates the files into:
    - Raws / Movies*
    - Finals

    There is not anything about this workflow that I hold up as the only way to workflow-happiness. It is specific to my needs, and I could do it many other ways. Just one of many ways to skin a cat that works really well for me.

    P.S. I tried really hard to move my entire wedding workflow to Aperture 3 when it came out. I consider myself a pretty high-level users of Aperture, and I simply could not get my workflow done as quickly as in Capture One. Reducing 1200 images down to 300-400 images, adjusting them, applying some styling, adjusting similar images to matching exposure, retouching as needed, and creating a client DVD, a watermarked facebook album takes a lot of time in any program. But it takes me much less in C1.

    Note I'm biased as my job title includes "Capture One Guru" but I assure you that when I'm taking a Sunday afternoon to catch up on wedding processing that I will use whatever the heck will give me very good results in the shortest time possible. For me, right now, that's C1.

    *5DII video clips

    Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
    __________________

    Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
    Phase One Partner of the Year
    Leaf, Leica, Cambo, Arca Swiss, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Broncolor, Eizo & More

    National: 877.217.9870 *| *Cell: 740.707.2183
    Newsletter | RSS Feed
    Buy Capture One 6 at 10% off

  41. #41
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Munich
    Posts
    876
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: LR vs. Aperture for MF?

    I personally use C1 for most raw files, especially all phase raw files.

    However, I would say that the highlight and shadow recovery in C1 is just bad, or better a load of crap. Many other programs work much better. The HDR skideres are no real recovery sliders. I would call them mush sliders. The only real way to get the details in the shadows with a back like the P65 or IQ180 in a high contrast image is to use the HDR LCC trick. Once again C1 failed me, as I can't use it, because the LCC is already used by the real LCC file.

    This really goes on my nerves, because it takes a lot more time tomopen up the shadows in PS.

  42. #42
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    548
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: LR vs. Aperture for MF?

    Quote Originally Posted by dougpetersonci View Post
    I don't have time to review my entire workflow, but my personal catalog/workflow works like this:

    C1: Import/Edit/Adjust/Rename the images as a session
    C1: Process the Selects to 16 bit to the output folder of the session
    PS: Open anything that needs retouching (e.g. liquify, texture painting, object removal) / Save
    C1: Process the 16-bit TIFFS (so that retouching is included where applicable) to two final-uses:
    ---- Facebook: Small JPGs with watermark
    ---- Client-DVD: Large High Quality JPGs

    I then burn a DVD with the JPGs, upload the Small JPGs to Facebook, and then delete those files.

    I empty my session trash (by now I can be sure whether I needed to use a crap image for a head/hand/texture/etc).

    I then Import the 16-Bit TIFFs to an Aperture Project. I copy/paste the name of the session. My C1 Sessions and Aperture both have six categories (Weddings, Nudes, Fashion-Portrait, Landscape, Life, Other) so there is very little effort to keep them coordinated.

    The upshot is I can keep the super-select retouched images in a catalog for catalog-required-tasks such as:
    - pulling the years best images for marketing
    - making books/albums
    - showing potential wedding client's complete weddings

    There is no need (in my personal workflow) to have instant access to a raw file behind a catalog'd final image. I VERY rarely would need to go back and retweak a file starting at the raw stage (I do my photoshop in layers, so if I screwed up retouching I could simply reopen the layered TIFF in PS from Aperture and re-shop it as needed). Not having the non-select images in the catalog is huge boon to me; keeping the size of the catalog done, and the "riff-raff" out.

    This basically separates the files into:
    - Raws / Movies*
    - Finals
    nicely stated and a good model to try.

  43. #43
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: LR vs. Aperture for MF?

    Here's my workflow using Lightroom. This is usually based on wedding work which can involve a lot of files from a number of different cameras ... like a M9, Sony A900, my second shooter's Canon, and sometimes the S2 or Hasselblad H4D60.

    Use 4 daisy-chained Lexar FW800 card readers to download to a master file ... a few SDs from the Leica M downloaded at the same time to the same master file. Pull the cards and set aside.

    Open LR and select the master file sorted by time shot to keep everything in the story line intact regardless of camera used. This is literally instantaneous. Zoom the previews and uncheck all the obvious mis-shots and junk.

    Click import, and immediately go to the Develop Module and start adjusting the very first files loaded as the remaining ones load in the background. It is not necessary to wait until everything is loaded. The key is to only apply things like crops, straightening or localized exposure balance ... because when the whole catalog is loaded you can then apply general batch settings to everything at once.

    There are now so many localized tools in LR, that it is rare to need PS ... but I have it as a plug-in as well as a few other programs like Define 2 and Silver Efx. The key is that any adjustments made in PS goes back into LR next to the RAW file. Using "virtual Copy" I can also have the color, B&W and toned versions all together in the story line.

    Once the entire catalog is loaded, I select by metadata and apply general batch settings like fringe or a profile to specific lenses or cameras.

    Once this is done it is all backed up to the file for that wedding ... output can vary widely based on client needs, but the files all are at max size and can be outputted to meet specifications.

    I can send to a social site, or to my Smugmug page, print proofs, make a web preview, or a slide show directly from LR without leaving it for a different program.

    This has dramatically cut my computer time for each job.

    -Marc

  44. #44
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,927
    Post Thanks / Like

    since we're doing workflow descriptions ...

    LR workflow:

    - import originals into "in progress" LR *. During import, files go into right place in file hierarchy, split off archive duplicates to supplementary drive, rename to standard convention, add IPTC copyright/location/etc metadata from template, add general keywords for session entirety.

    * If for an assignment or specific project, originals go into a new Lightroom catalog. All further steps are done in the new catalog until rendering is completed, then the catalog is imported into the main "in progress" catalog to allow for future searches and category organization.
    - Sort for picks and reject using flags. Filter on picks and create new collection of them. Filter on unpicked and rejects, make second and third pass. Add any new picks to collection, delete all rejects. Switch to collection.

    - run backup system

    - Grade picks in collection. As grading progresses, render images. Refine metadata annotation and complete rendering (round trip to PS occasionally).

    - Export products to project folder in completed projects (archive max rez 16bit TIFFs, and specific product outputs for client use). Prepare images for printing, web, etc etc. Annotate and document project (external to Lightroom, text or word processing file in the project directory, also rendered to PDF). Import projects into separate "completed work" Lightroom catalog for easy future access.

    - run backup system

    - Roll output products into Aperture as appropriate.
    - Print output products as appropriate.
    - Make web galleries as appropriate.
    - etc etc

    - run backup system

    Notes:
    - all image files and work is backed up into multiple separate archives regularly to minimize risk of loss.
    - all *finished* images are exported to most editable, most complete TIFF format to minimize risk of loss.
    - annotation in metadata is supplemented by documentation in project organization. this makes for a good transition to dedicated archiving and image cataloging software if required in the future.
    - use of Aperture is for post image processing project use .. books, slide shows, as a distribution point for images into integrated multimedia projects, etc. Aperture libraries always look at the completed work files by reference to minimize space consumption on disk.

    Works nicely for me. I'm not shooting with medium format digital cameras at present so I can't really comment on how much better or worse Lightroom's rendering qualities might be compared to Aperture's or C1s, or any other raw converter, for those cameras. But I like the use of LR for workflow the most of any other software I've used to date.

  45. #45
    Workshop Member Wayne Fox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Draper, Utah
    Posts
    871
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    134

    Re: LR vs. Aperture for MF?

    Quote Originally Posted by dougpetersonci View Post
    Only if you want multiple programs to be allowed to (constantly) make write commands to your raw files. That sounds like a great recipe for (occasionally, but not rarely enough to be ignored) corrupted files.

    The only time I want a program to make ANY write command to my raw files is when I specifically ask it to (which means I know I have a good backup already and will pay attention for any signs of trouble).
    Exactly. If I want it be able to do it, I should be able to. Obviously there is a minuscule chance of corruption, but as mentioned, my work files are always 3rd copies ... I have two others that are never touched.

    Now some XMP can be shared with C1. Check in the preferences menu.

    Doug Peterson
    Very interesting. Had no clue that was there - it may be just the ticket for letting LR and C1 communicate keywords and ratings. thanks

    Edit: Just tried it, and very workable. LR and C1 now share my keywords and ratings. Almost automatic except if you make changes in C1 you have to tell LR to read in the metadata.
    Last edited by Wayne Fox; 8th July 2011 at 15:19.
    wayne
    My gallery

  46. #46
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Arlington VA
    Posts
    746
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    11

    Re: LR vs. Aperture for MF?

    Let's get to the meat of the issue - the gear, after all, who really cares about software ... :-0
    Before you throw down 25k on the body and an average price of 6k per lens (if you can find them) on the S2, go take a look at the Pentax 645D. I had the M9 for a year. It produced great files, but I could not get used to a rangefinder. I replaced my Nikon D3x with the 645D last month and the files are truly amazing. 10k for this camera is a steal. I use LR3 with it and get great results, some of which I have posted in the Fun with 645D thread.
    On-line portfolio
    www.abouddweck.com

  47. #47
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,927
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: LR vs. Aperture for MF?

    Quote Originally Posted by Wayne Fox View Post
    ... Very interesting. Had no clue that was there - it may be just the ticket for letting LR and C1 communicate keywords and ratings. thanks

    Edit: Just tried it, and very workable. LR and C1 now share my keywords and ratings. Almost automatic except if you make changes in C1 you have to tell LR to read in the metadata.
    You might go to the LR Catalog Preferences, Metadata tab, and turn on "automatically write changes into XMP". I believe this will automate Lightroom's writing and reading changes to .XMP sidecar files, but haven't tested to find out.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •