kurtis - I have a macpro as well but the 8x2.93ghz one with a gtx 285 card and 32gb ram.
ver3 is massively faster than ver2 on my hardware. I haven't timed exporting raws to jpegs, but in general flicking through images, stamping presets and stuff is miles faster. It never seems to slow down so I think this version plays better with more cpu's than ver2.
TTLKurtis wrote:
Is it just me, or is it difficult to make a nice looking B&W in Aperture using just RGB? I like having lots of individual sliders and luminance and all that good stuff.
Argh... and the cloning/healing is really not very good at all.
The only thing I'm liking is that I'm getting accurate colors in Aperture. WHY ADOBE, WHY!?
I quite like the B+W conversion in Aperture. It did take me a while though and some googling on the internet so I now have set up several presets which mimic old film types.
TTLKurtis wrote:
Argh... and the cloning/healing is really not very good at all.
You've got to be kidding me right? The cloning/healing is soooo much better than lightroom. What's with the lightroom crap of only having points? In aperture you get a whole brush the same way as PS.
ai3x wrote:
You've got to be kidding me right? The cloning/healing is soooo much better than lightroom. What's with the lightroom crap of only having points? In aperture you get a whole brush the same way as PS.
Alex
I noticed that, but the results looked nothing like they do in PS... Maybe I just need to give it more time and play with the settings more, but so many things at first glance bother me in Aperture lol.
sejanus wrote:
tony - can you elaborate on the multi monitor gripe? I think aperture works brilliantly on 2 monitors - especially in ver3 where the browser can now go full screeen i.e. 1 monitor has big thumbnails, and the other has the full screen image. You can toggle 'H' to bring up/hide the inspector with all the adjustments.
The main thing I like in ver3 is the speed - I was always a bit grumpy that my big $$ macpro wasn't superfast with aperture but it sure as heck flies now.
Yes. All I'd like to do is view a Full Screen version on my main monitor with the adjustments tab. Then I'd like a grid (browser) view on my second monitor. This seems impossible, but it saves me SOOO much time in LR...
Also, Aperture is way slower for me than LR. Importing and making adjustments seems to take forever.
Tony Hoffer wrote:
Yes. All I'd like to do is view a Full Screen version on my main monitor with the adjustments tab. Then I'd like a grid (browser) view on my second monitor. This seems impossible, but it saves me SOOO much time in LR...
Also, Aperture is way slower for me than LR. Importing and making adjustments seems to take forever.
Hmm you can do it the other way around very easily with full screen on the second monitor and grid on the main. Not quite sure how you do it that way though...
ai3x wrote:
Hmm you can do it the other way around very easily with full screen on the second monitor and grid on the main. Not quite sure how you do it that way though...
Right, but then the adjustments are on the opposite monitor of the full-screen image.
I'd like to point out that if you've been running Lightroom for sometime and have extensive LR libraries, that migrating over to another editing program is going to be very problematic. If you'd like to keep your past edits then you're always going to have to keep the previous software around for legacy purposes.
This alone throws up a serious barrier for me to ever switch to another RAW editing program. Besides, is this going to be much better than Lightroom 3 when its released?
deepbluejh wrote:
I'd like to point out that if you've been running Lightroom for sometime and have extensive LR libraries, that migrating over to another editing program is going to be very problematic. If you'd like to keep your past edits then you're always going to have to keep the previous software around for legacy purposes.
This alone throws up a serious barrier for me to ever switch to another RAW editing program. Besides, is this going to be much better than Lightroom 3 when its released?
TTLKurtis wrote:
okay... so I'm trying to do a little more -scientific apples-to-apples testing- and I just noticed in LR, when you export, you can set a profile, so if I set my calibrated MONITOR profile, then it exports it perfectly. Whereas before, I'd always been exporting as Adobe RGB (since that's what my camera is shooting in, it made sense to me...).
Hmm...
This is wrong on so many levels. You never apply a monitor profile to an image and if you're shooting raw, you're not shooting in a color space. A color space only exists when the image has been rendered.
tomrock wrote:
This is wrong on so many levels. You never apply a monitor profile to an image and if you're shooting raw, you're not shooting in a color space. A color space only exists when the image has been rendered.
You're right on the color space thing, but I never thought about that somehow.
As for applying a monitor profile to an image... why wouldn't I do that? I'm trying to maintain colors between various programs, and I have calibrated my monitor to give the best colors... so how are you saying I -should- be doing it?
This is the only way I've ever seen consistent colors when going from Lightroom to Photoshop (or Aperture to Photoshop), and when I print the image after doing this, it looks exactly the way I see it on my screen. Sounds exactly like what I should be doing, so please explain how I'm doing something wrong. (I'm not being a smartass, if you can tell me how to do this in a way that is better and explain why it's better, then I would love to know.)
I'm not sure what part of the color management chain is breaking but I do know a couple of things.
One, if you have everything set right on a Mac, Lightroom, Photoshop, Aperture, Preview and even the Finder will all look really close to one another (see the screenshot in my next post).
LR uses a modified version of ProPhoto RGB for its internal display, so if you're using sRGB in Photoshop, you MAY see a teeny little difference in saturated colors. Maybe.
There are three common profiles people attach to images -- sRGB (for web stuff and some printing places), Adobe RGB and ProPhoto RGB. I can't tell you why, but I know you don't want to assign a screen profile to an image. However, if it's working for you, why fight it?
In the image that's in my next post I have a tiff tagged with ProPhoto RGB open in Photoshop, Aperture, Lightroom and Preview and they all look the same.
I calibrate my screen with an eye-1 puck with the software that came with it. I assign that profile in the Displays User Preference. I assign Prophoto RGB in the Lightroom export dialog and my working space in Photoshop is ProPhoto RGB.
When I want to export an image to show on the web I export to sRGB.
Tom - if you compare the same thing with a couple images that have faces in them, you'll see that the Photoshop and Preview colors look more off than they do for a landscape sort of shot like this. Look at the bottom left in your picture and you'll see the only reddish tones in the image are different in PS/Preview than in LR/Aperture.
