iPhoto v Aperture v Bridge v LR v PS v Elements v others..?
Discussion
I've been getting more into my photography recently and am looking for a decent bit of editing software.
Currently I use iPhoto and then PS on some photos, but what I don't like is that if I make some adjustments on iphoto, then decided to do some PS work, then put it back into iphoto the settings for the adjustments are lost. i.e. iphoto treats it as a new image. I think this means it is destructive, but it is annoying as I can't then reduce a slider once it's been re-imported as the slider resets itself to zero.
I also believe saving it in PS then back into iphoto looses quality as I use JPEG. However, from now on I will be using RAW for better quality and control, so need a photo editor without this compromise.
I don't need the full functionality of PS but like to be able to tweak levels (a la iPhoto) and remove clutter from pictures (a la PS) but don't like the compromise of switching between the two and the aforementioned associated disadvantages.
I'm guessing that gives me the option of using Aperture or sticking with Adobe in which case I was thinking of Lightroom + Photoshop. Can anyone sort out my confusion / offer me some advice?
Sync
Currently I use iPhoto and then PS on some photos, but what I don't like is that if I make some adjustments on iphoto, then decided to do some PS work, then put it back into iphoto the settings for the adjustments are lost. i.e. iphoto treats it as a new image. I think this means it is destructive, but it is annoying as I can't then reduce a slider once it's been re-imported as the slider resets itself to zero.
I also believe saving it in PS then back into iphoto looses quality as I use JPEG. However, from now on I will be using RAW for better quality and control, so need a photo editor without this compromise.
I don't need the full functionality of PS but like to be able to tweak levels (a la iPhoto) and remove clutter from pictures (a la PS) but don't like the compromise of switching between the two and the aforementioned associated disadvantages.
I'm guessing that gives me the option of using Aperture or sticking with Adobe in which case I was thinking of Lightroom + Photoshop. Can anyone sort out my confusion / offer me some advice?
Sync
From an original RAW I make derivative JPGs as required. They are maximum resolution and maximum quality so I can revisit them again if I want to and resave with no visible degradation.
I use Capture One Pro to process RAW to JPG, and then PS for anything else.
If you have tinkered in PS and want to keep as much as posisble, what about saving as .psd? That will keep all the layers (but not history I think), and you can make JPGs from there.
Don't see the need for iPhoto if you have PS and are organised.
I use Capture One Pro to process RAW to JPG, and then PS for anything else.
If you have tinkered in PS and want to keep as much as posisble, what about saving as .psd? That will keep all the layers (but not history I think), and you can make JPGs from there.
Don't see the need for iPhoto if you have PS and are organised.
I don't think I've ever come across a pro who doesn't use Photoshop. Using more than one system can be confusing, both to you and your images. I'd just stick to one system, and I wouldn't stick to anything other than Photoshop. Elements will probably do anything you need, at least to begin.
Depends what you use Photoshop for but Aperture 3 if you buy it from the Mac App store is about £50 and extremely hard to beat at the price. You don't need to use iPhoto at that stage either if you don't want to. The only thing I would say is that Aperture is very demanding of the system so if you don't have a high spec machine or a relatively new one it's painful.
Simpo Two said:
From an original RAW I make derivative JPGs as required. They are maximum resolution and maximum quality so I can revisit them again if I want to and resave with no visible degradation.
I use Capture One Pro to process RAW to JPG, and then PS for anything else.
If you have tinkered in PS and want to keep as much as posisble, what about saving as .psd? That will keep all the layers (but not history I think), and you can make JPGs from there.
Don't see the need for iPhoto if you have PS and are organised.
Does that mean you do your editing of the JPEG version rather than the RAW file ? If so I don't understand why you would do that ?I use Capture One Pro to process RAW to JPG, and then PS for anything else.
If you have tinkered in PS and want to keep as much as posisble, what about saving as .psd? That will keep all the layers (but not history I think), and you can make JPGs from there.
Don't see the need for iPhoto if you have PS and are organised.
Simpo Two said:
From an original RAW I make derivative JPGs as required. They are maximum resolution and maximum quality so I can revisit them again if I want to and resave with no visible degradation.
I use Capture One Pro to process RAW to JPG, and then PS for anything else.
If you have tinkered in PS and want to keep as much as posisble, what about saving as .psd? That will keep all the layers (but not history I think), and you can make JPGs from there.
Don't see the need for iPhoto if you have PS and are organised.
Sound advice this IMO. Our only difference is that we go RAW (through cap 1) - TIF - PS, but then we have a commercial server capacity. We'll only make jPEGS for emailing or artworking etc.I use Capture One Pro to process RAW to JPG, and then PS for anything else.
If you have tinkered in PS and want to keep as much as posisble, what about saving as .psd? That will keep all the layers (but not history I think), and you can make JPGs from there.
Don't see the need for iPhoto if you have PS and are organised.
Beardy10 said:
Does that mean you do your editing of the JPEG version rather than the RAW file ? If so I don't understand why you would do that ?
About 70% of my images emerge from C1 after WB/levels/curves and go straight to the client as hi-res JPGs. However some of them need further tinkering that C1 doesn't allow, such as perspective adjustment and layer blending (subtle HDR if you like). The advantage of RAW to me is ability to tweak white balance and exposure as effectively as possible by working from raw data. However, the JPGs produced are of such high resolution and low compression that they can easily stand an extra edit and in fact look better for the extra work.Edited by Simpo Two on Monday 18th April 13:07
Simpo Two said:
However some of them need further tinkering that my older version of C1 doesn't allow, such as perspective adjustment and layer blending (subtle HDR if you like), but the latest version, 6, does have both these capabilities.
EFA, in case anyones interested. Like I said on 'tother thread, C1 is romping along 
.I did wonder when I posted that, but having trialled later versions I'm happy to stay where I am. I can't remember exactly why but usually when software is upgraded they add three things you don't want and take out something vital you do want.
One example - in 3.7 the 'auto' exposure option rarely makes the exposure correct but is brilliant at recovering highlights. The detail it can get out of bits of white wedding dress is staggering. Ths is half my HDR technique. But in the later versions of C1 I tried this function usually just makes the image brighter, which is the opposite of what I need - and for my work it's crucial. There may well be an answer out there but for now I have a system that works
One example - in 3.7 the 'auto' exposure option rarely makes the exposure correct but is brilliant at recovering highlights. The detail it can get out of bits of white wedding dress is staggering. Ths is half my HDR technique. But in the later versions of C1 I tried this function usually just makes the image brighter, which is the opposite of what I need - and for my work it's crucial. There may well be an answer out there but for now I have a system that works
I suspect if you clicked the auto Shadow/Highlight, which 3.7 doesn't have either, it would work for your wedding dresses. I wouldn't know though, as I don't do wedding dresses, but I ironically, if I'm doing jewellery, it has a detrimental effect on the highlights. 6 sill has a few negatives but overall, it's moving away from 3.7 at a rate of knots in its abilities.
If you are familiar with PS and Adobe Camera Raw then LR will be 2nd nature. I use both. As well as RAW conversion I use LR mainly for organising, keywording and exporting into different formats and sizes. PS is cloning, dust busting, maybe some levels and curves (as I can't *quite* get the same effects in LR as PS) and maybe some selective dodge and burn or high pass sharpening.
LR is usually on a 30 day free trial. It is worth having a play and seeing how you get on.
LR is usually on a 30 day free trial. It is worth having a play and seeing how you get on.
I used iPhoto for several months before upgrading to Aperture 3. Aperture does 99% of what I want. I use Photoshop for very little. Sizing files ready for printing, putting white borders on prints, distortion correction (which Aperture doesn't do) and sometimes inverting old negatives that I have copied.
On the whole I am very happy with Aperture. I tried Capture One and Lightroom but they did not work well for me as they were not very intuitive. I think all three programs mentioned can be downloaded for a free 30 day trial.
On the whole I am very happy with Aperture. I tried Capture One and Lightroom but they did not work well for me as they were not very intuitive. I think all three programs mentioned can be downloaded for a free 30 day trial.
After trying a few programmes I chose lightroom and have never regretted it. Initially I paired it with elements but have managed to swing education discount and get PS5. I shoot raw, use the library function and do most edits in LR and using PS for healing, cloning, edit masks and layers. Back to LR for printing. A top combination.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff