Aperture vs lightroom

[tkilian]

Anyone try both Aperture 1.1 and Lightroom Beta 2? I was wondering how the two compare in speed and performance and RAW file editing.

I'm using Lightroom on PB G4 1.5 with 1 GB, and it is slow in just about every way. My biggest complaint is when i'm doing something like importing photos, the entire system crawls. I really can't do much else.

 

[calebjohnston]

I think lightroom is a great program, but it is slow -- however, it's still in beta. You need a pretty decent computer to get it running well... at least for now.

There are plenty of threads on this topic, search and you'll find a lot more information.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

I have not had a chance to use Aperture as of yet. Been playing around with Lightroom, and really like it. On my iMac G5 2.0ghz, it is reasonably fast. Till Apple addresses the availability of RAW conversion compatibility with a wider range of cameras, I might stay with Adobe.

 

[ksz]

Aperture 1.1 supports the Nikon D200 so for me it's a matter of which application provides:

1. Good RAW conversion.
2. A pleasing and intuitive workflow.
3. Best time-to-results. Not just for RAW conversion, but also for how long it takes to adjust the image until it looks great.
4. Good image organization and print layout functionality.

Lightroom has less demanding CPU and memory requirements, but overall I am not so impressed by it for the reasons I mentioned here.

Additionally, its 4 modes (Organize, Develop, Slideshow, Print) kinda ruin it for me. I don't like thinking in modes...or silos. I prefer to have an open, modeless interface.

 

[XIII]

I'm not a professional photographer by any stretch of the imagination, but I like using something a little more advanced than iPhoto. Lightroom flies on my iMac core duo, with 1.5GB of RAM. Very nice app.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

Additionally, its 4 modes (Organize, Develop, Slideshow, Print) kinda ruin it for me. I don't like thinking in modes...or silos. I prefer to have an open, modeless interface.

Now that you mention it, it is these "modes' that I think I like most. It is the way photographers have worked for years before digital.

 

[jared_kipe]

My votes Aperture, nondestructive the way it should be. Versions are tiny compared to the original.

 

[cookie1105]

I have been trying Lightroom for about a week now. I haven't had much time with it, because of a very intense school project but when I have used it I love it!! and that is even though I am running it on a 12" ibook G4 with 1.5 Gb RAM.
OK it's a bit slow, but I really like the feel of it.

Favourite feature: Command + L

But now I have 2 weeks holiday. Time to get outdoors and do some shooting!!

What sort of price range is Lightroom going to be in, when it goes on full release. How does it work if you have been using the beta, do you have to pay full price or.........?

 

[ksz]

Now that you mention it, it is these "modes' that I think I like most. It is the way photographers have worked for years before digital.

The problem with modes is that you often need the functions of Develop while in Slideshow or in Print or in Organize. Or you might want functions from other modules to be more widely available across modules.

Adobe has responded to this by making a light version of Develop available inside of Organize. They call it "quick develop" or something similar. Cross-pollination!

Whenever the need for cross-pollination becomes strong enough, it is an indication that the basic architecture is too modal and needs to be more fluid. Aperture has a fluidity that I like a lot.

I think the reason photographers have historically worked in modes is because they were required to. A light table, for instance, did not have a chemical bath to re-develop photos. With digital, the entire paradigm has changed and in fact a virtual light table in software can have a virtual chemical bath! There is no longer a strong need for physical or logical separation of these activities.

 

[elbirth]

Slight background on me to show where my perspective is coming from:
I've been into photography for about 4 years now and have been shooting with a Canon 20D since October 2004. I'm (hopefully) budding into getting into professional photography and have done a CD cover shoot for a gospel choir at my university, a campus fashion magazine shoot, and plenty of stuff for the campus newspaper.

Anyway, I've tried both on my MacBook Pro (2ghz, 2gb RAM)... I've only had Aperture 1.1 for a short while, but I immediately found myself liking it much much more than Lightroom. Lightroom is quite sluggish even on my machine, and I dislike the "modes" that is has as well. Dealing with digital photos, I like to be able to seemlessly go from one thing to the next and not be forced to work in a specific flow. The non-destructive workflow is fantastic, and so many features are intuitive (for me at least) and make working with RAW files (which I use a lot of) very straight forward. I can do preliminary edits in Aperture and move directly into Photoshop. All in all, Aperture is more of a pleasure to work in than Lightroom and the interface isn't nearly as crowded.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

Slight background on me to show where my perspective is coming from:
I've been into photography for about 4 years now and have been shooting with a Canon 20D since October 2004. I'm (hopefully) budding into getting into professional photography and have done a CD cover shoot for a gospel choir at my university, a campus fashion magazine shoot, and plenty of stuff for the campus newspaper.

Anyway, I've tried both on my MacBook Pro (2ghz, 2gb RAM)... I've only had Aperture 1.1 for a short while, but I immediately found myself liking it much much more than Lightroom. Lightroom is quite sluggish even on my machine, and I dislike the "modes" that is has as well. Dealing with digital photos, I like to be able to seemlessly go from one thing to the next and not be forced to work in a specific flow. The non-destructive workflow is fantastic, and so many features are intuitive (for me at least) and make working with RAW files (which I use a lot of) very straight forward. I can do preliminary edits in Aperture and move directly into Photoshop. All in all, Aperture is more of a pleasure to work in than Lightroom and the interface isn't nearly as crowded.

I keep hearing about the non-destructive workflow of Aperture. How is this different from Lightroom's "reset" under the Develop "mode"?

Also how does one address the lack of response from Apple on timely and complete RAW support for multiple cameras? IMO Apple needs to be like Adobe in supporting almost every RAW format as it comes to market.

 

[elbirth]

I keep hearing about the non-destructive workflow of Aperture. How is this different from Lightroom's "reset" under the Develop "mode"?

Also how does one address the lack of response from Apple on timely and complete RAW support for multiple cameras? IMO Apple needs to be like Adobe in supporting almost every RAW format as it comes to market.

As far as the non-destructiveness of it....
While Lightroom does allow you to "reset" what you've done to your RAW file, Aperture allows you to save multiple "versions" of an image that you can view side by side. This allows you to be able to always see the "master" image and see what you've come from, as well as performing multiple workflows on the same image without having to copy it and take up a lot more hard drive space. It just flows much better and makes more sense in terms of usability once you get using it.

And for Apple lacking RAW formats... while I agree that they need to get busy with support, I do understand that they're putting together a new team for Aperture and will be redoing development for it. That makes me believe they'll be more responsive once the new team is put into action. Also, they do have support for most of the more common cameras out now, and since I use a Canon 20D and it's supported, I'm personally not as worried about it since all of my images work just fine. When I eventually move on to a 1-series body, I'll verify that it's supported before upgrading.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

And for Apple lacking RAW formats... while I agree that they need to get busy with support, I do understand that they're putting together a new team for Aperture and will be redoing development for it. That makes me believe they'll be more responsive once the new team is put into action. Also, they do have support for most of the more common cameras out now, and since I use a Canon 20D and it's supported, I'm personally not as worried about it since all of my images work just fine. When I eventually move on to a 1-series body, I'll verify that it's supported before upgrading.

Thanks for your first comments that I edited out.

I am less inclined to support what you have posted above. It has been too long that Apple has selectively chosen what formats to support. Why support Olympus, but not Panasonic? Why does Adobe support the "pro" cameras way before Apple does?

Working for a camera shop, it is hard for me to suggest Aperture, compared to Adobe and their ACR support.

The joy for me is that Adobe seems to support and RAW format as it comes . I have a Panasonic/Leica LX-1/D-Lux 2 camera, and Adobe seems to see me as viable customer. Apple seems to be looking at last year.

 

[ChrisA]

And for Apple lacking RAW formats... while I agree that they need to get busy with support, I do understand that they're putting together a new team for Aperture and will be redoing development for it.

raw conversion is a function of Core Image. It's not done by the Aperture people. You see new camera suport with updates to Mac OS. Remember the update to iger that came out just befor Aperture 1.1? Aperture does provide the user interface to the conversion. But iPhoto, Aperture and Preview all sharethe same converter. Makes sense not to duplicate work.

Apple has a bit of a problem in that they can'r simply use the converters supplied by the camera makers, many of them provide development kits. Because it is in Core Image Apple will always have to write their own. I think this wil be a problem for Apple forever, untill raw file formats become standardized.

 

[elbirth]

raw conversion is a function of Core Image. It's not done by the Aperture people. You see new camera suport with updates to Mac OS. Remember the update to iger that came out just befor Aperture 1.1? Aperture does provide the user interface to the conversion. But iPhoto, Aperture and Preview all sharethe same converter. Makes sense not to duplicate work.

Apple has a bit of a problem in that they can'r simply use the converters supplied by the camera makers, many of them provide development kits. Because it is in Core Image Apple will always have to write their own. I think this wil be a problem for Apple forever, untill raw file formats become standardized.

That's interesting, I wasn't aware of how it was handled, although it does make sense, since you can use Preview to view RAW files as well.
However, with that being the case, it would then seem that either Lightroom and Aperture both are reliant on Apple's RAW support in the OS, or that Adobe's RAW support is completely external from the OS... in which case it's just another thing to have to keep updated.