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
- Thread starter aaronw1986
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I prefer Aperture as well. I tried both before buying Aperture. The way things were organized, the structure of the program: all far more logical and easier to learn than Lightroom.
Plus, I don't really like Adobe that much. Apple are far nicer!
Plus, I don't really like Adobe that much. Apple are far nicer!
I think that a lot of people are just used to the "Photoshop way of doing things", and Lightroom basically offers that. Many people are just not patient enough to learn something new. It's the same reason so many people can't break away from Word - other programs just "don't work like Word" in one respect or another.
Even if everyone gave both programs a fair shake, I'm sure a good chunk would still choose Lightroom - but Aperture's user base would likely be significantly larger than it is. Of course I'm an Aperture user so I'm biased.
Even if everyone gave both programs a fair shake, I'm sure a good chunk would still choose Lightroom - but Aperture's user base would likely be significantly larger than it is. Of course I'm an Aperture user so I'm biased.
The general idea is that you have folders and projects. Folders are based on your projects. So let's say I have a bunch of pictures that I took on such and such a date at this location. If I want to have a picture that shows something- say landscapes, or some particular location, or this person, I can create a folder to link the files that are in my project to it. Think of folders as links (or aliases, you Mac freaks). You need to have the original somewhere in order to link it.
I am an Aperture user, but I don't think LR sucks at all. In fact I think it's a wonderful alternative to Aperture when you don't have the muscle to move Aperture or the desire for full integration with other Apple Apps. I chose Aperture because it was in final version while LR was still a very young beta.
The only things I loved about LR that Aperture didn't have was fixed in the Aperture update, so now I have come to love Aperture as my solid workflow choice. There is nothing that LR does that Aperture can't do (or do in Photoshop anyway like accurate color corrections) but there is a long list of things that Aperture does that LR can't and may never do.
I've got 32672 images in LR and I love it. The workflow is intuitive and fast.
One thing LR has that I don't believe Aperture has, feel free to tell me about it, is the identity plate available in LR. I can put my Studio logo onto the interface for presentations and on websites and slideshows. I still use Aperture to make photo books and montages however. I'm running it on a 2.16 macbook with 2gb of ram. However I'm trading this one in for the new macbook with 4gb of ram. Should make a difference.
One thing LR has that I don't believe Aperture has, feel free to tell me about it, is the identity plate available in LR. I can put my Studio logo onto the interface for presentations and on websites and slideshows. I still use Aperture to make photo books and montages however. I'm running it on a 2.16 macbook with 2gb of ram. However I'm trading this one in for the new macbook with 4gb of ram. Should make a difference.
Acase of Apples and Adobes
1. Who exactly is it, that is being so nice to you from the Apple Aperture team? I honestly would like to know because I have never found anyone (outside of the marketing people) willing to meet the public.
2. At Adobe anyone can communicate directly with almost the entire software development team. Example go to - http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/
We tend to forget that Adobe was once a Mac only software company and most of the key people at Adobe are still Mac fanatics. Lightroom runs much better on a Mac than on a PC and came out first on the Mac. Plus Lightroom works very well on older Macs and laptops (G4 1GHz no problem). Aperture seems to have been developed to help sell high end Mac workstations (I know it is getting better but it doesn't really like older computers).
I have been both a Mac and Adobe user for over twenty years and wish that Apple would hurry up and buy Adobe (I have had the same wish for over 20 years) so that this silly rivalry can end.
1. Who exactly is it, that is being so nice to you from the Apple Aperture team? I honestly would like to know because I have never found anyone (outside of the marketing people) willing to meet the public.
2. At Adobe anyone can communicate directly with almost the entire software development team. Example go to - http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/
We tend to forget that Adobe was once a Mac only software company and most of the key people at Adobe are still Mac fanatics. Lightroom runs much better on a Mac than on a PC and came out first on the Mac. Plus Lightroom works very well on older Macs and laptops (G4 1GHz no problem). Aperture seems to have been developed to help sell high end Mac workstations (I know it is getting better but it doesn't really like older computers).
I have been both a Mac and Adobe user for over twenty years and wish that Apple would hurry up and buy Adobe (I have had the same wish for over 20 years) so that this silly rivalry can end.
I contacted Steve Jobs around this time last year:
---
I then received:
To which I replied:
Hi Kirk,
Many thanks for your e-mail. I was not expecting a reply, let alone such a speedy one!
I live in the north of England, in a village called XXXXX in XXXXX.
I'm due to fly to Asia in the next 3 weeks, but would very much appreciate if somebody could visit.
As a precaution I have also returned 2GB of RAM to Crucial.
Kind Regards,
Andy.
---
And received:
Followed by:
So, they were willing to send somebody over from The US to The UK simply to look at my machine, and I'm not even a professional user.
I declined their offer as I thought it was too much, and have since moved to Lightroom as, a year on, it's light years ahead of Aperture in almost every way.
I hope Apple give Aperture another push, but as it is right now Adobe have them licked and appear to be losing market share day by day.
So, they were willing to send somebody over from The US to The UK simply to look at my machine, and I'm not even a professional user.
I could also tell some pretty incredible stories about Apple marketing department support (they can be strangely extravegant at times) but when it comes to day to day support Apple just does not have the kind of support group in place that can help the entire photographic community get over whatever problem they are having that day. Adobe does, in the form of paid evangelists, volunteer evangelists, developers who are always willing to listen to the end user, etc., etc.
It is of course the old network of Photoshop users who are the core of this support group but for whatever reason it exists and I have my doubts that Apple either understands or is willing to build this kind of support group.
Please believe me I am not anti-Apple, I just think that Aperture is for now a lost cause and that Apple themselves seem to be unsure of what they want to do with it in the future. (And yes I do have a copy and could re-install it at any time if I am given a good enough reason)
I could also tell some pretty incredible stories about Apple marketing department support (they can be strangely extravegant at times) but when it comes to day to day support Apple just does not have the kind of support group in place that can help the entire photographic community get over whatever problem they are having that day. Adobe does, in the form of paid evangelists, volunteer evangelists, developers who are always willing to listen to the end user, etc., etc.
It is of course the old network of Photoshop users who are the core of this support group but for whatever reason it exists and I have my doubts that Apple either understands or is willing to build this kind of support group.
Please believe me I am not anti-Apple, I just think that Aperture is for now a lost cause and that Apple themselves seem to be unsure of what they want to do with it in the future. (And yes I do have a copy and could re-install it at any time if I am given a good enough reason)
Running on old G4 machines is pretty much the only thing Lightroom good for. Aperture does take a lot of resources, but with the power you get from it it's worth it. My girlfriend ran LR on her 12" PowerBook but now that she has 24" iMac she wants to switch over to Aperture after seeing all the things LR can't do that Aperture can.
So far the only laptop that can't run Aperture is the older G4 models, that's because they were underpowered at the time anyway.... and i mean they were about a year behind the competition which is why Apple switched to Intel and put out these screaming MacBooks and MacBook Pros.
Actually, Apple's support is much better than Adobe's when you have an Apple Store near you. The Genius Bar will help with more than software problems too. And I don't have to pay for them. I have heard stories about idiots running the Genius bar, so I guess it's up to where you live.
FALSE. Trust me and trust the Apple user base. Aperture is not losing market share to LR. LR is missing far to many features that Aperture has to lose any market share, and the only reason LR works for many people is because they have an underpowered machine.
If anything .... the market leader is Photo Mechanic, which Aperture and LR cannot compete with at all, and PM doesn't have any editing capabilities.
Could you just quickly note what all these features are that Aperture has that are missing from LR?
I've tried LR quite a bit and I find it really easy and intuitive to use and can't think of any functions it doesn't provide outside of full blown editing ala PS, I've used Aperture much less but generally feel its harder to get to grips with. The one thing I think Aperture does do better is that it allows editing within any screen unlike LR and it's distinct modules.
R
Sure I shall. Before I do, keep giving both a try, once you make your decision it's hard to switch your entire library over, which is what I had to do twice. Once when I switched to LR, and again when I moved back to Aperture.
Now LR is a good program, and definitely a great alternative to Aperture and others, but Aperture is by far more powerful, hence the learning curve and the resources needed to run it.
(1) Simple Loop. Not zooming in to a photo but an actual loop. Not only does the loop provide me a closer preview of the image, but I can get a preview of my edits in the loops, saving me time and allowing me to compare the looped area with the rest of the image to see the difference in my edits. Also, the loop can be used with images in the workspace and viewer, allowing me to see how an adjustment compares to another version of the image. The loop is a very powerful tool in Aperture, one that LR doesn't have.
(2) The projects pane is infinitely customizable in Aperture. I can group images how I want them, where I want them, make smart albums for my managed files, offline files, referenced files and so forth. I can make a smart album for all my best images and call that album my portfolio.
(3) Light Table... I always use it before I make a photo album
(4) Photo Albums... they aren't that great, but in this day off fast paced output many clients don't care that their book is the same quality as the ones made in iPhoto, they just want their images.
By the way... web galleries in Aperture SUCK. LR has Aperture beat there do to Adobe's acquisition of Macromedia. I am sure the new flash galleries from iPhoto will find their way into Aperture 2 at some point.
(5) I can move the UI of Aperture to suit my needs. I just shot 300 photos in portrait orientation, I can swap my view and workspace so that the images have much more room to stand up. Not a big problem in LR, but something I was used to and could not adjust to when I moved to LR. Same thing for....
(6) Full screen and Dual screen editing. I have two monitors, two monitors may not be for some, but I edit video as well and need both of them. When using Aperture i can view my image fullscreen on one monitor and everything else on the other. Or, if I have one screen and want to isolate my image I can go full screen and call up the huds.
(7) I know LR can do this, maybe it can't, but I can move my referenced images from Aperture to wherever I need them to be. Not only that, but I can have a combination of reference and managed images, very useful for laptop owners that have desktops as main machines. I can reference the main library, so I know what I have in my entire library, and I can take my current projects with me and let Aperture manage them, or reference them from another folder or drive on my laptop. I can do this however I please, from wherever I please. And with .Mac, I know I will be able to upload images to iDisk and reference them from their, or use "Back to my Mac" to get the referenced images over the web without having to use 3rd party services.
Now a big issue I have with both LR and AP, is referenced image editing. When you edit in either application, they show you the preview of that image to preserve the original file. If I have previews that are about the same size as my D2hs files, why can't I edit offline images via the previews? Then when I come back to my files, I can export the masters with the edits. Come on Apple/Adobe.
(8) I find myself making slideshows here and there with images, or other forms of media that need my images as well. AP reaches all the way over to the iLife suit, giving me access to my previews when I need to drop them into another project... like iWeb (which sucks but works as an online presence) or Pages or Keynote. And it reaches over to the pro Apps. I can export an entire project into Final Cut Pro with transitions and durations, then edit the transitions and durations in FCP if I change my mind. I can also access images from DVD Studio Pro, Motion, and even iPhoto.
(9)If you are using iPhoto, Aperture is a no brainer. You get to keep the hierarchy of your iPhoto library, and even reverse the way iPhoto jumbles up your images, and make them an image of reference beauty from Aperture.
(10) I like that I can view more than one line of photos while I am editing. I can adjust the size of my gallery/workspace to show me a row or column of three images, or two, or five. Not just one strip at the bottom. You can get gallery images in the Library module, but not the develop module in LR.
(11) I can do anything, anywhere, at anytime. LR uses Modules, which are very intuitive and easy to learn, but after that there is no where to go. You can't adjust your workflow. I can't change my project names or hierarchy in the Develop or Print modules, only the Library modules. AP lets me adjust the app to my liking.
(12) I like LR's flags and color labels, but I can't live without the keywords hud.
(13) Core Image ROCKS, and keeps my images looking the same from application to application. When I make a change in AP it can be seen in iWeb and looks the same throughtout.
This is about 75% of what I can recall without having to go back and use LR and AP at the same time to see what I like and don't like. All in all both programs have their issues, and neither one solves my main problem -- editing offline image previews and reverting back to the masters later on -- so none is a definite winner on that front. But when it comes to using the Mac and all the Apple apps, Aperture has the higher ground. Lightroom works better in many areas, but when it comes to shear power Aperture is the king in many photog's books.
InfoTrends recently surveyed 1,026 professional photographers in North America to determine which software they used for raw file processing. Here's what was reported:
- 66.5% using the Photoshop Camera Raw plug-in
- 23.6% using Lightroom
- 5.5% using Aperture
I'm not interested in 'point and shoot' photographers - neither Aperture nor Lightroom was designed for them - but I don't know that I can name one fellow photographer who uses Photo Mechanic?!
Also, Aperture runs pig slow on my 2.66 Mac Pro, with 4GB RAM and X1900 - underpowered?!
There's not a shadow of doubt in my mind that Aperture is lagging way behind Lightroom. It appears the pro's agree with this sentiment.
So I want more out of my app than iPhoto can give me and I've been trying to to weigh the LR vs. Aperture debate. This is a simple question based on something I thought I remember reading ages ago...
I thought I'd read somewhere that a distinct advantage that LR had over Aperture was that if you made 5 different changes to a photo each change was distinct so that if you liked changes A, B & D (and not C & E) you could keep this version whereas Aperture forced a user to essentially, undo, undo, undo, undo or rollback from version E to D, D to C, C to B and B to A. Does this make sense?
I thought I'd read somewhere that a distinct advantage that LR had over Aperture was that if you made 5 different changes to a photo each change was distinct so that if you liked changes A, B & D (and not C & E) you could keep this version whereas Aperture forced a user to essentially, undo, undo, undo, undo or rollback from version E to D, D to C, C to B and B to A. Does this make sense?
Yes, it makes sense.
Lightroom has a history panel which allows you to retrace your steps, and alter accordingly which not necessarily changing those steps you made later in the cycle.
So, you have the image with 5 steps: A, B, C, D & E. In Lightroom you can alter step 'B' for example, and not have to undo C, D & E.
Actually I do know a Nat Geo photogrpaher and Mac user that loves Photo Mechanic as well as PS
Lightroom has curves editing and history. Seals the deal for me. No multi-monitor support doesn't bother me that much, as it's pretty obvious it's coming in LR sometime or another. There is also a LR sdk on the way, which should make for some great plugins in the future. Also, LR lets me work on my photos and do whatever I want while I'm importing/exporting, something I remember Aperture couldn't handle.
It all boils down to how much of the program you know, who you know, and how you work. There isn't anything desperately wrong with LR... it's just not more powerful that Aperture.... continue below.
LR is both Mac and PC. Aperture is Mac only... how many photogs and customers use PCs as opposed to Macs. When you take into account the Mac community, and reasons I mentioned before that talked about compatibility with the other Apple apps I am sure that many have taken to Aperture... if not... they must not be into multimedia creation as much.
I run Aperture on a Dual Core 2GHz G5 with 1.5GB RAM and a MBP Dual Core Duo 2.16GHz with 1GB of RAM and have not had any problems. The multimedia department at the Baltimore Sun runs it on 8 Core Mac Pros with 8GB of RAM and it doesn't even hesitate on 12MP RAW Nikon D2xs files. Maybe your machine is faulty. My MBP now has 2GB of RAM and I am running it along with FCP 5, Motion, PS CS3, Bridge CS3, Safari, iChat, and iCal, and that memory hog Pages 1 that was made for PowerPC chips only. I am switching between them constantly and Aperture is have a little difficulty showing me those hi-res previews.
One thing that I learned to do from other photogs that use Aperture is to reference my entire library and only keep working projects in the Aperture Library file. It has helped greatly, and it's a rule that video editors live by. Don't import one large video clip and expect performance not to take a hit. Accessing the info off of one large file takes longer than accessing it from many smaller files.
Photo Mechanic is the photojournalist's industry standard and handles metadata and captioning better than LR or Aperture. It is also faster than either program at importing, backing up, captioning, outputting, making contact sheets or spec sheets, archiving, and retrieving an image. It's faster at searching as well... and I mean searching a database of over 500,000 images over a networked server faster.... blazing fast. The new Photo Mechanic I hear adds some more features but I haven't gotten to reading about them yet.
Yes Aperture can do this. In the HUDs or the adjustments palette you can turn different edits on or off. Also, this issue is more a matter of workflow than software capabilities. You can make any number of versions in either program and copy changes over from one to the other, turn edits off or on, and adjust changes as you see fit whenever you see fit. Both Aperture and LR handle this issue very well.
I have grown accustomed to Bridge and Aperture. There was time when I wanted an Aperture Lite just so I can view images and other files without having to launch the entire app. Then came along the information about referencing my images in Aperture... now... on my main computer I reference all the images, every single project, so I can view it in Bridge. Bridge can also preview and play a plethora of media files and can rate them and sort them and move them around, so Bridge is my Honey when it comes to accessing my media files. Aperture handles the images, and FCP handles the video and so forth. I have never had a workflow that can span from still images and graphics to video files and internet content.
Because Aperture and my other apps can move between each other... it's truly a great day to own a Mac.
Aperture handles editing images while importing them just fine. I don't think it can handle exporting them and editing them though. Curves was what almost sealed the deal for me when I switched to LR. LR edits like Photoshop which is AMAZING, but understandably so since it's an Adobe app. But once I lost my ability to sync between the other apps I use, and when I had to adjust my workflow to LR, I had to move back to Aperture. LR just took to long to do things, and couldn't adapt to changes in the way I and my co-workers moved throughout the day.
LR is both Mac and PC. Aperture is Mac only... how many photogs and customers use PCs as opposed to Macs. When you take into account the Mac community, and reasons I mentioned before that talked about compatibility with the other Apple apps I am sure that many have taken to Aperture... if not... they must not be into multimedia creation as much.
I run Aperture on a Dual Core 2GHz G5 with 1.5GB RAM and a MBP Dual Core Duo 2.16GHz with 1GB of RAM and have not had any problems. The multimedia department at the Baltimore Sun runs it on 8 Core Mac Pros with 8GB of RAM and it doesn't even hesitate on 12MP RAW Nikon D2xs files. Maybe your machine is faulty. My MBP now has 2GB of RAM and I am running it along with FCP 5, Motion, PS CS3, Bridge CS3, Safari, iChat, and iCal, and that memory hog Pages 1 that was made for PowerPC chips only. I am switching between them constantly and Aperture is have a little difficulty showing me those hi-res previews.
One thing that I learned to do from other photogs that use Aperture is to reference my entire library and only keep working projects in the Aperture Library file. It has helped greatly, and it's a rule that video editors live by. Don't import one large video clip and expect performance not to take a hit. Accessing the info off of one large file takes longer than accessing it from many smaller files.
Photo Mechanic is the photojournalist's industry standard and handles metadata and captioning better than LR or Aperture. It is also faster than either program at importing, backing up, captioning, outputting, making contact sheets or spec sheets, archiving, and retrieving an image. It's faster at searching as well... and I mean searching a database of over 500,000 images over a networked server faster.... blazing fast. The new Photo Mechanic I hear adds some more features but I haven't gotten to reading about them yet.
Yes Aperture can do this. In the HUDs or the adjustments palette you can turn different edits on or off. Also, this issue is more a matter of workflow than software capabilities. You can make any number of versions in either program and copy changes over from one to the other, turn edits off or on, and adjust changes as you see fit whenever you see fit. Both Aperture and LR handle this issue very well.
I have grown accustomed to Bridge and Aperture. There was time when I wanted an Aperture Lite just so I can view images and other files without having to launch the entire app. Then came along the information about referencing my images in Aperture... now... on my main computer I reference all the images, every single project, so I can view it in Bridge. Bridge can also preview and play a plethora of media files and can rate them and sort them and move them around, so Bridge is my Honey when it comes to accessing my media files. Aperture handles the images, and FCP handles the video and so forth. I have never had a workflow that can span from still images and graphics to video files and internet content.
Because Aperture and my other apps can move between each other... it's truly a great day to own a Mac.
Aperture handles editing images while importing them just fine. I don't think it can handle exporting them and editing them though. Curves was what almost sealed the deal for me when I switched to LR. LR edits like Photoshop which is AMAZING, but understandably so since it's an Adobe app. But once I lost my ability to sync between the other apps I use, and when I had to adjust my workflow to LR, I had to move back to Aperture. LR just took to long to do things, and couldn't adapt to changes in the way I and my co-workers moved throughout the day.