In article , nospam wrote:

Sandman:
I am currently running both Aperture and Lightroom with the
same photos, and there are a number of things LR is sorely
lacking. Here are a few I've talked about in the past:

1. No auto-sync with cloud storage 2. No "Events" to
automatically group your photos 3. No high dynamic range in
curves 4. Many problems with importing photos if there are
videos in the batch 5. Slow to use and slow to import 6. Poor
Facebook/Flickr support 7. Buggy support for lens data in EXIF
8. Pretty cumbersome workflow 9. No support for face
recognition 10. No support for drag'n'drop of current version
of photo

nospam:
those are anywhere from completely bogus to coming in lightroom
6 to minor issues.

Sandman:
Nothing bogus, and some are minor but still bothersome. Not sure
what of the above you think will be in LR6, there hasn't been any
official word from Adobe yet. The things that are being rumored
are things like content-aware editing.

adobe has already stated that facial recognition, gpu offloading,
major speed improvements, including import/export are coming.

blogs.adobe.com is having DB issues right now so I can't confirm this.

Sandman:
Might have missed some. But, having said that, here
are some positive things about Lightroom over Apertu

1. Far better noise reduction (not as good as DxO Optics, but
good enough) 2. "Clarity" is a lot better than "Definition" 3.
Lens correction built in, no need to use DxO Optics. 4.
Support for more publishing services via plugins, even if the
UI is awful.

nospam:
'awful ui' is subjective.

Sandman:
Well, of course.

then it can't be included in your list.

You mean the list labeled "Here are a few I've talked about in the past"? That
doesn't make any sense.

nospam:
far more people prefer lightroom's ui than they did aperture.
that's partly why aperture was a dud.

Sandman:
How do you figure?

adobe has said so.

And without a source, it's just more hot air.

Sandman:
By the same logic, far more people prefer Windows UI than the Mac
UI and Windows is far superior than Macs.

nope. more people use windows but that doesn't mean they prefer it.
most use it because that's what they're given. they aren't choosing
it.

I.e. just like with Lightroom, since Windows users doesn't have an alternative.
It's the exact same thing.

Sandman:
I just find this line of thinking hard to swallow from a Mac
user.

that's your problem.

Not so much of a problem for me.

Sandman:
Just because Android and Windows is used far more than iPhone and
Macs doesn't mean they have superior UI or that far more people
think they do.

that's also not the same thing.

It is.

this is about a choice of two apps on the same platform, not
hardware platforms.

No, Windows users could never choose Aperture. A smart phone buyer has more
choice in smart phone than a Windows user has for photo management apps.

Sandman:
I'm sure some people think the Lightroom UI is better than
Aperture, but I would bet the reason why most people are using
Lightroom is due to Aperture not being available to Windows
users, and most people use Windows, so they had no choice what so
ever.

nope. this has nothing to do with windows users. stop moving the
goalpost.

Of course it does. Stop moving the goalpost.

Sandman:
For Mac users, some switched due to Aperture not being updated
enough, plus it's easier to use the same tool as your Windows
colleagues do, since there is a line of support.

lightroom has always held the lead over aperture.

Thanks for sharing your personal opinion.

Sandman:
OSX Photos, now in public beta, is no Aperture
replacement. It's hardly even a iPhoto replacement. We'll see
how it matures, and if it will truly have non- destructive
plugins (which some have claimed, but can't back up).

nospam:
it slots between iphoto and aperture, exactly as intended.

Sandman:
No, it doesn't. It currently "slots" beneath iPhoto, lacking many
features of iPhoto. Perhaps when it's out of beta, it will close
to iPhoto, but currently it isn't.

one key area in which it's ahead is speed. it's way the **** faster
than iphoto.

Not really, no. I have 80k photos in iPhoto and it's blazing fast. Photos isn't
slow, but it's not faster than iPhoto. But, it's still in beta.

Sandman:
You're the one that kept claiming that OSX Photos "looked a lot"
like both Aperture and Lightroom, when it's nowhere near either
of them. You also said that there was a big chance of OSX Photos
leaving Lightroom "in the dust". Well, that's not working out
really well.

eventually. it's not done yet.

So it was intended to slot between iPhoto and Aperture while leaving Lightroom
in the dust? That doesn't make any sense what so ever.

--
Sandman