For Lightroom 4...

Question

I've been a long time user of Lr, starting with the first beta and I mostly love it.
It was only recently I tried Aperture 3, I wrote an indepth review of Lr 3 vs Aperture 3 (and others) here:
http://www.twin-pixels.com/raw-processors-review-aperture-bibble-capture-one-dxo-lightroom /
1. One thing I really like in Aperture is how nicely integrated the browse/library mode is, compared with Lightroom.
In Aperture, you can edit a picture while in Browse mode (as opposed to Lightroom's Quick Develop, which is pretty much useless). I'd love being able to get into Compare/Survey and still have full control over processing. I also find it confusing that some options are available while in Library mode but not in Develop mode. Things have improved since V1 but I still find the separation between Library and Develop as too artificial and having seen Aperture, I'm sure Lightroom can do better.
2. Another thing from Aperture I'd love to see is how if you have several images selected and change the let's say the Exposure, all images are updated. I know we have Sync and Copy from Previous but again there's room for improvement.
3. The perspective correction is very powerful but sometimes hard to do, especially when you need to alter all three axes. Here I'd like to see a keystoning tool like in DxO.
4. The purple fringing correction is not very powerful, compared to other programs. Capture One and DxO work on high radii  and they seem to correct the luminance in the affected areas as well.
4. Speaking of tools, how about more brushes? Like a Noise brush or a WB brush. How great would it be to be able to make local adjustments to WB.
These are my most important suggestions and I made them not to bash Lightroom, but because I want it to be THE tool for processing Raws.

Answer 1

Gaspyy wrote:
 It was only recently I tried Aperture 3, I wrote an indepth review of Lr 3 vs Aperture 3 (and others) here:http://www.twin-pixels.com/raw-processors-review-aperture-bibble-captu re-one-dxo-lightroom/
Thanks, that was an interesting read. It is really odd that Bibble 5 doesn't support DNGs. They support all DNGs generated by cameras (such as from the Pentax K-7) and therefore it should be very easy to extend that to generic DNG support. It almost seems they want to make a position statement against DNG (Adobe). I agree with you that their local adjustment support is awesome but the UI appears to be a bit crude compared to LR.
Gaspyy wrote: 1. One thing I really like in Aperture is how nicely integrated the browse/library mode is, compared with Lightroom.
+1
The first time I started LR I couldn't believe how "modal" the interface was. And this from a program that has strong roots in the Apple style for GUIs. If you are looking at a single image, the separation between "Libary" and "Develop" isn't that bad because with the "D" and "E" keys you basically just switch panels and I agree that not all panels should be visible all the time. However, first the switching should be quicker (sometimes it can take too long to be transparent to the user) and, second, this illusion of non-modality breaks down when you are working with other views, like "Compare", "Survey", "Grid" and "Import".
I too don't like how you are locked in to certain modes of operations. Less of a problem if switching between modes is really fast, but unfortunately it not always is.
Gaspyy wrote:
 4. Speaking of tools, how about more brushes? Like a Noise brush or a WB brush. How great would it be to be able to make local adjustments to WB.
They really should go all the way and -- like Bibble -- support any global adjustment also in a local manner. I love how the brushes work but sometimes polygons would be useful.
I'm surprised that you didn't go into cloning/patching support. Aperture 3 and Bibble 5 have a lot more to offer than LR3 where you have to abuse the spot removal tool. Do you never need to remove unwanted objects from your images? Given the choice between lens correction and better cloning/patching support, I'd take the latter any day.