I used Aperture 2 for about 6 months before dumping it for LR2. The editing capabilities of LR2 blew Aperture 2 out of the water, especially localized edits. I now have a massive LR2 library and I refuse to switch back to Aperture now that they've caught up with LR. If I switched every time a new Aperture or LR was released, I'd probably go crazy
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Any switchers from LightRoom to Aperture 3
- Thread starter maflynn
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Now I haven't used LR for a couple of years, but I know enough to know that both programs do pretty much the same thing... manage a photo library and provide post-processing tools. I can definitely understand someone not wanting to switch once they've invested time in learning either program, but is it realistic to call one "far superior" to the other? In what non-subjective way is LR2 far superior?
It is all subjective... but they're not 'generic' in their functionality - and they differ enough for one or other to be 'far superior' depending on the criteria and functionality you need. Personally I like to create a library for each project, see where my files are, use a fairly open DNG workflow and have good compatibility with Photoshop - so LR 'ticks all the boxes'.
I can't speak too much about Aperture - having only tried a preview version, but I have used Lightroom in depth for a couple of years. It does have some really deep functionality that rewards training and becomes more useful as your skills develop.
It's a bit depressing to read these threads were people move from app to app - attracted by the latest 'bling' - without really taking time to get the most out of the one they're using. If you think both are very similar, I'd suggest you have a lot of learning to do.
You don't need to be a power user with Numbers/Excel or Keynote/ PowerPoint to know they do basically the same things. While both have pros/cons, I think it's ridiculous to proclaim one is far superior to the other. However, I could definitely understand if someone says "it meets my needs better".
BTW, I totally agree that it's odd for people to switch back and forth... unless they are only scratching the surface of either app's capabilities... which may be the case for less ambitious photographers. But the pain associated with migrating libraries would be enough to discourage me.
Very odd, you'd suspect that some people have money to burn or pirate stuff. Though I guess the latter never happens here.
i don't think anyone would argue that has to do real calculations would argue that excel isn't superior to anything out there but i see your point. I used LR but wasn't able to just pick up and go, but that is just me. Plus i didn't want to double my efforts of keeping both LR and iPhoto up to date. I might reconsider in the future as my skills increase.
I mean what I say. I say what I mean. 
If you think Excel and Numbers are the same thing, boy do I have a spreadsheet for you....
LR2 is used by more photo pros, even those that have a Mac, for a reason. It's more supported, more plug ins, more community, better tools, better photo management and far superior post processing capabilities, especially when combined with PS CS4.
Any other statement is ridiculous and commonly said by users that only seem to crop and auto adjust.
If you think Excel and Numbers are the same thing, boy do I have a spreadsheet for you....
LR2 is used by more photo pros, even those that have a Mac, for a reason. It's more supported, more plug ins, more community, better tools, better photo management and far superior post processing capabilities, especially when combined with PS CS4.
Any other statement is ridiculous and commonly said by users that only seem to crop and auto adjust.
I mean what I say. I say what I mean.
If you think Excel and Numbers are the same thing, boy do I have a spreadsheet for you....
LR2 is used by more photo pros, even those that have a Mac, for a reason. It's more supported, more plug ins, more community, better tools, better photo management and far superior post processing capabilities, especially when combined with PS CS4.
Any other statement is ridiculous and commonly said by users that only seem to crop and auto adjust.
I'd be super happy if me and my camera captured images that only needed cropping and auto-adjusting.
In all seriousness, I see what you are saying... there's no denying the community/support aspect of Aperture sucks. I find it difficult to find information and people to share tips with. I was thinking more in terms of the capabilities of the software itself.
I'd be super happy if me and my camera captured images that only needed cropping and auto-adjusting.
In all seriousness, I see what you are saying... there's no denying the community/support aspect of Aperture sucks. I find it difficult to find information and people to share tips with. I was thinking more in terms of the capabilities of the software itself.
Have you actually tried Lightroom?
Functions like the gradient tool are extremely powerful - and I don't believe Aperture has any equivalent.
At their heart, Excel and Numbers are spreadsheets. Just like Lightroom and Aperture are DAM applications that allow for some editing of images and have a plug-in scheme.
Aside from that it is features. I can't use Numbers on one of my spreadsheets because it does not support a function I've used in Excel. But Neo supports this function. Go figure.
Again, "superior" is not a term I use lightly. I tried LR and did not really care for it. Aperture was a Christmas present so that is what I'm using.
Aside from that it is features. I can't use Numbers on one of my spreadsheets because it does not support a function I've used in Excel. But Neo supports this function. Go figure.
Again, "superior" is not a term I use lightly. I tried LR and did not really care for it. Aperture was a Christmas present so that is what I'm using.
I mean what I say. I say what I mean.
If you think Excel and Numbers are the same thing, boy do I have a spreadsheet for you....
LR2 is used by more photo pros, even those that have a Mac, for a reason. It's more supported, more plug ins, more community, better tools, better photo management and far superior post processing capabilities, especially when combined with PS CS4.
Any other statement is ridiculous and commonly said by users that only seem to crop and auto adjust.
I've switched from Lightroom 2 to Aperture 3. I originally started with Lightroom when it was first released and used it on a PC. When I switched to Mac 2 years ago I carried on using it. I have been using it less and less though. To tell the truth I never really used it as much as I should have. In the last 2 years I've become more entrenched with Apple, particularly in buying an iPhone.
I love how I can sync photos between iPhoto and my iPhone and have been using iPhoto almost exclusively for the past 9 months. Since I plan on getting an iPad to use as a photo album (amongst other things), it made sense to me to adopt Aperture with its integration with the other Apple products. Getting Aperture has also made me revisit a lot of my old photos and I've been actively keywording and rating them, something I should have done in Lightroom, but never got round to doing.
I love how I can sync photos between iPhoto and my iPhone and have been using iPhoto almost exclusively for the past 9 months. Since I plan on getting an iPad to use as a photo album (amongst other things), it made sense to me to adopt Aperture with its integration with the other Apple products. Getting Aperture has also made me revisit a lot of my old photos and I've been actively keywording and rating them, something I should have done in Lightroom, but never got round to doing.
Yes, that's exactly how it works. DAM = digital asset management. You can't manage it if it isn't in the database.
LR and Aperture represent a fusion of what was once two separate categories. LR and Aperture are trying to combine the function of serious photo processing programs like Photoshop and serious asset managers like Extensis Portfolio.
Serious photographers with large photo collections don't jump from one to another, amateurs do. Same happens whenever Canon or Nikon release a new camera body, you don't hear serious photographers talk about selling off their $20,000 lens collection to switch brands.
Well I have several thousand images in Aperture 2 from last year, and several thousand more in Lightroom 2 from this year. I just know which projects are in which DAM. But I'm certainly not going to, say, reprocess 800 underwater pics (which is a lot of work) in Lr just to have them all in Lr. I can find any photo I need in a matter of a minute or two in the original DAM, due to proper keywording and consistent directory and file naming conventions. It's not really any different than if you were to store different types of subject matter in different libraries of the same DAM. Unless it's some sort of misguided/misplaced allegiance to a software company... <shrug>
OBTW, my best work has already been exported into JPEGs and are stored (of all places) in iPhoto for easy access when I want to show it to someone.
What are you talking about? Serious photographers have done exactly that; lots of Canon shooters have been ditching their white lenses for the low noise/high ISO capabilities of the D3s (or even D700). God knows if Nikon puts a low-noise FF 18MP sensor into some sort of a D900 before Canon gets a decent AF system in a 5DMk3, I'll be next. It's just gear (with a high resale value); it's not like I'm married to it...
Buy and download these training videos - better and quicker than any Lightroom book I've seen:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/videos/LR2.shtml
Jeff Schewe (the guy in the brighter shirt) has been a consultant at Adobe for Lightroom - so these guys really know the inside details, and the advantage of the videos is that you get to see what the tools can be used for, not just what they do.
Personally, I wouldn't jump back and forth more than twice, it becomes a big hassle and when you do it a third time it's just silly. After using Aperture 3 and Lightroom 2 on a daily basis I can say that Aperture 3 has superior tools in every way over Lightroom 2.
Even the selective editing that Aperture didn't have until now is better. Anyone that says otherwise is just not doing the research or the work or paying attention.
That's not to say that Lightroom won't catch up or isn't the standard for working pros on the Mac and PC. Just that Apple has caught Adobe with their pants down. Again, the tools that Apple took from Adobe LR were enhanced in Aperture 3.0, and with many photogs doing multimedia Aperture is a SOLID CHOICE.
Now, the real kicker comes in those caveats that people have. Personally I can't stand LR's kindergarten module system... it's for children that haven't learned workflow and want LR to tell them how to do things. Aperture is seriously a better D.A.M. program. Lightroom however has a better RAW processor (in my opinion and lots of others) than Aperture and for some reason is less of a resource hog.
Pick your poison and enjoy.
Me personally... I wish I could have the speed, RAW processing, solid dual monitor full screen, and websites templates of Lightroom with everything else Aperture. Or for Adobe to stop being lazy tards and put serious Photoshop, InDesign, and Premier tools in Lightroom 3
p.s. The silly argument for number of "pros" using the software is ridiculous, and shows lack of actual use of the programs. Just because more people use something, doesn't mean it's the best around.
p.p.s. One example of lack of research shows with the "loose your edits going from LR to AP comments." Aperture 3 supports XMP in and out which was a big thing missing in the first two versions.
Even the selective editing that Aperture didn't have until now is better. Anyone that says otherwise is just not doing the research or the work or paying attention.
That's not to say that Lightroom won't catch up or isn't the standard for working pros on the Mac and PC. Just that Apple has caught Adobe with their pants down. Again, the tools that Apple took from Adobe LR were enhanced in Aperture 3.0, and with many photogs doing multimedia Aperture is a SOLID CHOICE.
Now, the real kicker comes in those caveats that people have. Personally I can't stand LR's kindergarten module system... it's for children that haven't learned workflow and want LR to tell them how to do things. Aperture is seriously a better D.A.M. program. Lightroom however has a better RAW processor (in my opinion and lots of others) than Aperture and for some reason is less of a resource hog.
Pick your poison and enjoy.
Me personally... I wish I could have the speed, RAW processing, solid dual monitor full screen, and websites templates of Lightroom with everything else Aperture. Or for Adobe to stop being lazy tards and put serious Photoshop, InDesign, and Premier tools in Lightroom 3
p.s. The silly argument for number of "pros" using the software is ridiculous, and shows lack of actual use of the programs. Just because more people use something, doesn't mean it's the best around.
p.p.s. One example of lack of research shows with the "loose your edits going from LR to AP comments." Aperture 3 supports XMP in and out which was a big thing missing in the first two versions.
That's really nice, but we're currently days/weeks from the end of the Lightroom 3 beta program - and then that new version will be released, which includes a much enhanced RAW conversion module (which you already agree is better than Apertures, even in version 2) as well as a good number of other refinements.
So sure, pick your app, but let's not see a load of people flipping back in a few week's time!
Exactly... we've seen it in DSLR bodies as well. Users dumping Nikon to go to Canon then back again over a feature here or there that's not that significant.
The image editing capabilities are what brings many to LR over Aperture. I am searching far and wide to see what else Adobe brings to the table with LR3, and hope that we do get some multimedia love.
I thought about it, until I tried A3.... then my desire to switch soon faded. I'm using a computer that is less than a year old, and after adding a few files (<10) my fans were on full and my memory usage of through the roof.
For me, I gave A3 and Apple a chance, they blew it be shipping this alpha/beta software. Therefore, I'll be sticking with Lightroom, at least they open beta test and you have some expectation of not paying to be part of their early bug testing program like you do with Apple.
For me, I gave A3 and Apple a chance, they blew it be shipping this alpha/beta software. Therefore, I'll be sticking with Lightroom, at least they open beta test and you have some expectation of not paying to be part of their early bug testing program like you do with Apple.
Well, you don't have to search very far... there's an open beta.
Why on earth do you want to put 'multimedia' in a RAW workflow app?
The open beta is nice, but so far there just seems to be a polishing of what LR2.0 had to off.
Many pros will need that 'multimedia' support in their workflow/DAM app because that's what they are capturing now. Even the audio annotation support in Aperture was needed since version 1 for many journalists. Now that even the high end bodies are capturing video, it'd be nice to have the same features Aperture 3 has in Lightroom.