DR. GIRLFRIEND  Did anyone else notice that they've changed the name from Adobe® Photoshop® Lightroom® to Adobe Lightroom?

Funny. I guess they've milked that cross-branding for all it was worth and are now giving it the name it should have had in the first place.  
(Version 3.0 Beta)

HAL0THANE  Lightroom or Aperture: There's really very little difference technically. What it comes down to is your own preferences. Download both trials, give 'em a spin, and see which you prefer. That's the only way to decide which to use. As for me, I'm a Lightroom guy -- but I do wish that I had access to all of Aperture's plugins. :)  
(Version 3.0 Beta)

MACZENTRUM  I like LR. But it's head-to-head with Apple's Aperture in my opinion. I will wait until LR3 goes final and decide whether to stay with Aperture or switch to LR.  
(Version 3.0 Beta)

D9  While it appears Apple has abandoned or at least slowed development of Aperture, it at least lit a fire under Adobe. That and Final Cut are the 2 products that seem to have made Adobe return to developing for the Mac with equivalent products, Lightroom and Premiere. But don't think for one minute I'm holding my breath on seeing a 64-bit Photoshop from these bums until at least mid-2011!

Besides that, I've got nothing good to say about Adobe these days.

/  
(Version 2.4)

MANNYAM  playing around with the new 2.2 update, i enabled 64-bit mode and found that it does load and import quicker.  
(Version 2.2)

DAWGDRUMMER  Hooray!! The brushes finally work on my G5 Dual 2 tower. Thanks Adobe.  
(Version 2.2)

DGOMBAU  Have been comparing Lightroom 2 with Aperture 2.

I do a lot of panos, and Lightroom has a simple integration with that Photo Merge feature in Photoshop. Aperture is a cumbersome, multi-step export operation.

Aperture has a much more usable touchup and healing capability, whereas Lightoom is pretty basic. And Aperture has integration with Apple Photo Books.

Still have not decided whether I like the gray palette of Aperture, or the black one of Lightroom.

Currently I shoot with a Nikon D200. But I used to own a Nikon CoolPix 5700, and Aperture will not recognize the 5700 file format, for the thousands of images I took with the 5700. Lightroom will.

Anyone have any comments to add to the above?  
(Version 2.1)

MACVAULT  I own both Lightroom (2.0) and Aperture. While each has their advantages and disadvantages, I'm finding that Aperture just works better with my workflow. This is completely subjective and a personal decision. I think they're both great programs.

That being said, the main reason I've continued to keep Lightroom around is for the better touch up tools, although now with Aperture plug ins, this is becoming less of an advantage. Some Aperture plug ins are VERY powerful and a joy to work with. I don't think Lightroom really has the plug in architecture support for such things which is a shame.

Also, the latest Aperture simply screams on my MacPro. It used to be the other way around. Now Lightroom feels like a dog in comparison ;) At some point, I could see myself moving completely away from Lightroom for many of the above reasons, but since I'm on a Mac I realize this isn't an option for everybody. So Lightroom is still a great choice for the Windows side.  
(Version 2.0)

BUMBLEB  After spending some time with the beta and reading the release notes, I must say that I feel quite underwhelmed by the prospective features of Lightroom 2.0...

The added additions are welcome, however, there is stuff that is more important to fix before adding new fluff and stuff. Such as:

A proper library module. Adobe seems to do one major mistake. They focus on TEXT metadata for organization purposes. Adobe, let me tell you: I AM A PHOTOGRAPHER - A VISUAL PERSON. So Apple does it right with Aperture (and even iPhoto). In those, a user can see all albums, visually, and skim through them easily.

A much much more flexible print module. Aperture can layout full books!

Better branding tools. The current Identity Plate just doesn't cut it. I need to be able to load an eps or PDF file of my logo, as well as input all my contact details, and use it flexible throughout the app.

The healing / spot tool still sucks and is slow to use for anything else than the occasional dust spot.

The interface in itself is, in my honest opinion, quite... unfancy... and... square... Not

The pace of released betas (uno until now) makes be seriously believe Adobe released beta1 just to fend off the Apple Aperture 2.0 release, which does indeed boast a serious leap forward.

Why am I using Lightroom then? Because Apple is slow at adopting the various camera models I use.  
(Version 2.0b1)

BUMBLEB  Lightroom is cool, apart from one glaring annoyance, at least to me: No proper retouching tool. Aperture has a wonderful one in version 2. The "spot" tool in Lightroom is slow to use. I don't wanna define a source point for every spot in an image. I know Lightroom initially tried to guess a source point for me, but often it is totally wrong. The problem is this approach is based on clone stamping. I want something similar to the spot healing brush in Photoshop. Thats what Aperture has now. Why can't Adobe, the great inventors of mighty Photoshop include such stuff in Lightroom?

Yeah yeah, I know, this is a rant. It's just that it is the only thing that is really slowing down my workflow.  
(Version 1.4)

SKALLAGRIMSON  Adobe Lightroom 1.4 pulled, users asked to downgrade

Adobe has pulled the recently released Lightroom 1.4 update from its Web site and is asking users to downgrade to version 1.3.1 of the photography workflow tool.

Company officials say the decision to pull the update was based on the following bugs:

EXIF Time Stamp Error There is an error in the EXIF time stamp update technology that causes Lightroom to believe that the files are out of sync with the correct time stamp as displayed in Lightroom. Any ensuing metadata update will attempt to incorrectly modify the EXIF time stamp in the original raw file itself. This is the only metadata field that Lightroom will write to an original proprietary raw file. This error will not impact the integrity of your image data. The Camera Raw plug-in also will incorrectly change the EXIF time stamp in files converted by the plug-in. The information written to the XMP sidecar files or XMP metadata in the converted files will remain correct.

Olympus Conversion Error There is an error in converting Olympus JPEG files to other formats in Lightroom 1.4 and the Camera Raw 4.4 plug-in.

In order to downgrade, delete the Lightroom application in the Application's folder and then delete the /Library/Receipts/Adobe Photoshop Lightroom.pkg file. Reinstall Lightroom 1.3.1.

http://www.macfixit.com/  
(Version 1.4)

MIKEEVANGELIST  This is a real eye-opener.

Even on my lowly MacBook, Lightroom is snappy. Adjustments are fast and intuitive, straightening is real time, and the entire application is responsive even while it's busy importing images. Patch tool is excellent. Screen layout is logical and doesn't feel cramped at all.

After months of fighting with Aperture, I feel liberated.  
(Version 1.0)

PEHPSI.3  been an aperture user since day one, and my first half hour of using this program, i gota say i'm pretty impressed!

adjustments work in real time, love all the zoom features, before and after is great and works very well with CS2, looks pretty good, feels stable.

nice work, looks like a great product...  
(Version 1.0)

ABRAHAM IRAWAN  agreed, but i don't care about their icon, the program is  
(Version 1.0)

LEFTNOTRACKS  If the first difference we see is a lame "LR" icon to replace the beautiful contact sheet from the Beta's icon, then I can't expect much from the final version.

I though Adobe made graphics programs. I guess they just don't use them.  
(Version 1.0)

AMBERV  If this uses Adobe Camera to generate TIFF files, then that is a huge handicap. AC produces the nastiest quality images from RAW files that I've seen from any professional product. Aperture is actually not bad. It's on par with Nikon's own Capture -- if not a little better in some respects, and definitely in league with Capture One and Raw Developer. Camera, on the other hand, makes my Nikon D100 look like a Canon Powershoot S300. Flat, flat, flat dynamic range, lost shadows, and no detail.  
(Version 1.0)

HANGON  IT'S WAY FASTER THAN APERTURE !!!!!!

aperture is almost unusable on a macbook...on a macbook lightroom is really snappy.  
(Version 1.0)

NORAA  I'm currently an Aperture user, and I really like it. I thougth I'd give Lightroom a try - just to see how it compares to Aperture.

The "Library" module is severely lacking, not very intuitive, and in some ways counter-productive. The "Develop" module, however, is very impressive. The one thing I haven't figured out is how to use the HIstogram. I don't know if I'm missing something, or if it's just not there. In Photoshop and Aperture, I can use a Level adjust, to adjust the Levels in each color channel. I see that Lightroom has a histogram displayed, but how in the world do I adjust it?

I think Lightroom has some potential, and perhaps will show some remarkable improvement in 1.0

Until the Library module is greatly revamped, and I can figure out how the Histogram works - I'll be sticking with Aperture.  
(Version 1.0)

ZX81  Ouch!!! 199$!!!

I've been using the beta since the beginning, but this is the end of the road for me...  
(Version 1.0)

GEE4ORCE  Wow - $200 ? Aperture has way more features and power, and only costs an extra $100.

I might have bought this at $100 - but they've overpriced it.  
(Version 1.0)

MOK.IN.TOUCH™  As a photo editor, I like this application. This runs in the G4s. Great software.  
(Version 1.0b4)

FIGHTINGCAT  I like this app. I used it with my mac mini G4 & Nikon D50. A nice alternativ to Apples Aperture i think...   
(Version 1.0b3)

JLENNON314  I have been absolutely impressed by Lightroom. I am not used to non-destructive work. In fact, I thought that it was just a buzzword; y'know, the kind of stuff that marketing people say to try to get people to purchase things that have the best descriptions.

Non-destructive - I can close the program, come back to the same picture later, and still reset it to the original picture settings. No fuss, no hassle, no problems, and no worries about damaging my original data.

Extremely simple, but powerful, the interface keeps out anything that you don't need, and puts everything you want right where you can find it. If you don't need what they think you do, you can take that off of your screen with a single click.

Lightroom is VERY fast to start up on my MacBook (it is both a Universal Binary and a small application). Sometimes Universal applications have problems with stability on Intel computers; either they haven't been optimized well, or they were rewritten poorly. Lightroom has not suffered from this problem.

Overall, the execution of the program has been excellent, and I am eager to see the price for the finished product. Hopefully, it will be within my range to purchase. Otherwise, I'll just have to save the money.  
(Version 1.0b2)

STRIDER237  I stumbled on Lightroom almost the first day it was available and have been using it ever since. I had followed the advice on Ken Rockwell's site and just about given up shooting RAW. I needed the functionality of iPhoto to store pictures.

Lightroom is like iPhoto for RAW. I love the fact that it natively stores in DNG; I think the concerns about leaving files in proprietary RAW long term are valid.

I've found it to be quite stable: almost never crashes. It does have some odd behaviors (seems to endlessly work on making thumbnails).

Someone here commented on the workflow being strange. I find the workflow very comfortable. It's simple: put the pictures on (Library), kill the worst, work on the best (Develop) Print or send to Photoshop (I seldom do slideshows, although Lightroom does them).

The one point I hope Adobe fixes is the difficulty of keeping PSD files organized. They need to fix the roundtrip to Photoshop and I suspect they will.

I havent tried Aperture but had planned on purchasing it. I no longer do. Lightroom is clearly going to do the same thing and it will only grow more tightly integrated with CS2.  
(Version 1.0b2)

MAC5  The old fly in the ointment trick.. Just click on the link and download free beta Adobe software. No problem, as long as you give them all your personal details - before you can download their software. Not exactly what I would term free..

I think I'll stick with Aperture from Apple, and besides, I really don't need any more spam in my in box.  
(Version 1.0b1.1)

PHILCOZZ  This has great potential... Much faster on my Powerbook than Aperture. GUI doesn't matter as much to me as performance, and this one is on pace to be better, IMO.  
(Version 1.0b1)

SHADOWNIGHT  Quite nice... I dunno if it's just me, but I find the interface is not so intuitive and as somebody mentioned, it does feel more like a flash app than a Cocoa... Although I like the graphical look, it may be a little overdone... for example, why put numbers on the library's pictures? It's not easy to discover features, and while the slideshow is nice, there are almost no options, or rather the ones I consider important (like different transitions or Ken Burns).

All things considered, Lightroom is a nice but weird program (it's beta, after all...) I probably won't buy it comes out, because I really don't have a use for it, iPhoto is acceptable.  
(Version 1.0b1)

MARSVIOLET  Lightroom is Camera RAW spun off as a standalone app (not a bad idea, frankly, since Camera RAW is terrific) with web page and slideshow features added, all slathered over with one of the most unfortunately hideous GUIs ever conceived, which is all the more perplexing when you consider that this is a Cocoa app. It runs decently (faster than Aperture at a lot of things, just as slow at plenty of others). Clearly Lightroom is being rushed to market in response to Aperture, even if it's been in development (e.g. sitting on a shelf) for two years. It looks and feels like some kind of Flash app. The best thing in my opinion, being an owner of Aperture who is really beginning to like the app, is that Lightroom means that Apple will really hustle to improve Aperture.  
(Version 1.0b1)

NORAA  I'm still messing around with it some (just downloaded it last night) - but the program certainly has potential. It is far faster than Aperture, and provides some nicer and more advanceded editing options than Aperture as well. However, Aperture interface his hands down far and away superior than Lightroom's. Now I know this is only a beta, but what Apple has done with Aperture's GUI is simply amazing, and I honestly don't think Lightroom will ever catch up to it. Is this a deal breaker? Probably not, and depending on the final price, Lightroom really could be an "aperture killer." However, Apple has a year or so to fix a lot of the annoying little bugs in aperture - and so far Apple's proline of software has been fantastic.  
(Version 1.0b1)

SANNIXTUDIO  Thank You, thank you!

Plus, it's written in Cocoa!!! Can we be expecting Cocoa re-writes for the entire suite? I sure hope so.

So long, Aperture......  
(Version 1.0b1)

JETTYBOY  So far so good. Certainly faster than Aperture on my PB 1.33 1g ram. Many correction/edits/enhancements available, Most are the same as Photoshop CS. If it continues development like this, I for one will be using it over Aperture to increase productivity, and workflows for photos. It's very good for photographers who need/want to use a portable on location. Aperture as it is now, is dog slow compared to this on a PowerBook.  
(Version 1.0b1)

JDUB  Interesting product. As a user already looking at Aperture, but not enthused by the not-so-glowing initial reviews, this comes at an good time. I'm sure Adobe realise this. Another point I've not seen mentioned anywhere is that, from the download, this appears to come from the Macromedia side of the fence. IS this the case?

Having the CS2 suite, integration with Bridge would be a nice move here. It has a similar interface, with similar Mac style GUI goodness, but some occasional display pauses - expected for a first beta.

I've just tried importing 1100 RAW files into the app and allowing it to setup thumbnails, etc - It's taking a while on my PB, but looking good still. I'll leave it for a bit to setup it's caches and see how it goes. Worst case, I could move to the desktop machine...

Otherwise a good move from Adobe - and with very crafty timing indeed. One to watch for RAW users...  
(Version 1.0b1)