Was anyone else impressed with the new iphoto? I haven't used the old version, I'm a LR fan. However, the simplicity of use in the demo I've seen is impressing.
Do you ever think a future version of iphoto could be a LR replacement?
gxgn wrote:
Was anyone else impressed with the new iphoto? I haven't used the old version, I'm a LR fan. However, the simplicity of use in the demo I've seen is impressing.
Do you ever think a future version of iphoto could be a LR replacement?
not for serious work, well maybe it could come close for some but it would need a lot more work, a lot and some more subtle controls for some things
for now, it doesn't handle 5D2/5D3/A77/D800/D800E/D3X files as it tops out at 19MP images
I have tested Canon Digital Photo Professional (DPP), Iphoto, and Aperture 3
Yes, Iphoto is simple and easy, but did not give the quality of RAW conversions of Aperture 3 or Aperture 3
If you don't mind having you import into a library (as with Aperture/Lightroom) then Aperture 3 works well. I did not like having to keep everything in a library.
I chose Canon DPP & Photoshop CS5. You can just open up a RAW file and edit away. DPP saves changes into RAW file. CS5 Adobe Camera Raw creates a sidecar XMP file.
I'd be real surprised if Apple had different raw converters for different applications -- surely the raw converter for iPhoto is the same one as Aperture uses? But I've been surprised before...
abqnmusa wrote:
I have tested Canon Digital Photo Professional (DPP), Iphoto, and Aperture 3
Yes, Iphoto is simple and easy, but did not give the quality of RAW conversions of Aperture 3 or Aperture 3
If you don't mind having you import into a library (as with Aperture/Lightroom) then Aperture 3 works well. I did not like having to keep everything in a library.
I chose Canon DPP & Photoshop CS5. You can just open up a RAW file and edit away. DPP saves changes into RAW file. CS5 Adobe Camera Raw creates a sidecar XMP file.
DPP wins for me.
With Aperture you do not have to use the library. You can store the files in your own folders and reference them. The RAW processor in iPhoto is the same as Aperture. The difference is with Aperture the RAW processor shows more adjustments.
It is really a personal choice. Personally, I do not like the workflow of Lightroom. I have been using Aperture professionally for several years now. You can google but there is an import test between the latest update, lightroom and Photo Mechanic.
Basically they imported 500 raw images from a 1D4 using exactly the same hardware and Aperture came out on top. After 3 minutes you could start making adjustments to images. The other program was a little behind but the real shock was the amount of time it took for lightroom was around 14.1/2 minutes for the same images.
I find Aperture is a lot easier to used and find lightroom a little cumbersome. You can always go to the Apple Store and check out the program.
beanpkk wrote:
I'd be real surprised if Apple had different raw converters for different applications -- surely the raw converter for iPhoto is the same one as Aperture uses? But I've been surprised before...
Keith
its the same same converter. When updates come down the pipe its one update applied to both. Very convenient setup. I was a nikon view/capture nX user in the past. Same engine in both, but link exclusively to their products so there you were stuck doing upgrade reinslalls for both of them.
