On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 10:49 AM, steve harley <[email protected]> wrote: >> It's not the same as my Mac OS X workflow, of course, but I don't >> require that my iOS workflow be the same in all respects. > > i am on the fence about this; as someone who is at heart a tinker, and who > is professionally a workflow developer, iOS, like the narrowing of the OS X > environment, is in some ways a pretty big roadblock; it is my biggest > frustration with Apple > > (that said, Android seems like swampland in comparison, and Linux is like a > post-apocalyptic landscape of mostly once-great machines and rats with > bionic eyes, but i digress)
LOL! To me, working on any of those systems is hopelessly complicated by distractions completely outside of what I'm trying to achieve. > clearly i have to weigh the trade-offs … but actually i was disagreeing with > you that "You pick ONE methodology and stick with it" — i think there are > good reasons to bring together photos from multiple sources Of course you can bring together photos from multiple sources. That's why I choose to go with the 'nested folder of folders' sync approach. I can (and do) process photos in Lightroom, Photoshop, iPhoto, Aperture, Snapseed, Flare, Keynote, Pages, and other apps, and any combination of those apps. The end products of any operations are a set of curated, rendered JPEG files output to a folder in my master "iPod-Photos" folder, which represents an album in Photos. iTunes just syncs the latest state of those photos when I sync the devices. I just don't expect to connect iPhoto, AND Aperture, AND Lightroom, AND the file system to the iPad simultaneously. I use each app for what it does well to enhance my photography, and I use the file system and iTunes to move what I want to the iPad for display and viewing. For things that I create ON the iPad, I move them into my original file repository and then also to the "iPod-Photos" output repository to put them into an album as appropriate. But there are other repositories for organizing these things resident on the iPad so it is often the case that I do not cycle them back through and duplicate them on the iPad itself. >> Why are you considering moving to Lightroom? > > primarily the impression that it has better "exposure"-related controls, and > a decision to give Lightroom a trial before i'm even more deeply committed > to Aperture > ... > LR also seems to have a bigger ecosystem overall; Aperture is a little buggy > and i perceive that Apple isn't really trying to keep up with Lightroom, so > i have my doubts about its long-term evolution (not that Adobe has a lot of > my trust either) Adobe and Apple have very different goals in mind for their product lines. I know both the Aperture and Lightroom teams well, personally (although the relationship has become rather distant now that I haven't been in that liaison position for 7-8 years). They don't track very closely exactly what the other is doing other than at the marketing level ... they concentrate on different things in their feature prioritization and implementation schemes. Lightroom is by default the larger ecosystem as it ships on two OS platforms, not just one. It also integrates with Photoshop and the rest of the Adobe Creative Suite at a more fundamental level. It's also at one and the same time somewhat more sophisticated than Aperture with regards the basics of image management and rendering while being at the same time a bit simpler than Aperture with respect to end user features. This latest rev of Lightroom has moved well beyond Aperture with respect to the fundamentals of the raw conversion process and basic image adjustments, yet Aperture has more "neat" end user features. To me, the analog is akin to a Nikon D3s vs a Leica M9 ... the D3s has way more automation and end user features where the M9 concentrates much more on basics and fundamentals. Both are very good at what they do, so the distinctions in the end products can be quite subtle. But they are there, and the two different cameras provide choices in working methodology and capabilities that are quite different, addressing totally different usage profiles. > ... i'm also very sensitive to UI, speed, and workflow, but only > practical experience will answer for me on those; i expect it to be a mix of > better and worse than Aperture ... I am too, and this is where Aperture has always fallen down for me. I find its UI much too glitzy and disorganized, busy and distracting. Lightroom's UI is much plainer, simpler and more subtle: it directs me as to its intended workflow much more strongly as well. I nearly always find myself wondering "now how the heck do I do this in Aperture?" and diving into the documentation where I almost never find myself needing to look at the doc in Lightroom. There are subtleties to both that need explanation, but the basic Aperture layout doesn't fit with my mindset at all. >> Pixelsync works with Aperture and iPhoto for sort/grade/tagging >> operations: > > thanks, that's one i didn't know about, and will have to investigate, along > with "iPhoto mobile"; ideally i could use one tool to both do a productive > first edit while traveling (instead of using a laptop), and to also keep an > easily updated, presentation-quality portfolio of selected photos from > multiple sources iPhoto for the iPad is very interesting. It's fairly polished for a rev 1 implementation but I think it goes a little further than I prefer in cute and pretty graphics and animations rather than concentrating on the task I want to perform. It demos beautifully, but I don't know that I will find it useful for how I like to work. -- Godfrey godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
