Aperture vs Adobe Lightroom (Beta 3) JPEG exports

I've been beta-testing the Adobe Lightroom product and comparing it to Aperture. I'm using Aperture 1.1.1 on a MacBook Pro.
Lightroom has some intriguing features, but I've noticed a wildly different color when exporting the same image to JPEG format from Lightroom and Aperture.
I took the same RAW image from a shot I took with my Nikon D70 and exported a JPEG from Aperture using default settings with no color adjustment. In Lightroom I exported the same image to Photoshop, and then exported a JPEG with default settings and no color adjustment.
Look at the difference:
https://www.carsonmedia.com/projects/softballphotos/phototests/photocomparison.h tml
Can anyone explain the difference? Aperture seems to export a JPEG that resembles the original.
I'm perplexed at the difference.
--Brandon
15" MBP 2GB RAM OSX/XP Mac OS X (10.4.6)

Yeah, looks like a colorspace issue -- I'm guessing Pro Photo, but it might not be LR's fault. Last I checked, LR actually exports PSDs, not JPEGs, in Pro Photo space to PS. So 2 possibilities:
1. LR incorrectly tagged the PSD output, so PS doesn't realize it's Pro Photo.
2. You didn't do a colorspace coversion in PS before saving the JPEG. Try using 'save to web' in PS -- it usually takes care of the sRGB conversion for you. Does it look correct in PS before the JPEG export?

Similar Messages

Aperture & Final Cut compatible? Aperture VS Adobe Lightroom?

Aperture VS Adobe LightRoom?
I have 27" Mac Pro, 17" Mac BookPor & iPhone 4S.
I'm researching the two and wonder which would be best. I'm a Fine Art Photographer and have 3 years of a huge inventory of images all messed up in iPhoto and thrown into folders on my desktop. I dislike iPhoto soooo much. I'm in desperate need to organize my inventory so I can move on with my work! Help! Advice pu-lease.
Are Aperture & Final Cut compatible?
I have Final Cut Pro on my 27" Mac Pro.
I have PhotoShop Elements 9 on my 17" MacBook Pro. I want to stop using it.
Looking for compatible software to use with my Final Cut Pro.

What does "software to use with my Final Cut Pro" actually mean? Is it FCP? or FCP X?
iPhoto and Aperture are both equally compatible with FCP, but if it's the older version you use then you'll be exporting from your Photo Manager and bring the images into FCP.
If you have FCP X either will make images available to it via the Media Browser in FCP X.
So, no difference there.
Lightroom has no interaction with either version of FCP, so you'll be exporting from that to the Finder and then adding to the FCP project.
As for which is better - that's really personal preference. It might help if you explain what it is you dislike about iPhoto, and what you're actually looking for in a Photo Manager.

Side by Side: Apple Aperture and Adobe Lightroom in S.F.

Below is info on a first ever (?) head to head comparison of Aperture vs Lightroom presented by Schorr & Hogarty. Should be a great meeting. If you are in Nor-Cal, check it out;
March 13 in S.F. http://www.asmpnorcal.org/events/event.html
Side by Side: Apple Aperture and Adobe Lightroom
Speakers:
Tom Hogarty, Product Manager for Lightroom, Adobe Systems
Joseph Schorr, Product Manager for Aperture, Apple Computer
This Tuesday join us and the designated gurus from Adobe and Apple
for a lively evening as we jump headlong into both Aperture and
Lightroom and discover the nuts and bolts of how these applications
work. You'll learn how these programs were designed from the
ground up for media photographers from the guys who helped design
them.
Dual 2.0 G5 Mac OS X (10.4.8) 17" PowerBook 1.67
Dual 2.0 G5 Mac OS X (10.4.8) 17" PowerBook 1.67

Wow, maybe this is what Schorr meant by "VERY soon" in this post in this thread on March 10th.
"Actually, Apple has annouced that Aperture support for the Pentax K10D, K100D, and K110D will be available very soon.
We will also be adding support for 11 other RAW formats from different cameras, including the Nikon D40, Leica Digilux 3, Panasonic Lumix DMC-L1, Samsung GX-1L, and seven of the Leaf Aptus and Valeo models.
Can't publish a release date, but this update will be coming VERY soon.
Joe Schorr
Sr. Product Manager, Aperture
Apple"
http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=4209290&#4209290
If so, as a Pentax k10D owner, I will be happily cleaning Lightroom of my machine and moving ahead with Aperture!
iMac and PB G4 17" Mac OS X (10.4.8)

Adobe Lightroom Beta...

I have been running the Adobe Lightroom Beta since the beta released. I am wondering about two things:
1. I heard that BETA testers are getting a greater discount than the public rate of $199.00 how do I go about getting this discount? Does anyone know? Also, I have had a problem with is re-exposing my images. There are no defaults set, however as soon as I import and image and click on it is adjust the levels automatically, making the tones more dull and the lighting much darker?? Any input regarding this, I would love to hear....
~Jessica

You can get it at a discount of $169 by using following promo code - Macworld07
It was suppose to expire on 2/19 but it still works.
John

Managing pictures in Aperture and Adobe Lightroom

I have just installed Aperture on my iMac for the first time. I also use Lightroom and Photoshop.
As such I want to keep the photo’s in the “Pictures” directory and not manage them within Apeture.
I have just tidied up some folders etc using finder and when I go into Lightroom I just press the “Synchronise” button and hey presto, the folders in Lightroom are aligned with the actual folders in the Pictures directory.
Can anyone tell me how I do the same in Aperture, as the changes I made to the folders/pictures are not reflected in Aperture’s directory?
(I have selected “Consolidate master file” in Aperture, not sure what it is doing, but it’s taking a long time!)
Many thanks
Confused 1st time Aperture user!

Note that's not what I said: Aperture does not HAVE to store the files inside its library (called "managed images"). They can be anywhere on disk you want ("referenced images"). It is entirely possible to put the files in a single location and access them from both Aperture and Lightroom.
Again, though, the key is discipline, as if you start moving them around or renaming them (via Finder, or via Aperture, or via Lightroom), you will have issues because both the applications expect that you use them to move or rename the files. If you move/rename them in Aperture, you are "breaking" what Lightroom expects you to do, and vice versa.
I think in large part it's not the best idea to try and use both Aperture and Lightroom. What they do has a huge degree of overlap, so it's really best to pick one as your primary tool. If you value Aperture's Faces functionality and interface, and perhaps its integration with other Apple products like iWork/iLife, or ease of synching pictures to iPad or integration with PhotoStream, it may be the better tool. If you'd like to edit photos and maintain smart objects, and you like Lightroom's editing tools or rendering better, it may be the better tool. There will be compromises either way, but from a sanity and workflow perspective it's probably better. Both tools can produce outstanding results.

Lightroom 4.4 jpeg export VERY noisy...HELP!

Hi all,
I have Googled and quite aware of the noisy jpeg output for v5 onwards.
But I'm still using 4.4 and all I found on Google is threads for v5.
Has anyone experienced this noisy jpeg export issue?
Here's a screengrab comparing the two.

If you're seeing a reduction of noise in the Export when you increase the Lum NR slider, then it's not a bug preventing the Lum NR from being applied.
Besides increasing the noise-reduction and not sharpening the remaining noise during Export, the other thing to do is use sharpen masking to prevent non-edges from being sharpened. You use the Mask slider in the sharpen section to accomplish this.
If you hold down the Alt key while moving the Mask slider you can see what areas will have sharpening applied. Make sure that it is only the edges, not the areas between where noise is the only detail or texture. The mask slider will probably be close to 100 for optimal results with a noisy image.
You should expect there to be a little grain left in the image.

Lightroom 5.5 jpeg export problem

I am using jAlbum to create photo albums on the web with images exported with Lightroom. Since I am using Lightroom 5.5 for the export I am get an error message whenever I create an Album with jAlbum which says "inconsistent metadata read from stream". As jAlbum uses Java the Java version may aslo matter. I am using the latest Java update from Oracle on a Windows 7 Professional x64 machine. With images exported with Lightroom 5.4 there is no problem. Also changing metadata options in Lightroom's export dialog did not help.
Is there a known problem with the Lightroom 5.5 export?
Wolfgang

Same here with LR 5.5. Just generated a few hundred jpegs to further process them in web applications for some online albums. One example is a QNAP NAS that has to generate smaller jpegs. It was working perfectly with LR5.4 and all older versions of LR. But as soon as I exported jpegs from LR 5.5 only grey rescaled images with some "noise" are depicted/generated. Had to go back to LR5.4 and it is now working as expected.
Adobe: Please do not try to fix something when it is not broken and get a fix for the "fix" ASAP. This is not acceptable for the prices we pay as we are not talking about freeware or shareware where somebody is programming in his free time. Most likely these guys would have already posted a fix for the issue.
Do your homework and please do it fast!

Lightroom 4.4 jpeg export watermark issue

Not sure abbout the older LR versions because I only tried this on LR 4.4.. After I edited my Raw images shot by Nikon D600, I'd like to export them to Jpeg format with my watermark. The watermark will not show if I exported the images in original size (6016 x 4016) as shot. However the watermark works fine if I resize the images to a smaller size, such as 1200 x 1024. Has anyone experienced the same issue? How can I work around it?

Irrespective of the rights/wrongs about exporting full resolution jpegs, the problem you describe sounds like the long-standing watermark bug. Basically there are certain circumstances whereby a text-based watermark will not show on the exported jpeg, and the factors that influence this are as follows:
The font being used for the watermark.....only certain fonts may be affected, e.g. Lucida Calligraphy is one. But even then the bug may not occur, as it also depends on:
a) The pixel dimensions specified for the output file. The larger the pixel size, the greater the risk that the bug will bite (as you have already discovered).
and/or
b) The proportional size as specified in the watermark editor....again the larger the size, the more likely the bug will bite.
So the workarounds are:
1) Try a different font.
2) Try reducing the pixel dimensions for the output file.
3) Or try reducing the specified proportional size.

Adobe Lightroom Beta Released

http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/lightroom/

Yeah... I just got the email... so Malcom is pretty sharp with the updates
Cheers

Aperture & Adobe Lightroom

Hi,
I'm considering moving from Aperture to Adobe Lightroom - do you think it's worth it? I hear the Raw Conversion is better with Lightroom?
Secondly, is it easy to move my library from one system to another? I have no idea where/how Aperture stores it's "edited" version. If it's quite complicated I might just stick with Aperture.
Thanks!
Adam

I would be the last person to tell you what to do but I will try and share my experience with you. I have been a Lightroom user since it's inception. I've also had Aperture since it's inception. Over the years I tended to shy away from Aperture because of what seemed to me to be quirk after quirk. Over the years I became quite comfortable with Lightroom's more pedantic, rather rigid (my opinion) approach to image workflow. When Aperture 3 came out I was really gung-ho to give it a try again, only to be disappointed once again with speed issues, brush issues and various other (once again) quirks. I went back to uing Lightroom exclusively.
Well, that was then and Aperture 3.4.1 (vs. Lightrrom 4.2) is NOW. In my estimation APERTURE has finally arrived!!! Now I find the new Lightroom 4.2 to be slow and pedantic. I also find it to be far less robust relative to adjustments. Aperture for me now is the better image editor. I find that I can now get mages fairly close and in some cases better than those adjusted in Capture One. I absolutely love the suttleness of adjustments and brush-on capability that you have in Aperture. I also find it to be significantly faster than Lightroom now. When I finish editing images in Aperture now they seem to be just a touch better than anything I can accomplish in Lightroom. Aperture now has the ability to really make images POP!!
I also find it interesting that I have not changed one thing relative to my hardware over the last 4 years and all of a sudden things that didn't work well a year ago e.g. Aperture has significantly improved and Lightroom has now gone the other way (in my opinion). There are still some things I would like to see in Aperture like better noise reduction and lens correction. But, since I also have PS CS6 I can work around that. But in the end I can do almost 90% of my work in Aperture (using PS CS6 for specialty work e.g. composites and other layer-based adjustments).
While I haven't yet decided to move whole image libraries to Aperture, I am at least moving all new projects into it. I've waited a long time to be able to write something like this about Aperture because over the years I guess I so wanted Aperture to succeed (I am a total Apple hardware user) but was so dissappointed. Let me be clear, I know there are many, many Lightroom lovers out there but for me (at this time) APERTURE is the DAM/Up-Front Editor of choice.
Just one person's perspective about your decision to leave Aperture. Good luck in what-ever decision you make.

How does aperture 2 compare with adobe lightroom?

I realize aperture 2 just came out but feedback from anyone with experience in both aperture 2 & adobe lightroom would be very much appreciated
Message was edited by: apeOrLr

I own both (Aperture 1.5x) and I can say they both have some very nice features. I prefer working in Aperture when I can. Here are a couple of differences that I think are important.
LightRoom has no support for multiple monitors. This doesn't seem to bother some people, but it drives me nuts. I would love to have my a 1:1 or fit preview open on a second monitor while I'm working. Aperture is great at this. You may want to avoid LightRoom if that sounds like something you would want for your workflow.
Another thing I like in aperture is the highlight recovery looks much nicer to my eye.
Like William Lloyd mentioned there is a lot of pre Aperture 2 vs LR comparisons out there... they may give you a good start. I'm sure lots of folks will be rushing to write up comparisons or 2.0 vs LR soon.
Good luck!

Camera Raw 5.5 VS Adobe Lightroom (color correction)

Hi, does somebody know if discarding the advantage of making layers of Photoshop, is the Adobe Lightroom color correction controls superiors to the CameraRaw PS Interface correction controls ??? I mean for color correction purposes is Adobe Lightroom better tan PS's camera raw interface ???? because for me both controls seem to be pretty much the same thing, does anyone know something about it ??
Thank you in advance !

RicardoAngelo wrote:
I mean for color correction purposes is Adobe Lightroom better tan PS's camera raw interface ???? because for me both controls seem to be pretty much the same thing, does anyone know something about it ??
Both Camera Raw (most recent version) and Lightroom (most recent version) share the EXACT same processing pipeline...however, there are subtle differences in usability. For example, ACR 5.6 has a Point Curves Editor...Lightroom doesn't. Lightroom has a powerful capability to control output size and resolution which Camera Raw doesn't have...
Bottom line is they are two horses of a different color but each is capable of performing the same tricks...so use whichever app allows you o accomplish what you need to do in the shortest and easiest process...

Export to Adobe Lightroom

Is there a way or a third party utility to export photos from iPhoto 6 to Adobe Lightroom and keep the metadata keywords in iPhoto so they come into Adobe Lighroom?
The alternative to transfering metadata into Lighroom is to keep my old work in iPhoto, or to use Aperature. I just like Lightroom better, overall.

Boris
The problem is that there's now way in v6 to write the keywords to the actual image file, which is where Lightroom will get it from. (You can do this in v7). Aperture will read these keywords okay.
Regards
TD

Lightroom JPEG export VS Photoshop Image Processor

Hey guys:
Long time photoshop and lightroom user (long time user of all things Adobe). First post here in the forums. I did a search for my question but I think it was too specific, so it returned zero results.
My question is about Lightroom's JPEG export vs Photoshops Image Processor. When I export a RAW file to JPEG from Lightroom, the file size is freaking huge. The JPEG is as big as my original RAW file (~25mb). Settings are set to default - 100 quality. Everything else remains untouched.
However, when I use Photoshop's image processor (I launch it through Bridge, easier that way for me) and process the RAW images that way, my JPEGs are roughly 5-10mb in size. Settings in Image Processor are quality 10 and thats it. No actions being run or anything.
Can anyone shed some light as to why Lightroom exports JPEGs that are roughly 2-4 times the size of Photoshop's JPEGs? My initial thoughts are that the 100 quality setting in Lightroom is more like Photoshop's quality 12 (that always makes me think of Spinal Tap - "Why don't you just make ten louder and make ten be the top number and make that a little louder?" "These go to eleven.") Ideally, exporting out of Lightroom would be much easier for my workflow.
Thanks in advance.
-The Doctor

DrMilesBennell wrote:
Can anyone shed some light as to why Lightroom exports JPEGs that are roughly 2-4 times the size of Photoshop's JPEGs? My initial thoughts are that the 100 quality setting in Lightroom is more like Photoshop's quality 12 (that always makes me think of Spinal Tap - "Why don't you just make ten louder and make ten be the top number and make that a little louder?" "These go to eleven.") Ideally, exporting out of Lightroom would be much easier for my workflow.
You are correct: LR Quality 100 = PS Quality 12
Despite LR having 101 Quality settings (0 to 100) it actually only has 12 Quality settings the same as PS 'Baseline Standard':
JPEG Quality Setting Comparison
PS
LR
LR Range
Typical Reduction
0
0
0-7%
11%
1
10
8-15%
23%
2
20
16-23%
14%
3
30
24-30%
14%
4
35
31-38%
16%
5
40
39-46%
24%
6
50
47-53%
4%
7
55
54-61%
27%
8
65
62-69%
25%
9
70
70-76%
31%
10
80
77-84%
35%
11
90
85-92%
41%
12
100
93-100%
I keep a small copy of the above table taped to my monitor. I chose the numbers under the 'LR' column for the 12 steps (not AA's) to make it easier to remember. In actuality ANY number in the LR Range column will produce the same results for each step.
Under the 'Typical Reduction' column notice the small amount of reduction for PS 6 (LR 47-53%) Quality setting. If interested why AND why you probably shouldn't use PS 7 (LR 54-61%) Quality setting see this post:
http://forums.adobe.com/message/5641903#5641903

Does Adobe Lightroom 3 have polarizer effect as Aperture 3?

I have been using A3's polarizer effect for nature and scenery photography, which is perfect. Today I tried Adobe Lightroom 3 in my office for the first time to make a comparison. To be frank, Lightroom 3's much touted noise reduction works better than A3. But I could not find the Polarizer readjustment function in Lightroom 3 to enrich the blue sky.
I may be wrong as Lightroom boasts being more professional than A3. I know there are many shutterbugs who use both A3 and Lightroom 3. Does anyone know the answer?

OK, I have posted the question to the Adobe Lightroom forum and carefully avoided mentioning Aperture 3, but have not got an answer yet. So I did some more research.
http://www.garyluhm.net/bio/tips_0608.html
[Polarize that sky (without a polarizer)]
I have found another solution. But to me, it's still confusing and a little complicated.
It is explained like the following:
" For the polarized effect, I scroll down panel to color adjustments, choose HSL (Hue, Saturation, Luminance), and click on luminance. I then click on the round circle thing in the upper left of the color box, move it into the blue sky area, hold down the left mouse button and pull downward. This reduces the brightness of the blues, and the sky goes dark as if polarized. I stop at -70, a big reduction (image 3). The white mountains now glisten against the deep blue. I could also have used the blue slider, but the spot selection tool I did use is a handy instrument.For the polarized effect, I scroll down panel to color adjustments, choose HSL (Hue, Saturation, Luminance), and click on luminance. I then click on the round circle thing in the upper left of the color box, move it into the blue sky area, hold down the left mouse button and pull downward. This reduces the brightness of the blues, and the sky goes dark as if polarized. I stop at -70, a big reduction (image 3). The white mountains now glisten against the deep blue. I could also have used the blue slider, but the spot selection tool I did use is a handy instrument.
Lightroom Develop wiht luminance adjustment
Luminance blue brightness reduced to -70 by dragging any blue color down with the button (or use the blue slider), simulating polarizer. "

Aperture vs Adobe Lightroom (Beta 3) JPEG exports

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for