Any switchers from LightRoom to Aperture 3

[maflynn]

Ok, I admit I'm seriously thinking of switching back to Aperture.

Last summer, I switched after agonizing over my choice. I saw two issues, apple's lack of attention to apeture/RAW and aperture's substandard editing capabilities.

Now that A3 is out, the first issue has not really been allayed - only time will tell but the second was completely.

So I'm 80 - 90% sure I'm switching. One of the things I missed in Aperture was apple's integration to other products. I can easily share my images to any apple product and even use rapidweaver. With LR, I need to resize, and export the pngs and then import them into the given application or device (iphone).

What I will miss is LRs grid view that includes such items as file name, date, rating image size or what other metric I choose. While A3's UI is clean, neat and consistent I will miss the lack of data being presented in the grid view.

Any other people contemplating movnig over to A3?

 

[Grimace]

My friend, you are in luck!

You can choose ANYTHING you can think of to show in Grid View (or the other views too).

 

[maflynn]

SWEET - you made my day

WHOOHOO

yes, the simple things get me excited

 

[chrono1081]

Me!!!!

I'm in love with A3. I'm making the switch from Lightroom.

 

[Edge100]

I'm not.

While A3 is definitely the best version of Aperture ever, I just don't see any compelling reason to go through the hassle of switching from LR for my day to day work. A3 would have to be a major improvement over LR for me to even consider this.

That said, A3 will have a place on my computer just so I can do books with it. That is one area in which Aperture is miles ahead of LR/Adobe.

 

[maestrokev]

Anyone with a large collection of edited RAW photos in LR will think long and hard before going to A3. Means losing all editing changes and having to recreate.

 

[GoCubsGo]

Anyone with a large collection of edited RAW photos in LR will think long and hard before going to A3. Means losing all editing changes and having to recreate.

That is exactly the case. Unless Aperture offers some sort of retention of edits to RAW photos there is no reason to think many would jump ship without being seriously compelled. If Apple would like to grab LR users then they'd have to figure out a way to make it real easy. If you don't do much editing in either then the switch would obviously be easier.

 

[mlblacy]

why lose the work?

Anyone with a large collection of edited RAW photos in LR will think long and hard before going to A3. Means losing all editing changes and having to recreate.

Why not just export the changed versions as well? I do not understand why you would lose the changes. That being said, I never left Aperture to use LR. However in Aperture you can export either or both versions of each image...
cheers.

 

[maestrokev]

Why not just export the changed versions as well? I do not understand why you would lose the changes. That being said, I never left Aperture to use LR. However in Aperture you can export either or both versions of each image...
cheers.

Because the whole point of using high end software like LR and A3 is non-destructive workflow of RAW files. It's not like adding +3 exposure or +1 contrast in LR gives the same look in A3. The controls are different. By exporting the changed version I assume you mean convert to JPG? That would end non-destructive workflow not to mention doubling the number of files. My photo collection contains about 12,000 RAW files alone.

 

[TonyK]

Wasn't one of the features of A3 was the ability to import the sidecar files from tools like PS and LR? Or is that only for meta data saved to sidecar files?

Anyone with a large collection of edited RAW photos in LR will think long and hard before going to A3. Means losing all editing changes and having to recreate.

 

[stagi]

I am thinking about making the switch. For me I haven't been using lightroom for that long (was using bridge for a long time). And aperture looks pretty slick, I am going to finish testing it out this month and then make a decision

 

[Kebabselector]

I am going to finish testing it out this month and then make a decision

The trial only lasts 30 days so you'd better be quick, unless you bought LR for $200+ and looking to drop another $200 on Aperture.

 

[firestarter]

No. Not tempted to change from LR 2.5

I've taken a look at the Aperture 3 new features, for most of the things the interest me my reaction was 'hasn't Lightroom been doing this for the last year?'. I just think that Apple has been playing catchup for this release.

Aperture is very pretty, but it's also a resource hog (one of its main aims must be to sell MacPros and 30 inch screens!). Although I have a MacPro and large screen, I like the way that Lightroom is quite lightweight when using it on a laptop.

I also much prefer Lightroom's file management. I use a new library for every shoot - and I really don't like Aperture's approach to libraries compared to this. I also like the way that Lightroom writes all edits back into a dng, which I can then open in Photodhop, and have those edits applied. Lightroom won't do this.

Finally, I have a lot more confidence in Adobe's RAW processing and the controls, camera profiling etc. than I have in Lightroom.

 

[maflynn]

Anyone with a large collection of edited RAW photos in LR will think long and hard before going to A3. Means losing all editing changes and having to recreate.

Yes, but in my case, I switched last summer and I kept my old aperture library. So for me, I only need to worry about images I shot between July through January. Not a small amount, but a small subset of my entire library.

 

[cube]

It sucks to have to choose one or the other program. There should be a standard single repository of images and editing that is used by all applications.

 

[Ruahrc]

No. Not tempted to change from LR 2.5

I've taken a look at the Aperture 3 new features, for most of the things the interest me my reaction was 'hasn't Lightroom been doing this for the last year?'. I just think that Apple has been playing catchup for this release.

Aperture is very pretty, but it's also a resource hog (one of its main aims must be to sell MacPros and 30 inch screens!). Although I have a MacPro and large screen, I like the way that Lightroom is quite lightweight when using it on a laptop.

I also much prefer Lightroom's file management. I use a new library for every shoot - and I really don't like Aperture's approach to libraries compared to this. I also like the way that Lightroom writes all edits back into a dng, which I can then open in Photodhop, and have those edits applied. Lightroom won't do this.

Finally, I have a lot more confidence in Adobe's RAW processing and the controls, camera profiling etc. than I have in Lightroom.

Looks like you've mixed up some of your typing in there, but I think I follow what you were saying.

Anyways, I would recommend that nobody switches anything from what they have until LR3 is finalized and released, which should be relatively soon. There is no point in spending money on aperture 3 only to want to switch back to LR next month...

Ruahrc

 

[jgaucho9]

Export raw images from Lightroom to Aperture?

Can anyone advise on how to export Lightroom RAW files to Aperture? I've tried export as DNG and as original and Aperture 3 doesn't seem to read any of these.

Any help much appreciated

JM

 

[pdxflint]

My experience level with Aperture 2 is fairly brief, but after using it for a month and also using LR 3 (beta) I'm swinging to LR - mainly because it just doesn't bog down my MBP 2.2 with 4g RAM the way Aperture 2 does. I haven't tried Aperture 3.

I guess the real test is Aperture 3 vs. LR 3. What tricks are up LR's sleeve after the beta period, cause you know there will be a few based on feedback.

I do like the integration with Apple apps with Aperture, no doubt. Is it a game changer? The jury's still out.

Can anyone advise on how to export Lightroom RAW files to Aperture? I've tried export as DNG and as original and Aperture 3 doesn't seem to read any of these.

Any help much appreciated

JM

Why not just reference the 'original' files when you import them to Aperture? I usually import my RAW files to folders organized by date directly from my camera (actually do it within Picasa, of all things...) and then "import" the original files without copying them into LR and Aperture. As I test each app, they all use the same originals non-destructively... at least that way I can wrap my head around where my files are. Exports go into folders named for each app... When I settle on whichever photo app I'm keeping, I won't have to convert or transfer anything. I don't know if this is the best way, but it seems to work for me...

 

[ManhattanPrjct]

I have been using Bridge and PSE for a while now, not because of choice, but more because it's the most resource-effective solution for my "antiquated" Macbook 2,1. LR3 (the beta) runs decently enough, but with A2 (haven't used A3), you can just forget about trying to listen to any music on iTunes while doing anything! Okay, I'm exaggerating things a bit, but it's a noticeable difference. I am due for a new computer this fall when my Applecare rolls (can we say MBP i7 rev.B?) but it seems kind of silly that I should upgrade JUST to be able to run A3 well.

It sucks to have to choose one or the other program. There should be a standard single repository of images and editing that is used by all applications.

Wouldn't that be nice...but I really believe that because the programs polarize their users so much, Adobe and Apple probably don't assume too many photographers would take the time to switch from one platform to the other. Brand loyalty in this case is more or less decided for you once you start using your program - and rightfully so, after using both, you pretty much have a sense for which workflow is better for you.

I think that is why in many respects Apple accepts the fact that Aperture is a few steps behind Lightroom in terms of features and functionality. Apple just has to keep up with what Lightroom is doing to keep its users happy. The folks in Cupertino aren't idiots - they know they are not a market leader in photo editing software, but they also know the hassles of switching are so significant, they can keep their flock placated by integrating what features they can from LR into A3 and hope to pick up new photographers and upgraders from iPhoto.

And don't let this seem like a bashing of Aperture - I'd love to be able to use it (and prefer it to LR), but it's not possible on this current setup.

 

[Westside guy]

I'm sure we'll see similar threads once Lightroom 3 is released.

I don't really understand people who repeatedly switch back and forth, but as long as they're willing to put that amount of work in - again and again - then more power to them.

 

[John.B]

I'm always amazed that people think you have to completely dump your old DAM and reprocess all your pictures in the new one. Lr 2.x isn't going to suddenly stop working the day you install Aperture 3...

 

[Kebabselector]

I don't really understand people who repeatedly switch back and forth

It must cost them a fortune to keep buying different versions. Even if they follow the upgrade paths it's not cheap.

 

[jgaucho9]

Lightroom DNGs to Aperture

That's a very good idea for the future. The problem is for the first few hundred imports I hadn't checked the option for Lightroom to keep the original RAW file so all I have is a DNG, or a couple hundred of them, that I would like to import the original version of to Aperture. Any ideas?

Thanks

JM

Why not just reference the 'original' files when you import them to Aperture? I usually import my RAW files to folders organized by date directly from my camera (actually do it within Picasa, of all things...) and then "import" the original files without copying them into LR and Aperture. As I test each app, they all use the same originals non-destructively... at least that way I can wrap my head around where my files are. Exports go into folders named for each app... When I settle on whichever photo app I'm keeping, I won't have to convert or transfer anything. I don't know if this is the best way, but it seems to work for me...

 

[polotska]

Thinking about a switch myself. But I'll still use Lightroom when I'm using a PC.

 

[John.B]

That's a very good idea for the future. The problem is for the first few hundred imports I hadn't checked the option for Lightroom to keep the original RAW file so all I have is a DNG, or a couple hundred of them, that I would like to import the original version of to Aperture. Any ideas?

Welcome to yet another "open" Adobe "standard".