Aperture or Lightroom

[Techguy172]

I'm Trying to decide between them but I have heard that Aperture is really slow on the MacBook due to the Integrated Graphics is this true? What do you thing would be a better choice. I would also appreciate opinions on LightRoom 2.

Thanks

 

[Lovesong]

Two things-

I- both Aperture and LR have a 30 day trial. You should go and DL both of them and decide which one is better suited to your machine, and your workflow- different people think differently, Aperture makes sense to me, my friends just don't get it, but they love LR.

II- there are about 60 threads on this forum in just the past month. You might be able to get your question answered faster if you did a quick search.

 

[Roy Hobbs]

Please use the search function, there are MANY post just like this.

 

[66217]

I have a MacBook, the very first one. 2GHz with 2GB of RAM. And Aperture 2 runs good enough. It isn't blazingly fats, but it is acceptable. I can be importing 500 or more photos and at the same time start rating them and making some adjustments without problems.

When I tried LR, it was indeed faster in my Mac, but I just didn't liked the interface. It seems very illogical and complicated for me.

 

[TimJim]

Both have (basically) the same functionality, just a preference of which one you like better, and which one runs better for you. Download both of the trials and put a couple images into each and see which one you like better.

 

[mac-convert]

Hello Techguy,

I have been going through an eval of both of these products for about the last two weeks. I have used both of them extensively, and they both have their merits and weaknesses, although I haven't written them down anywhere. LR does cost more, $299US, against the $199US for Aperture.

I have found that LR offers a wee bit more, but the biggest thing was color management, and I located this on the Apple web site in one of the FAQ's.

Aperture supports the RGB color mode, not CMYK, Multichannel, or other. Some unsupported formats will cause Aperture to display an "Unsupported Format" message where the image would normally appear. Lab Color and Multichannel can both cause this (depending on whether you're using TIFF or PSD).

I have also seen many complaints in the Aperture forum about corruption within the Aperture library, but I don't know how wide spread that is.

LR is currently shipping version 1.4.1 and Aperture is at 2.1. Adobe has LR version 2 out for beta testing, but I haven't downloaded that to test yet. I did watch the videos about LR v2 on lynda.com, and there are some major improvements.

Adobe touts the integration with their Bridge product and with Photoshop. I don't have Photoshop yet, so I can't comment there, other than what I have seen on lynda.com. Aperture also has PS integration. They both pass a file to PS to be worked on and the saved work is then given back to the other program.

The Bridge intergration just doesn't do much for me at this point, so I am evaluating the merits of the programs themselves. So far, and I will decide in another week or so, Lightroom is the winner for what I want to do. Both are available for a 30-day trial download. I would encourage you to use both and make your own decision. Your mileage may vary, and contents may settle during shipping, but for me, as I said, LR appears to be what I will be using.

I am running on an iMac 24" 2.4G with 4GB of memory, so I have no issues with speed. Note: I noticed that there are already a few replies to this while I was doing mine.

 

[ChrisA]

I'm Trying to decide between them but I have heard that Aperture is really slow on the MacBook due to the Integrated Graphics is this true? What do you thing would be a better choice. I would also appreciate opinions on LightRoom 2.

Thanks

It really does take allmost all of the 30 days you get to learn how to use the software. You have to work at it a few hours every night and be sure and watch Apple's on-line video Aperture tutorials and read the book. Otherwise you will not know enough to make an informed decision. Each has a bet of a learning curve.

The new Aperture 2 is not slow. It's actually pretty quick. You can turn on that "yellow box" thing and work only with downsampled jpg files and then it is very fast. You do want some RAM in the computer. Buy the full 3 or 4 GB needed to max out you computer. It's cheap now.

The hard problem with either is where to store the photos. Notebooks just don't have much room on their drives. Aperture does have a couple ways to move projects around to off-line storage or a desktop computer. Am sure LR does too. Do your 30 day test with a large number of photos in the library, at least a few thousand.

 

[CrackedButter]

I can only comment on the speed, workflows are a different kettle of fish

I have a MB Core2Duo with 3GB of RAM + a 200GB 7200rpm HD, it runs reasonably well with 12mp RAW files. I did have Lightroom but it won't install on my machine because it thinks an existing version is on the drive when there isn't. But when I had it, it ran a lot faster than Aperture.

 

[ChrisA]

I have a MacBook, the very first one. 2GHz with 2GB of RAM. And Aperture 2 runs good enough. It isn't blazingly fats, but it is acceptable. I can be importing 500 or more photos and at the same time start rating them and making some adjustments without problems.

When I tried LR, it was indeed faster in my Mac, but I just didn't liked the interface. It seems very illogical and complicated for me.

The key thing is that the program has to match your style. Some people hate iPhoto and Aperture because they like to keep their photos in folders that they can get at via the finder. They don't understand or trush things like "libraries" and "smart albums" so they find that iPhoto and Aperture have to be abused and worked around if they are to continue using the finder folders. Or to say it another way in order for Aperture/iPhoto to be usefull and natural you have to drink to whole pitcher of koolaid and go with "Apple's Way".

Light room is conceptualy simpler. It uses "real folders" and it's workflow is kind of like a Ford car assembly line where you do steps one, two and three in that order. Aperture is more line a wherehous fullof tolboxes and little projects that you wander around in and build stuff where and when you like.

The other option is to just use Bridge, camers Raw and Photoshop.

All three paths will get you to where you need to go it's mostly about finding a match to the way you like to work. None is "best"

 

[Edge100]

I have a MacBook, the very first one. 2GHz with 2GB of RAM. And Aperture 2 runs good enough. It isn't blazingly fats, but it is acceptable. I can be importing 500 or more photos and at the same time start rating them and making some adjustments without problems.

When I tried LR, it was indeed faster in my Mac, but I just didn't liked the interface. It seems very illogical and complicated for me.

Aperture utilizes the GPU to a much greater extent than does LR. So...on your MB with its...ahem...somewhat lacking GPU, LR will be much faster.

 

[Techguy172]

I Like the Aperture Interface but There is a speed difference some things aren't snappy so while i like it It is still quite difficult. However I can get Lightroom for Half the Price of Aperture. So now I'm not quite sure.

 

[Edge100]

I Like the Aperture Interface but There is a speed difference some things aren't snappy so while i like it It is still quite difficult. However I can get Lightroom for Half the Price of Aperture. So now I'm not quite sure.

Once again, if you're using Aperture on the Macbook in your sig, it will be slow; Aperture needs a proper GPU, while LR does not. I've just got through using LR on a Macbook for 2 months while away, and it was just as fast or faster than my iMac at home.

 

[66217]

Once again, if you're using Aperture on the Macbook in your sig, it will be slow; Aperture needs a proper GPU, while LR does not. I've just got through using LR on a Macbook for 2 months while away, and it was just as fast or faster than my iMac at home.

I wouldn't go as far as to say it is slow. It works fine, I would even say better than fine.

Currently I am using Final Cut Express, Livetype, Safari and Mail. And I can use Aperture just fine. By all means try it before buying it, but don't give up Aperture because you think it won't work in your MacBook. If you find Aperture and Lightroom the same for you, then go with Lightroom, but if you prefer the interface and the way of working of Aperture over the one in Lightroom, then go for Aperture.

 

[taylorwilsdon]

Have a look at this:
http://testmac.net/aperture-2-vs-lightroom-2-beta/

Might help you decide. Both seem slow to me. I prefer using Bridge on Windows to be completely honest.

 

[RaceTripper]

One thing to consider on deciding which to use. If you use RAW files, in which case your edits are saved in sidecar files, you won't be able to switch from ALR to Aperture (and I suspect vice versa).

I've been using ALR and wanted to eval Aperture, but discovered it doesn't read my sidecar files. That means I can not switch t using Aperture without doing my edits all over again.

I like ALR and have no problem staying with it. If you want to use iPhoto for pictures in conjunction with ALR, there is an Export to iPhoto plugin. It doesn't have the seamless integration of Aperture, but it works.

 

[hector]

Just to offer another viewpoint, I tested out both of the trials on my macbook (one of the very first ones), and Aperture is so slow it is un-useable. It took so long to import my iphoto library (only around 3000 images) that I left it and went to bed. I half expected it to be still importing when i woke up but it had actually finished, however it was so sluggish to use it was ridiculous.

Lightroom on the other hand is positively rapid, much faster than Aperture, or even iPhoto which has become stupidly slow and constantly asks me to re-build my thumbnails.
For me the choice was a very easy one, and for what it's worth, I personally really like the interface of Lightroom, although I haven't figured out how to sort my folders chronologically like iPhoto as opposed to alphabetically (If anyone knows how to do this I would very much appreciate it!)

Just my 2 pence

 

[66217]

Just to offer another viewpoint, I tested out both of the trials on my macbook (one of the very first ones), and Aperture is so slow it is un-useable. It took so long to import my iphoto library (only around 3000 images) that I left it and went to bed. I half expected it to be still importing when i woke up but it had actually finished, however it was so sluggish to use it was ridiculous.

How much RAM did you had? Which version of Aperture did you tried? Also, take into account that Aperture may have been processing thumbnails and previews.

I'm not trying to defend that Aperture is as fast as LR, I know it is not. But I haven't found it to be slow.

 

[hector]

How much RAM did you had? Which version of Aperture did you tried? Also, take into account that Aperture may have been processing thumbnails and previews.

I'm not trying to defend that Aperture is as fast as LR, I know it is not. But I haven't found it to be slow.

Latest version (2.0 I think?). 1gb of RAM, upgraded from the original 512mb. It is one of the very first 1.83 ghz macbooks and has been getting quite sluggish generally so it didn't surprise me that it couldn't handle Aperture.

I can't wait to graduate and get a job so I can afford a mac pro!

 

[66217]

A Mac Pro would certainly fly!

But you should really see a BIG improvement if you had 2GB of RAM. It's a night and day difference when you have Pro Applications running, and it would certainly make your waiting to get a new Mac easier. Not sure about the 1.83GHz, I don't think it is a big difference between that and the 2.0GHz. But RAM is surely a big problem.

 

[Father Jack]

I've been running both Lightroom V2.1 and the latest version of Aperture for the last few weeks and IMO Adobe Lightroom is the winner.

This obviously is a case of personal preferences, try both trial versions and see what works best for you.

 

[hector]

A Mac Pro would certainly fly!

But you should really see a BIG improvement if you had 2GB of RAM. It's a night and day difference when you have Pro Applications running, and it would certainly make your waiting to get a new Mac easier. Not sure about the 1.83GHz, I don't think it is a big difference between that and the 2.0GHz. But RAM is surely a big problem.

I just had a quick check to see how much more RAM is and can't believe it is only £31 to get 2gb! When I went from 512mb to 1gb I paid about £100!
Will it really make that much of a difference if I upgrade? Have many here gone to 2gb in a macbook?
I should probably have asked all that in a different thread...

 

[66217]

It would certainly make a difference.

Check out your Activity Monitor when you are using demanding apps and see the Page In/Page Out ratio.

Basically you want to reduce the amount of page outs. If you see that the page outs are bigger than the page ins, then more RAM would benefit you.

BTW, I have a MB with 2GB. At first I had 512MB, changed to 1.25GB and the change was impressive. Later on changed to 2GB and the change was again impressive. Tho with 2GB you don't notice an increase of performance with normal apps such as Safari or iTunes, but other apps like Aperture do benefit from it.

 

[mac-convert]

Techguy, I will add one more note for you to ponder on. Do not buy one program over another just because of the speed. You can have the fastest program on the face of the earth, but if it doesn't satisfy your needs in the end, well... Minor upgrades to a computer can overcome some of those issues.

Test out the programs, as has been suggested, and see how they fit for what you want. I looked at three stages of the process. First, are they capable of doing the edits that I want, and are those edits able to be done in a good workflow, with workflow being the second part of the evaluation. Getting your photos to a stage where you can work on them is a one time process. Editing your photos will take up most of your time. Outputting them to a final product is also another item to consider, and third on my list. However, they will all balance out in the selection you make.

All that being said, I am 99% sold on LR.

Cheers

 

[ejack24]

As soon as I have some free time, I am going to download and compare both trials. However, since I can get ALR for half the price of Aperture, I'd certainly like to know what advantages Aperture is supposed to have over ALR.

 

[66217]

As soon as I have some free time, I am going to download and compare both trials. However, since I can get ALR for half the price of Aperture, I'd certainly like to know what advantages Aperture is supposed to have over ALR.

Both do basically the same. I use Aperture, but have played with LR a little.

This is what I can say I like about LR:
-The Clarity Slider, it is a really nice one. Tho nothing groundbreaking.
-I also like the vignetting controls. Especially the mid-point. Tho the gamma option in Aperture is a great option, which LT lacks.
-LR has some other nice features. The sharpening option seems to be superior to the one in Aperture.

But I completely hate the organizational capabilities of LR. Another great thing about Aperture is the plug-ins. Given some extra months some great plug-ins could make Aperture a very powerful app for photographers. I am really waiting for NoiseNinja in Aperture, hopefully it'll come.