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.
Aperture Vs. Lightroom : what are your opinions
- Thread starter checkflag
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
oreilly.net and arstechnica.com both have some pretty good comparisons.
I've played around with both and find Aperture more intuitive.
In the end though, I'd download the trial from Apple and Adobe and see how well they run on your machine and which interface and organization method suits you the best. In the end, it's going to come down to personal preference.
Also, if you just shoot JPGs or even a mix of JPGs and RAW files, you might not even need either application. Each one is tailored to editing and accelerating the RAW editing workflow.
I've played around with both and find Aperture more intuitive.
In the end though, I'd download the trial from Apple and Adobe and see how well they run on your machine and which interface and organization method suits you the best. In the end, it's going to come down to personal preference.
Also, if you just shoot JPGs or even a mix of JPGs and RAW files, you might not even need either application. Each one is tailored to editing and accelerating the RAW editing workflow.
I use Lightroom and I love it. But Aperture is a great piece of software if your machine can run it, which it will be able to.
If I had a newer machine, I'd be using Aperture, but Lightroom is the only one my G4 can run.
If I had a newer machine, I'd be using Aperture, but Lightroom is the only one my G4 can run.
Aperture may have more hardware requirements, but it is worth it to me with the exemption of printing. the fact that you can only print 1 pic at a time is horrible, doesn't apple know that paper is expensive!!!. other than that the features are so similar it boils down to pure user preference and Aperture happens to be mine.
Aperture is great if you have a good Mac. I also prefer it because of it's iLife integration. I tried Lightroom and I like some features of that better, but since I Aperture seems to have more "extra" options I tend to use it a bit more. (Even though runs pretty bad on my Macbook)
I prefer Aperture, having tried both. But, since you can get a 30-day free trial of both programs... you're best served to take the time and try both yourself! Be sure to give each one plenty of time, though (especially whichever one you try second, since the first thing you'll note is how it works differently "than you're used to").
I'd say force yourself to use each one, exclusively, for at least a week. If you can't figure out how to do something in the app, search around and ask for advice - both seem to have capabilities that are not always immediately obvious.
I'd say force yourself to use each one, exclusively, for at least a week. If you can't figure out how to do something in the app, search around and ask for advice - both seem to have capabilities that are not always immediately obvious.
The funny thing is that on other forums, the question is rarely Aperture vs. Lightroom. There are so many other choices out there, and Aperture isn't even a widely discussed one. I rarely see threads about it other than here at MR. Of course, I don't actively seek out threads about Aperture, so maybe I don't see all the great talk about Aperture by photographers in the many message boards in this world. However, I think Aperture is just a blip on the radar in the world of digital photography. It's a great app.....clunky, but great.
Anyway, I like Lightroom better than Aperture because it's faster on my MacBook, and because I like the Develop module.
Anyway, I like Lightroom better than Aperture because it's faster on my MacBook, and because I like the Develop module.
When I tried both, Lightroom completely locked up my MBP when importing a few hundred images. Aperture slowed it to a crawl, but other applications were still usable. That sealed it for me. I can't remember the third app I tried, but it wasn't as good workflow-wise.
Aperture requires some high end hardware. Lightroom does not. I've played around with both and will go with Aperture once I upgrade my hardware.
I find Aperture is much more quicker and smooth than lightroom. And I have used both for a long time and finally settled for Aperture. It also seems to be a little easier to use and find your way around it to be honest. And with a Mac Pro with plenty of ram it will really fly! 
Aperture organization of pictures is better, at least for me. Just make sure you make it an habit to always tag your pics with metadata the day you import them into the system! At worst, use very basic metadata, but use them! Thats a real plus when you have, for exemple to show all pictures from your vietnam trip that displayed war artifacts. Or another of my fav: stacks of pics used to create panoramas for a specific region.
Once everything is metataged, you can use the smart folders/book/projects to select what you want. You can do the same in LR but it is less intuitive, for me...
I have tried LR for a long time (2 months) because I really liked the way it processes skin tone from the RAWs from my Rebel XT, but in the end, Aperture won because of the management features. And I now use a custom camera profile when I import pics from my rebel and probably will do the same once I have my 5D...
Anyways, try both then decide. Everyone is different!
Once everything is metataged, you can use the smart folders/book/projects to select what you want. You can do the same in LR but it is less intuitive, for me...
I have tried LR for a long time (2 months) because I really liked the way it processes skin tone from the RAWs from my Rebel XT, but in the end, Aperture won because of the management features. And I now use a custom camera profile when I import pics from my rebel and probably will do the same once I have my 5D...
Anyways, try both then decide. Everyone is different!
Aperture, better on powerful desktops. Better for organising images, keywording, searching, etc...
Lightroom, better for output, more options for slide shows, websites, integrates into Photoshop easily.
Aperture is great for hardcore pros. The guess who have RAID systems with 30 inch displays shooting 1,000s of pictures a week. Sports photographers for example.
Lightroom is more general, better for semi-professionals and people like myself using laptops or upgrading their work follows from the bridge / photoshop system.
That's my opinion anyways.
Lightroom, better for output, more options for slide shows, websites, integrates into Photoshop easily.
Aperture is great for hardcore pros. The guess who have RAID systems with 30 inch displays shooting 1,000s of pictures a week. Sports photographers for example.
Lightroom is more general, better for semi-professionals and people like myself using laptops or upgrading their work follows from the bridge / photoshop system.
That's my opinion anyways.
Wow, thats a real fanboy...
It is better to use the best tool for the job. Especialy since Aperture isnt even that much integrated with the rest of the OS...
Yeah, I prefer iPhoto for displaying my Photo's, which is why I love Aperture's integration with iPhoto. (You can drag photo's from Aperture straight to iPhoto from within iPhoto) That's probably the biggest thing stopping me from moving to Lightroom.
In that case I would get Aperture because it integrates w/ iLife and I personally think thats a great thing. I you don't use iLife then I would go for Lightroom.
This leads to my question. What are the differences between how iPhoto and Aperture organize.
I am no a pro, though I do care a great deal about my photographs. I am not really crazy about having one huge library, even if I can break it up into album views as well, but to change libraries also seems a bit of a pain.
I think if you just want to organise, use iPhoto. If you want to organise and adjust, go Aperture.
Aperature vs Lightroom
I'm looking at the trial version of Aperature - as a recent conversion to Mac, I'm more used to the Photoshop and Lightroom layouts. I probably won't be returning to Photoshop for the release of CS3 (thus far I've sunk close to a thousand in Photoshop and its various updates since PS 6...so I think I'll get off that Hampster wheel - Unfortunately, I'm getting the run around from Cross License for the Mac folks at Adobe, and I am not about to go drop the nearly $700 for the latest version. ) Fortunately there is Lightroom which does great things with my RAW files from my Nikon D200.
Cheers
I'm looking at the trial version of Aperature - as a recent conversion to Mac, I'm more used to the Photoshop and Lightroom layouts. I probably won't be returning to Photoshop for the release of CS3 (thus far I've sunk close to a thousand in Photoshop and its various updates since PS 6...so I think I'll get off that Hampster wheel - Unfortunately, I'm getting the run around from Cross License for the Mac folks at Adobe, and I am not about to go drop the nearly $700 for the latest version.
) Fortunately there is Lightroom which does great things with my RAW files from my Nikon D200. Cheers
I like Lightroom... haven't bought it yet but the beta versions were enough to convince me it's what I want with a g4 mini.
Hey Netdog,
the ability of spreading as many libraries over as many drives you want is one of the big pluses of Aperture over iphoto. You can decide how to organize your photos inside and outside of Aperture. In addition to that, it gives you the option of one big Aperture-organized library a la iphoto.
Both Aperture and Lightroom will completely manage the library for you, a la iPhoto, if you wish (and by default). You can also choose to keep your files organized yourself, and just tell Aperture or Lightroom where to find them.
I don't see a disadvantage to letting Aperture (or Lightroom) manage your library for you, except maybe in the case of professionals that have huge number of photos - meaning they've got too many photos to physically fit on a single disk. Both applications can handle this scenario though.
Aperture has a built-in backup system called "vaults" that lets you keep backups of your library in multiple places, if you wish. Vaults are trivially easy to use. I haven't tried Lightroom's backup tool - I assume it has one.
As far as how the image handling feels inside the applications: When I was trying Lightroom, its photo management felt very much like Adobe Bridge to me. Some people will like that because they are familiar with it; but I never really liked Bridge. Aperture's photo management just seems to stay out of my way, and lets me work. With Lightroom it seems (to me) you need to be much more aware of what module you are in, or want to be in.
Really, though, to beat on the same drum as my other post - trial versions of both are free, so the best solution is to check both out for yourself.