John Nack: Lightroom pulls further ahead of Aperture

Apple have really dropped the ball on this one! I guess the problem is with Apple is they are essentially a hardware company; Snow Leopard has shown that software is a value add for them.  Aperture 3 will be a big decider for a lot of photographers.  I for one made the jump to Lightroom a few months ago and am very very happy with the software – I'll take a massive intervention in the next version of Aperture to win back my loyalties.

Lightroom pulls further ahead of Aperture
via John Nack on Adobe on 21/09/09

The past couple of years at this time (see entries for 2007, 2008), independent research company InfoTrends has surveyed professional photographers* about their choices of raw image-processing tools. It's interesting to check in on how the competition between Adobe Photoshop Lightroom & Apple Aperture is going.

Among photographic pros using the Mac,

In 2007 Lightroom was nearly twice as popular as Aperture

In 2008 it was nearly three times as popular

In 2009 it's approaching four times as popular

By the numbers:

	2007	2008	2009
Photoshop Camera Raw plug-in	66.5%	62.2%	57.9%
Lightroom	23.6%	35.9%	37.0%
Aperture	5.5%	7.5%	6.3%
On the Mac platform only:
Lightroom	26.6%	40.4%	44.4%
Aperture	14.3%	14.6%	12.5%

You might notice some decline in the use of the Camera Raw plug-in inside Photoshop as more pros move to using Lightroom. Let me be clear in noting that Photoshop use among these pros remains in the 90% range, and that the decline applies only to Camera Raw usage. (That makes sense as Lightroom and Camera Raw share the same processing engine, and photographers are, as expected, handling more of their raw processing in Lightroom.)

 
 

Do not convert LX3 RAW to DNG for now

I think this is a very important point when considering whether to convert to DNG on import (or round-trip to DNG in order to work with the RAW files in Apple Aperture which does not support the RW2 format yet).

In a nutshell, the RW2 RAW file contains additional metadata which  allows certain manufacturers to compensate for issues with their lenses; in the case of the LX3 it seems this information contains information to compensate for barrel distortion.  The DNG specification does not allow for this additional metadata at this time although Adobe has been very transparent about this and is planning on including it in future releases.  So when you convert your LX3 RAW file to DNG, essentially what it is doing is demosaicing the file and creating a linear DNG which explains the size jump of about 3 times the RAW file.

As this data is demosaiced, and therefor not a true reflection of raw sensor data; my advice if you are round-tripping your LX3 files to DNG in Aperture or have DNG conversion as part of your long term archival strategy is to keep your RW2 files.   If you demosaic the file you are losing information, this is fine post processing when you are happy with your adjustments however this is not an optimal thing to be doing when importing your file.

Here is a snippet from Adobe:

With the release of Camera Raw 5.2 (and upcoming release of Adobe Photoshop Lightroom® 2.2), there is an important exception in DNG file handling for the Panasonic DMC-LX3, Panasonic DMC-FX150, Panasonic DMC-FZ28, Panasonic DMC-G1, and Leica D-LUX 4. For those who choose to convert these native, proprietary files to the DNG file format, a linear DNG format is the only conversion option available at this time. A linear DNG file has gone through a demosaic process that converts a single mosaic layer of red, green, and blue channel information into three distinct layers, one for each channel. The resulting linear DNG file is approximately three times the size of a mosaic DNG file or the original proprietary file format.

This exception is a temporary solution to help ensure that Panasonic’s and Leica’s intended image rendering from their proprietary raw file format is applied to an image when converted DNG files are viewed in third-party software titles. The same image-rendering process is applied automatically in Camera Raw 5.2 and in Photoshop Lightroom 2.2 when viewing the original proprietary raw file format.

In a future release, Adobe plans to update the DNG specification to include an option to embed metadata-based representations of the lens compensations in the DNG file, allowing a mosaic DNG conversion. In the interim, Adobe recommends only converting these files to DNG to allow compatibility with third-party raw converters, previous versions of the Camera Raw plug-in, or previous versions of Photoshop Lightroom.

Striving for Realism

Stables, originally uploaded by Stuart Forsyth.

Rob and I have been discussing how far a tone mapped HDR will take you towards a realistic look before the photographs end up looking like they were coloured in by an acid addict with a set of wax crayons.

In striving for realism, a match to the subjective picture you have in your mind’s eye; how the scene was lit, what mood was evoked, memories that are always somehow hyper-saturated with a fine Gaussian blur?

How close can you push it before you go over the cliff?

Aperture to DNG to Adobe Camera Raw Workflow

I’ve just made a really useful Automator workflow for fans of Aperture. The workflow allows me to select any number of .NEF raw files (either managed or as referenced masters) and with a single click perform the following actions:

• Generate XMP sidecar files with all Aperture metadata and export them with the .NEF to a working folder
• Combine the .XMP and the .NEF into a .DNG using the latest DNG converter from Adobe
• Remove the temporary .NEF and .XMP files leaving only the DNG files
• Open a finder dialog, allow me to select one or all of the DNG files
• Opens my selection for editing in Adobe Camera Raw

This is important to me as it allows me to use all the power and flexibility of Apertures photo management and retain the use of ALL the brilliant non-destructive editing tools of Lightroom (which are all available in the ACR interface). Further heavy pixel pushing from ACR straight to Photoshop is a further button click away.

There is a little basic setup required.

• Go to this site, download and install the DNG Automator action.
• If you don’t have it yet, go to Adobe and download their free DNG converter. Install it.
• Go to my Skydrive and download my workflow (or application if you prefer), unzip it and run it.

You should see something like this:

The workflow should open in Automator. Replace the areas in the image above which say Adobe Photoshop CS4 with the version you have (if you don’t have CS4).

You can now either run the workflow directly from Automator or (from Automator) click: File > Save as plugin. Select ‘Script menu’ under the plug-in for section and choose a name. The script is added to your scripts folder in your taskbar and you can access it really easily when you’re in Aperture.

Done! The best of Aperture goodness with the heavy lifting of ACR and Photoshop for when you want it.

The Aperture vs Lightroom Shootout

11 Feb 2010 (update) review of Aperture 3

I have been caught in a frenzy of indecision regarding my photo management software for months now.  I have used both Aperture and Lightroom extensively and there are aspects to both programs which I love and others which could really do with some improvement.  They are so close in so many respects that it makes choosing between the two almost impossible; the problem with the indecision is that I’m probably not getting the most out of the one program or the other.

I thought it would be useful to share with you my [Dons flame retardant flack-jacket] view on the relative strengths and weaknesses of each program and then follow up with my selection.  This is not a post meant to start a flame-war between Aperture or Lightroom evangelists; I’m a lone photographer who has used both products extensively and has had to settle on the best fit for me.

Apple Aperture: http://www.apple.com/aperture/

Apple’s Aperture is one slick program; it just makes managing your photos so easy and I love it.  The interface is clean and uncluttered providing you excellent customisable visibility over the information that is useful to you.  The Adjustments palette is easy to use and provides all the standard camera RAW and photographic adjustments that Lightroom does.  I also find Aperture does a much better job at ‘hiding’ more complex aspects of itself until you need it – a good example of this is the metadata views and presets in Aperture which are very understated but an incredibly powerful feature whereas Lightroom seems to throw the lot at you in an often times confusing manner.  In my opinion, Aperture has some clear strengths:

Strengths

• Adjustments - Aperture provides a wide variety of easy to use adjustments which excel at allowing a photographer to tweak the photo.  In terms of standard features like white balance, contrast, levels, black and white point, vibrancy, sharpening etc… both Aperture and Lightroom are on a par with not much to choose from.  Lightroom has a few killer adjustments up it’s sleeve though.
• Photo management and work flow – It really doesn’t get better than this.  Tethered shooting, lightbox functionality, auto stacks, keyword stamping and a blisteringly fast set of views mean you don’t spend time waiting for the software.  Aperture is a clear winner for me here.
• Destructive plugin architecture – I’ve heard a lot of people punting a non destructive plugin architecture but the truth is that only gets you so far and then you need to go into a destructive environment like Photoshop anyway anyway.  Non destructive plugins are a lot harder to write, and not baking the changes into the image means there is a performance cost to opening photos with non-destructive adjustments.  Aperture has a lot of plugins written for it which include the fantastic suite of Nik plugins released as an Aperture bundle – good times.  Happy photographers when the software library is corrupted or lost – edits are burned into the output format (tiff etc).
• Export Options – Aperture’s export options are better than Lightroom.  You can easily create web galleries,  create print quality hard and soft cover books and send your photos to a virtual lightbox so you can play with combinations of photos and see how they work together.
• Integration with other Apple programs means your photos, albums and smart albums are available to your iPhone, MobileMe galleries, iMovie, Final Cut and a whole host of other programs.
• Vault provides an easy way to backup and manage all your photos.
• Speed – Faster than Lightroom, from moving between your photos to applying adjustments, it’s a lot faster.
• Managed mode - Photos are automatically imported into the library and managed there.  One click backup to multiple devices with vault.
• Metadata – create powerful metadata presets to append to existing photos or new photos on import.  Ability to add your own metadata information to photos.

Weaknesses

• Referenced Masters file management – Not quite as strong as Lightroom, Aperture still relies quite heavily on it’s library to know about file location.
• Raw Updates – they always come but invariable Adobe beats Apple to them.  Not sure if rushing to release new raw updates are a good thing.
• Big Library – The Aperture library is always bigger than the Lightroom one however as Aperture is 2-3x faster at rendering images and information the extra harddisk space is a small price to pay.

Adobe Lightroom: http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshoplightroom/

With a big brother like Photoshop you’d be correct in thinking that Lightroom has some big guns when it comes to photo adjustments.  It doesn’t seem as  polished as Aperture and it’s nowhere (I mean nowhere!) as fast as Aperture;  I have subsequently learned that this is because Aperture stores all previews of photos (hence a massive Aperture library file) whereas Lightroom does the more space-friendly thing and stores only recent previews.

Strengths

• Adjustment tools – In addition to all the standard adjustment tools Lightroom has some additional ones which mean business.  The non destructive localised adjustment brush is outstanding; to be able to selectively modify local areas of colour, exposure and other parameters and apply them without having to apply complex photoshop masks is incredible.  Note: Aperture users can export to camera RAW in Photoshop CS4 (Photoshop can be set to open TIF files and JPGs in Camera RAW) and have the entire range of lightroom adjustment tools available.
• DNG - Easily convert RAW files to the digital negative format an excellent way to future-proof your photos.
• plugin architecture – non-destructive plugin architecture.  Has it pro’s and con’s – it’s all very nice to have 1000 beautifully edit photos and then have the library corrupt itself.  There are always library backups – in both Lightroom and Aperture make sure you backup regularly.
• Cross platform – Windows – clear advantage here.
• Integration with Photoshop – Seamless round-tripping to Adobe Camera Raw and Photoshop.
• Smaller library - Good for the laptops.

Weaknesses

• Speed – Consistently much slower than Aperture in all areas.  Displaying of images and editing.
• layout has always seemed a little clunky. Collapse some of the side toolbars and there is this annoying on-hover expansion – Coming from Aperture I really think that Adobe need to have a serious chat with the people in the UI department.  The side panels which, once hidden, pop out at you on mouseover are terribly annoying.  The other thing which I don’t like is the seperate areas you have to go to for viewing and editing,  in Aperture once you’re looking at the photo you can view, edit, export, send to lightboxes and perform a whole host of actions on it.
• Export options, books watermarking – The export options are not as strong as Aperture.  There is no support for my book creation, my favourite Aperture export option.

MY CONCLUSIONS:

So after going backwards and forwards for months I have finally settled on Aperture as my photo management software of choice.  I love the speed, the workflow tools, the ability to print books, the integration with my various web services and gadgets, the metadata presets and the ability to add my own metadata information and having the one-click Aperture vault backup.  It is a deceptive piece of software with much of the complexity and power hidden under the hood which won’t overwhelm newcomers.  Advances with technology in the new iLife series like facial recognition in iPhoto ’09 means Apple is not sleeping on their hands but are busy making huge strides in all the areas which are important to me as a photographer.

In the end both Aperture and Lightroom are sophisticated tools for both photographic workflow management and photo adjustments.  There is no right answer in choosing between the two of them and a decision boild down to a matter of personal taste.  If you are undecided then try both (both have demo versions) and decide which aspects win out for you.

DNG – My long term archival strategy

I have settled on Lightroom Aperture (update) as my photo management software of choice and Adobe’s DNG format as my long term photographic archive of choice.

My Nikon shoots raw NEF files but those waiting for the recent versions of Adobe and Apple camera raw to support the D700 NEF files showed me that not all NEF’s are created equal.  Combine this with the fact that my Fujifilm shoots it’s own bizarre propriety RAW format (thankfully still understood by Lightroom) and I reckon there is an impending disaster lurking somewhere down the line.

Enter the Digital Negative (DNG) and it’s groundswell of support by software vendors (Apple, Extensis) and camera manufacturers (Leica, Hasselblad, Ricoh and Samsung) amongst others.

DNG is a RAW container format designed to hold RAW data and, more importantly for me, the file metadata.  This eliminates the need for me to have separate sidecar metadata files and it means that all my non-destructive adjustments, keywords and other metadata are available across all the tools I use.  The DNG conversion process, either through Lightroom or the free converter, is very user friendly and the original RAW file and the sidecar updates are combined into the one DNG file.

As DNG employs more sophisticated compression algorithms there is invariably a space saving when converting from a RAW format like NEF to DNG.   If you’re concerned about being able to open your original RAW image in the future in the proprietary camera software (like the dreadful Capture NX) then you can embed a bit-for-bit copy of your RAW data into the DNG which you can extract later.

I am in the process of converting all my NEF files (and other RAW formats) to DNG; this gives me some level of comfort that in 15 years time the files will still be accessible and relevant to the software of the time.

Read more about DNG on the Adobe website.

Creamy Bokeh with Alien Skin

The photo above lets me kill two proverbial birds with one stone.  As I wrap up the year the weight of another move weighs on my mind.  We moved continents at the beginning of the year so moving house again, albeit just down the road, fills me with dread.  The photo above was taken on the last day of packing before all the household contents were put into the container.  It was incredible how the packers grafted the bubble wrap cardboard around every item of furniture – it was bizarre seeing bicycle or lamp shaped boxes.

So while I pondered whether I had the energy to pack the household into boxes again I played with the new Bokeh plugin from Alien Skin:

Bokeh is the only software that accurately simulates the distinctive blurring and creamy highlights of real lenses. Terence Tay, Bokeh’s designer, performed careful experiments with lenses famous for their bokeh highlights, such as the Canon® EF 85mm f/1.2 II and the Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8. The result is a photo-realistic look, in contrast to the unnatural blur from other software.

This plugin will allow me to add pleasing bokeh effects to photos taken with less capable cameras and turn the dial from average to good.  I’d like hearty lashings of double thick cream with my highlights if you please!

Download the trial and give it a go.

New Poll – Photo Management

So the results of the last poll showed that the majority of you, the readers of this journal, prefer a mix of photography related content which thankfully means I’m on the right track with my writing interests aligning with what you like to read.  I will start bringing more of the technology into the mix in 2009 and look to provide more of the story behind my pictures.

Here is a new poll which I’m going to leave up until the end of January.  It will tie in nicely with a post I have in the workshop on my dilemma in choosing between Aperture and Lightroom.

(Q) What software do you use to manage your photo workflow?