Aperture or Lightroom?

digitaldave · June 22, 2007 2:03AM

Does anyone have any experience with the latest versions of these apps? I've been thinking about using one of them but I was limited by my old PowerBook - now I have a new MacBook Pro, Aperture is more of an option. I've looked around at some comparisons, but they all seem to compare Aperture with the beta of Lightroom, I can't seem to find an up to date versions

. I'll give the trial versions a go, but I'd love to hear from people that have actually used them in anger

.

Thanks,

Dave.

bergermeister · June 22, 2007 2:11AM

I have Aperture and like it. It does the trick for me.

What do you plan to do with your app? (some people will have preferences here)

Doesn't Apple have a discount on Aperture if you buy a new machine?

dutch pear · June 22, 2007 2:41AM

I'm a very happy aperture user as well. Overall it a pleasure to use and has a great interface. I must say that I have lately become a little dissapointed by aperture's editing performance after starting to play around more with photoshop. I can't tell you how lightroom compares in this respect, but supposedly its' RAW engine is top notch.

digitaldave · June 22, 2007 4:18AM

I've been using iPhoto since I switched to a Mac a few years ago. Although it's great for organising snapshots, I'm starting to feel it's limitations. I want to start using the RAW mode on my DSLR, and although iPhoto can handle RAW files, it really doesn't do much more than convert it to a TIFF as far as I can tell, so you don't get all the advantages of RAW shooting. So, I have looked at Aperture and Lightroom as possible solutions, as I get the impression that they greatly simplify the RAW workflow - something that scared me off before. I won't be doing any large scale edits, so it appears that the editing and adjustment tools in both programs will cover what I want to do - i.e. I don't need Photoshop

.

One other aspect of iPhoto that is starting to annoy me is it's database structure - it keeps copies of the original file and creates a new file with any changes in it, and this can take up a lot of space - for example, a quick check of my iPhoto folders shows I have 12GB in the 'originals' folder and 1.7GB in the 'modified' folder - I'm hoping that Aperture and Lightroom will take up less space with amendments, as they don't store new copies every time you change something, they store a lit of the changes and apply them in real time (at least I believe that's how Aperture does it, I'm not so sure about Lightroom).

I had a look on the UK web sit for Aperture promotions but couldn't se any

. If I've missed it, let me know

.

Thanks,

Dave.

backtomac · June 22, 2007 7:30AM

I'm thinking of moving to aperture. I probably ought to give lightroom a look. Anyway came across this link at MW. Maybe it will help you make a decision.

http://www.macworld.com/2007/06/feat...room/index.php

digitaldave · June 22, 2007 8:47AM

Thanks for the link, that was an interesting read.

I've just been watching some of the videos on Apple's site, including an online seminar about using Aperture with iPhoto, and I hadn't realised that there was such close integraton with the iApps. One example they mentioned was that you could edit your images in Aperture, then import them in to iPhoto to produce a calendar for example, simply because the Aperture library can be set to show up in the media browser that the iApps use - this is something that I could easily se myself using, so I'm heavily favouring Aperture now.

For those that have used Aperture, do you use a referenced or Aperture managed library?

jroller · June 22, 2007 9:04AM

I, too, raise my hand for Aperture; however, we have never used Lightroom in our labs, so I can't speak about it. Maybe the fact that Aperture does the job is the reason I've never felt the need to use Lightroom?

filburt · June 22, 2007 12:36PM

I have tried both and the key difference to me is that with Aperture, you can do whatever you want at any time of the workflow, whereas Lightroom prefers that you do things in certain steps. Other than that, here are the pros and cons (to me anyway).

Aperture is better because:

- it has more "pro" work environment -- smaller fonts, less wasted space, more Final Cut-like (and I know I am just nitpicking, but I really dislike "Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 1.0" banner on the upper left hand corner)

- superior at organizing images (better smart albums, sorting, keyword, etc.)

- better color correction

- loupe

Lightroom is better because:

- faster and more friendly on less powerful Macs

- superior metatag -- e.g., lens type info

- richer image editing features, such as vignette, barrel distortion corrections

- better printing module

- arguably better RAW filters

FYI, I use Aperture.

houseley · June 22, 2007 3:08PM

Try these two links for experiences of two experienced photographers trying the other side (Aperture user trying Lightroom and the other way). Interesting comments from readers too.

Aperture vs Lightroom

Lightroom vs Aperture

Also check out the discussion forum on Aperture at apple.com to get a sense of how users are finding it. Always worth a trawl.

hmurchison · June 22, 2007 4:57PM

I'm looking to make the jump up to a DSLR and start shooting in RAW as well.

I'm probably going to go with Aperture because of the integration with other Mac programs and that I think Aperture 2.0 will be a very nice upgrade.

icfireball · June 22, 2007 9:18PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hmurchison

I'm looking to make the jump up to a DSLR and start shooting in RAW as well.

I'm probably going to go with Aperture because of the integration with other Mac programs and that I think Aperture 2.0 will be a very nice upgrade.

Quote:

Originally Posted by digitaldave

Does anyone have any experience with the latest versions of these apps? I've been thinking about using one of them but I was limited by my old PowerBook - now I have a new MacBook Pro, Aperture is more of an option. I've looked around at some comparisons, but they all seem to compare Aperture with the beta of Lightroom, I can't seem to find an up to date versions

. I'll give the trial versions a go, but I'd love to hear from people that have actually used them in anger

.

Thanks,

Dave.

I've used Lightroom, but I use Aperture. First, it is a more mature product. Second, it has a far better interface. Third, and most importantly, it has a far more powerful media organization/portability/back-up scheme. I have no problems with Aperture at all.

If you are going to shoot RAW, get a large external HD. A 10 Megapixel picture in RAW format is almost 30MB per photo. I shoot JPEG when I know I wont need much (or any) color adjustments. I shoot RAW for sports photography or when I anticipate I'll need to edit photos heavily -- for example in low light settings. I will probably start shooting all RAW when I get more storage space and a larger SD memory card.

And finally, I would highly suggest the Nikon D80. This is one very fine camera. Heavy enough to feel professional and study but light enough to not weigh you down. Also remember, a camera is only as good at it's glass. Invest in a great lens. With the D80 I got the 18-200mm NIKON VR lens. It's excellent. For the higher end camera and glass, I think Canon and Nikon are virtually equal. For low-end dSLRs, I would recommend Nikon. (P.S. -- I use both Nikon and Canons at school).

purgatory · June 22, 2007 10:06PM

You could always try Aperture and Lightroom out, yourself. (EDIT: Whoops, you already said you'd do that. My bad.)

I use Aperture on my 1.83 GHz Rev. A MBP (1.5 GB RAM), and I absolutely love it (the organizational tools, the loupe, ...), but I essentially have to quit my other programs before I use it with my Nikon D40's ~5.5 MB RAW files. Aperture itself stutters a bit with them (mostly when updating the thumbnaisl after major changes), and ends up sucking up so much RAM that everything else is paged off (hence why I quit everything else. It's easier to re-open them after than wait for them to be read back to memory when I'm done). It handles the 2 MB Fine JPEG images with next to no issue, but the larger RAW images cause it to choke a bit.

But again, I've the first, cheapest MBP, so grain of salt, etc.

digitaldave · June 23, 2007 4:02AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by icfireball

I've used Lightroom, but I use Aperture. First, it is a more mature product. Second, it has a far better interface. Third, and most importantly, it has a far more powerful media organization/portability/back-up scheme. I have no problems with Aperture at all.

If you are going to shoot RAW, get a large external HD. A 10 Megapixel picture in RAW format is almost 30MB per photo. I shoot JPEG when I know I wont need much (or any) color adjustments. I shoot RAW for sports photography or when I anticipate I'll need to edit photos heavily -- for example in low light settings. I will probably start shooting all RAW when I get more storage space and a larger SD memory card.

And finally, I would highly suggest the Nikon D80. This is one very fine camera. Heavy enough to feel professional and study but light enough to not weigh you down. Also remember, a camera is only as good at it's glass. Invest in a great lens. With the D80 I got the 18-200mm NIKON VR lens. It's excellent. For the higher end camera and glass, I think Canon and Nikon are virtually equal. For low-end dSLRs, I would recommend Nikon. (P.S. -- I use both Nikon and Canons at school).

One thing I'd forgoten about was the fact that RAW files will be much larger than the JPEGs I currently get out of my camera (about twice the size at least)! It's a shame my Canon 10D won't shoot RAW only, it automatically embeds a JPEG in there too

. Is there way to get Aperture to strip the JPEG out and discard it when importing?

Dave.

ste · June 26, 2007 8:13AM

I'll put my hand up for Lightroom. I hummed and hawed for weeks over my decision, then finally plumped for LR about two weeks ago. Still early days, of course, but so far I couldn't be happier. The editing interface is simple and powerful, and I don't find the structured workflow system hampers creativity in the slightest.

I read the MacWorld comparison while still undecided, and found myself thinking "hmm ... all the way through they seem to be saying LR is the better tool, then at the end they come down on the side of Aperture for little reason other than it being an Apple product". Strange article.

The decision to go with LR became a no-brainer when taking into account my academic discount, which brought the price down to $99. Used together with Photoshop CS3 Extended -- again, heavily discounted at $299 -- I have all the editing power I need and then some.

If you don't need all that pixel-editing capability, Aperture might suit you just as well.

houseley · June 26, 2007 11:01AM

I've found Apple's online seminars on Aperture useful in evaluating whether it would suit my needs - I can't run Aperture on my current Mac. I've tried Lightroom and it just doesn't work for me. It does have some editing tools lacking in Aperture at present, but in terms of DAM, Aperture appears more flexible to me.

Apple Seminars Online

Aperture or Lightroom?

Comments