Next step after iPhoto?

[jeanneholverstott]

I am not entirely excited about the concept of PP, largely because the concept is so large, cumbersome, and detailed. I am beginning to investigate software, and I'm curious what people recommend for my MBP.

[SwissJon]

Ah.. The next step after iPhoto.... Bin your Mac..

Since Mac went over to the Intel Dark side, and since some geeks thought it might be quite fun to write virus's for Macs, and since Microsoft actually managed to produce a half decent operating system in Windows 7, the difference between the two is not as great as it used to be. (I work with both regularly)

However the difference in price IS.. A macbook pro with an 2.2GHz i7 processor 17" monitor 4Gb RAM (The maximum possible with the 32bit architecture) and 750Gb HDD costs £2099 in the Apple Store. Then on top of that, you have to pay for (mainly) products and peripherals for which Apple has written in their 30% mark up, meaning there's no competition, and so everything gets hugely expensive. I've just priced up a new system for a designer here and it cost in the region of £4000 And what's more, when you run out of room on your hard disk, you need to buy a new COMPUTER..

The equivalent system, from Dabs in the UK, with a 2.8GHz i7 Processor, 4Gb Ram, 18" screen, BluRay drive, 4Gb Ram (16Gb Max) 640Gb Hard disk (Upgradeable) and Windows 7 64Bit costs £1199.. So when you can get a faster computer with a bigger monitor that's likely to last you longer with the ability to upgrade over time (As technology develops, you'll be able to put an SSD drive in there) And the software you need is all as available for both systems, and there's much much more available for the PC in addition. Why on earth would you want to shell out so much on a Mac.. Sorry, I use both, but only because I don't have to pay for them.. If I had to pay, I'd stick with the PC and not miss the Mac, not even a little. If I had to stick with a Mac, I'd most definitely find it restrictive.

[Nicole]

Lightroom or Aperture would possibly suit your needs. I personally prefer LR rather than Aperture. For some reason I could never quite get into the Aperture interface. However, some people love Aperture. So, it's much more a personal preference. Both have a bit more to them than iPhoto. I guess I would say that your first step should probably be downloading both demos and seeing how you like them, and asking questions about them

[compleks]

I use LightRoom and wouldn't hesitate in recommending it.

[inkista]

Keep the mac. You already bought it.

I'd say start by simply shooting RAW and using the software that came with your camera. If you think you need more control than that, then look into getting a RAW converter.

Lightroom is probably the most popular one. It uses the same tools for RAW conversion that Photoshop does, and can share files with Photoshop, so a lot of people like it. Be aware, however, that everything you can do in Lightroom you can do in Photoshop (it's just easier in LR), so if you are also considering getting Photoshop and you can't afford both, I'd make PS a higher priority. OTOH, a lot of folks do just fine with Photoshop Express and Lightroom.

Aperture is another RAW converter that's made by Apple. There is no Windows equivalent. Lightroom does things in a modular way sort of a step 1, step 2, step 3 enforcement. If that kind of thinking doesn't fit and you prefer to do whatever you want whenever you want, Aperture may be better for you, because it doesn't enforce modules on you. If you're used to and like the feel of Apple applications, this might also appeal to you a bit more.

Both of the programs have 30-day free trials that are downloadable for you to try. I personally refer to the Lightroom free trial as Adobe's gateway drug.

If you have no money to spend, and you just want to dive headfirst, I'd say get the Gimp.

To me, one simple easy way to get into post-processing and discover why iPhoto/Picasa-is-not-enough is learning Curves adjustments.

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by SwissJon

Ah.. The next step after iPhoto.... Bin your Mac..

Since Mac went over to the Intel Dark side, and since some geeks thought it might be quite fun to write virus's for Macs, and since Microsoft actually managed to produce a half decent operating system in Windows 7, the difference between the two is not as great as it used to be. (I work with both regularly)

However the difference in price IS.. A macbook pro with an 2.2GHz i7 processor 17" monitor 4Gb RAM (The maximum possible with the 32bit architecture) and 750Gb HDD costs £2099 in the Apple Store. Then on top of that, you have to pay for (mainly) products and peripherals for which Apple has written in their 30% mark up, meaning there's no competition, and so everything gets hugely expensive. I've just priced up a new system for a designer here and it cost in the region of £4000 And what's more, when you run out of room on your hard disk, you need to buy a new COMPUTER..

The equivalent system, from Dabs in the UK, with a 2.8GHz i7 Processor, 4Gb Ram, 18" screen, BluRay drive, 4Gb Ram (16Gb Max) 640Gb Hard disk (Upgradeable) and Windows 7 64Bit costs £1199.. So when you can get a faster computer with a bigger monitor that's likely to last you longer with the ability to upgrade over time (As technology develops, you'll be able to put an SSD drive in there) And the software you need is all as available for both systems, and there's much much more available for the PC in addition. Why on earth would you want to shell out so much on a Mac.. Sorry, I use both, but only because I don't have to pay for them.. If I had to pay, I'd stick with the PC and not miss the Mac, not even a little. If I had to stick with a Mac, I'd most definitely find it restrictive.

Well that was useful.

[jdepould]

Originally Posted by SwissJon

Ah.. The next step after iPhoto.... Bin your Mac..

Since Mac went over to the Intel Dark side, and since some geeks thought it might be quite fun to write virus's for Macs, and since Microsoft actually managed to produce a half decent operating system in Windows 7, the difference between the two is not as great as it used to be. (I work with both regularly)

Pretty sure there aren't any Mac viruses in the wild.

[timlaug]

Originally Posted by SwissJon

Ah.. The next step after iPhoto.... Bin your Mac..

Since Mac went over to the Intel Dark side, and since some geeks thought it might be quite fun to write virus's for Macs, and since Microsoft actually managed to produce a half decent operating system in Windows 7, the difference between the two is not as great as it used to be. (I work with both regularly)

However the difference in price IS.. A macbook pro with an 2.2GHz i7 processor 17" monitor 4Gb RAM (The maximum possible with the 32bit architecture) and 750Gb HDD costs £2099 in the Apple Store. Then on top of that, you have to pay for (mainly) products and peripherals for which Apple has written in their 30% mark up, meaning there's no competition, and so everything gets hugely expensive. I've just priced up a new system for a designer here and it cost in the region of £4000 And what's more, when you run out of room on your hard disk, you need to buy a new COMPUTER..

The equivalent system, from Dabs in the UK, with a 2.8GHz i7 Processor, 4Gb Ram, 18" screen, BluRay drive, 4Gb Ram (16Gb Max) 640Gb Hard disk (Upgradeable) and Windows 7 64Bit costs £1199.. So when you can get a faster computer with a bigger monitor that's likely to last you longer with the ability to upgrade over time (As technology develops, you'll be able to put an SSD drive in there) And the software you need is all as available for both systems, and there's much much more available for the PC in addition. Why on earth would you want to shell out so much on a Mac.. Sorry, I use both, but only because I don't have to pay for them.. If I had to pay, I'd stick with the PC and not miss the Mac, not even a little. If I had to stick with a Mac, I'd most definitely find it restrictive.

You dont have to buy a new computer if you want a larger hard drive, simply not true, even for MAC! A MAC CAN get a virus but it is extremely unlikely, according to symantec a user would have to allow the payload to run by clicking up to 3 times to allow it, for the only known "in the wild" MAC virus and it cannot be spread by intel based systems and it is only contracted using IM. The Intel has nothing to do with virus either operating systems are exploited not the hardware architecture. I am a Microsoft Certified Engineer so I am not an Apple or nothing guy, but please do not post inaccurate information. In my opinion the MAC is/was designed for multimedia so I dont know why it would be restrictive as it relates to the OP's question whereas the PC has a stronger presence with business applications, though both are very capable of providing both functions.

[inkista]

Wow. Missed that hard drive bit (I tend to tune out early on I-hate-Apple posts).

So those two times I swapped the hard drive in my MacBook for something bigger is a thing I can't do? And I was just wasting my money going to Newegg? And Apple's just screwing with us when it puts up those step-by-step guides to upgrading your hard drives? And memory?

I suppose those ifixit.com guides for repairing just about every damn thing in your MacBook are all wrong, too, huh?

As for apps I can get on Windows that are just as good as OSX apps--find me XCode and the iPhone SDK for Windows, and maybe I'll consider it. But remember that XCode (and all the other developer goodies) are free from Apple and come on every OSX disk. VisualStudio Pro costs $700, and it's not like it's on the Windows 7 Home Edition disks. And it's not like it lets you write Android apps, too. We won't even go into the tons of UNIX utilities I get for free out of the box with a Mac that I'd have to hunt down and install as ports on Windows. And no, cygwin doesn't count as a UNIX development environment. It really doesn't.

To me, what would be most restrictive is being stuck with a single OS. I use OSX, Windows, Solaris, and Ubuntu regularly. And I use them all on my MacBook.

[MorningStar]

inkista, what do you use? I have a similar need to the original poster. So what do you use? Which do you prefer?