Adobe Lightroom, Apple Aperture, and the fine art photographer

[ return to page 1 | return to all articles ]

First thing: you gotta support my camera!

Like many photographers, I have a tight bond with my camera. As a fine art photographer, I look for different attributes in my camera than a photojournalist or landscape photographer. For example, since I work in a studio under controlled lighting conditions, things like speed or weather-tightness don't matter for me. But what is crucial is having a camera that captures light in a way that matches my artistic sensibility -- a camera that helps me capture what I am seeing, instead of forcing its own vision. This is very subjective and hard to define, but includes traits like a wide dynamic range, a soft touch in contrast and color, and a sensitivity to subtle details. It took me a while, but I finally I found these qualities in the Kodak SLR/n. Unfortunately, I found this the week Kodak discontinued making it. (Well, not so unfortunately, since I got it for nearly half-price!). But never the less, discontinued or not, I love this camera, and it has become central to my work.

This means that any software I use must support this now-outdated camera. This camera was discontinued before Aperture was released, so Aperture does not support its files. And since it is discontinued (and was never that poopular), there is very little reason for Apple to ever add support in the future. (This is all tied up in the headache of proprietary raw file formats.). Since I am not going to change my camera, this means I cannot use Aperture.

However, Adobe Lightroom is a different story. First, is built on the foundation on Adobe Camera Raw, a well tested and widely used raw conversion program that beautifully supports my older Kodak camera. I've been using ACR with my Kodak files for many months, and love the results it gives me. Since it is grown from the same seed, I have found Lightroom to be just as capable. But Lightroom's development tools don't stop there. It builds on the abilities of ACR, and adds some exciting new tools. An improved tone curve, sophisticated black and white handing, and new color tuning tools allow me to pull more and more quality out of my photographs. The more I work with Lightroom's tools, the more I fall in love with what my old camera can achieve.

Next, you have to let me integrate with Photoshop

The second reason I don't think I'll use Aperture is its limited support of Photoshop files. But wait, you say, aren't these programs supposed to replace Photoshop? No, not at all! Photoshop will still be an important part of my toolset. As a fine art photographer, I spend quite a bit of time worrying over each photograph I take. In my business, it's about quality, not quantity. While the raw converstion tools of ACR, Lightroom or Aperture can take me far, I still need to bring my photographs into Photoshop to complete my work. Photoshop's local color correction tools, layers, masks, give me complete control over every pixel in an image. And in fine art photography, each detail matters.

I use my photographs to create fine art prints called ketubot. A ketubah is a Jewish wedding certificate, which combine images and words. Photoshop gives me the ability to combine my photographs with Hebrew and English text designs I create in other programs. It also allows me to create samples of my ketubah designs to post on my website, and create proofs of these ketubot to send to my customers. Therefore, integration with Photoshop is very important to me.

Aperture does allow you to send photos to an "external editor", but its support is quite basic. Even when they improve it, they will not be able to match what Adobe will be able to do. While Lightroom's current beta only allows a basic interface with Photoshop, it is safe to assume that this will grow and improve. Adobe has committed itself to making sure its programs integrate and work together as a suite of tools. Since my photograph must integrate with not only Photoshop, but Illustrator (their illustration software) and Golive (their web design software), this is a no brainer. Besides, if they can't do it, no one can.

Conclusion

So, suddenly, photographers have two new programs specifically designed to meet their needs. Pretty wild, no? I am glad both programs are now out there, being used, tested, ripped apart, and argued over. The result will be tools that are better, more intuitive, and more focused on the unique needs of phototgraphers.

As these programs grow and mature, they will develop their own set of strengths and weaknesses. There will be fans and doubters for both, shouting in both directions. Photographers are nothing if not passionate about their tools! But as you read through all these articles and opinions, I encourage you to avoid the emotional reactions. It will be up to each photographer to decide which program better suits their needs. Look at the work you do, and evaluate the needs you have. Then see which program has (or potentially will have) the tools that satisfy your needs. Then, forget the debates, and get out there and make some art.

Postscript: no knee-jerking

One more thought. Some see the timing of Adobe's release of Lightroom as a knee-jerk response to Apple. But this attitude just shows a lack of understanding of the software business. I've worked in software companies for many years, and know just how long it takes to create new programs -- especially major ones that will become central to entire industries. The fact that both companies followed a similar timeline is just due to both companies awareness of the evolution of digital photography. Until a couple years ago, there was no need for these tools. But as soon as the need popped up, these two companies (who are both filled with savvy, smart people) got to work.

Links to more information

Adobe Lightroom Beta
Adobe Lightroom Beta Forums
Apple Aperture
Apple Aperture Forums
Photoshop News: Lightroom Resources