Have an account? Log in to leave your comments!
journal: mac · win
Adobe releases beta of Aperture competitor
It sure didn’t take long for Adobe to answer Apple’s release of Aperture. Adobe has made a beta release of Lightroom, their new professional photography organization and post-processing application, available for download; and in a rare twist, it is available for the Mac first.The minimum system requirements are significantly lower than Aperture’s, and are as follows:
Adobe Lightroom Beta requires Mac OS X version 10.4.3 (Tiger) or higher, a 1GHz or faster PowerPC G4 or G5 processor (including iBook G4 or PowerBook G4), and 768 MB of RAM (although more is recommended), and 1 GB or more of free hard drive space. Windows requirements will be announced when that version is ready.
Adobe has posted the Lightroom FAQ for your reading pleasure; if you can’t wait to try Lightroom, you can download it from the Macromedia (well, now “Macromedia Labs") web site. Have fun!
My only question: why “Lightroom” and not ”Darkroom”?
More Info
Download Lightroom
More info on Lightroom
An early review from Macworld
 |
8 | 3240 |
| Nick | comments | views |
thinkback
Well at least someone was able to get them off there ass. Adobe Bridge sucks.
Kudos to Apple for noticing a weakness in Adobe’s armor and putting forth a valiant attempt to exploit it, even if it did get a 4 out of 10 at Arstechnica.
But Apple better watch out because Adobe looks like they may release Lightroom for free or bundle it with Photoshop in the future.
| Jan. 09, 2006 | ||
| 12:43 pm |
I haven’t used Aperture. $500 is too much for my needs. iPhoto is all I really need. Apple really should have made Aperture less expensive, IMHO. Create innovative software (with fewer bugs, please) and then sell the hardware that runs the software. I can’t understand how Motion can be $299 and Aperture is $499.
You know, all of these companies sit on their asses when they can. Adobe did it with Photoshop and then Macromedia woke them up with Fireworks.
| Jan. 09, 2006 | ||
| 2:40 pm |
Aperture is $500 because it does wonderful things with RAW images, or at least it’s supposed to, and it has great organizational tools. Siracusa thinks it’s following in the same vein as Final Cut Pro, in that the first version sucks but it gets progressively better. And Aperture had no real competition until Lightroom came around (which isn’t even out yet).
There are reasons that Photoshop costs $600 but Elements is only $100. It’s the same with Aperture and iPhoto.
| Jan. 10, 2006 | |
| Arden | 2:54 am |
Oh, I’m not saying that Aperture isn’t worth the money. I haven’t even used it, so I can’t make that judgement and I would never make a comment like that anyway.
My point was about how Motion 2 is priced really low for what it does and for the kind of software it is. The reason is because Motion needs a really fast Mac, like Aperture. This causes people to go out and buy the fastest Mac just to use Motion.
It’s like Epson giving away ink jet printers so you’ll buy ink cartridges from them.
| Jan. 10, 2006 | ||
| 3:28 pm |
My point was about how Motion 2 is priced really low for what it does and for the kind of software it is. The reason is because Motion needs a really fast Mac, like Aperture. This causes people to go out and buy the fastest Mac just to use Motion.
I think it’s because Motion was designed to promote FCP like Soundtrack does. I don’t think I’ve ever heard of anyone using Motion or Soundtrack that didn’t use FCP as well.
IMO Motion = FCP value add-on
| Jan. 12, 2006 | ||
| 8:25 pm |
I use Motion as a replacement for AE all the time. In fact, I use AE to supplement Motion much more than the other way around. The only time I’m basing everything in AE and supplementing with Motion is when I need a 3D camera, which isn’t often.
There are many, many motion graphic professionals out there who aren’t editing and have no need for FCP. Same goes for sound designers, more so I’m guessing.
But Apple no longer sells Motion or Soundtrack Pro separately. You have to buy the whole suite now, so my beef is moot. I don’t know why they did this.
| Jan. 25, 2006 | ||
| 4:02 pm |
1.
My only question: why “Lightroom� and not “Darkroom“?
Darkroom is obsolete. This software is for people who aren’t using film, but digital cameras.
“Lightroom” is probably a play on words because of that.
Just guessing here.
I’m glad Adobe is deciding to compete with Apple instead of writing off the Mac and making this application Windows-only like their latest brand new applications.
Competition is good for us, the consumers.