Randy,
Thanks for extended post. As I was reading through it it seems like Ap would be better choice. However, my main focus would be family pictures and outdoor photography as a hobby (mostly landscape) and that's where you prefer LR.
I still haven't have time to try both side-by-side so I cannot really add my own experience. So far I have pro lists (without additional plugins) :
Aperture:
* might play nicer with other Apple software
* cheaper (still have Apple gift card); also can be installed on all my Macs
* book building and printing
* clone tool (I could perhaps get around PS all together)
Lightroom
* cross-platform (if I ever switch back to Win)
* I read that noise reduction is better
As I mentioned earlier (maybe even in another thread
I tried LR in the past under WinXP and I found it very un-intuitive (mostly due to modules as mentioned by others). I'll certainly give it a try again ... who knows.
As always, thanks for posting.
Cheers, Radek
Both have their places in photography. There's things in Lightroom I wish were in Aperture. Of course I could say the opposite as well. However, I own a portrait studio and when it comes to running my business I go with Aperture. The reason being I can work completely in Aperture from start to finish. In Lightroom when I need to do some cloning or fix a bunch of stray hairs because the wind was crazy outside I'm basically forced to Export into Photoshop .. Fix it .. bounce back into Lightroom .. then the next pose I'm back to photoshop .. back to lightroom .. a 2 hour session outdoor in the wind just created a ton of bouncing back and forth. In Aperture I don't have to do that because it doesn't use a spot tool like lightroom. You can actually use a heal or clone brush directly on the RAW file. No extra TIF creation taking up space. It's just fast, easy and all without leaving the program. The only thing I do need to do is pop over to Photoshop in cases where a client requests a tummy tuck and I need the Liquify tool. However, that's done on spec so I'm not wasting a ton of time just preparing proofs for the sales appointment. That one thing alone makes Aperture the only business choice for me when it comes to portraiture.
Playing with landscapes and such that I take on my weekend road trips with the wife .. when I don't have an client to shoot .. then I like to use Lightroom. It's got the cool grad tool and I'm basically taking my time playing around and not trying to meet deadlines and think about maximizing my profits.
Aperture could stand to improve the vignette tool though .. it kinda sucks when compared to LR.
----------
Thanks for your comments.
Somebody already mentioned different book options for Aperture and iPhoto. It's too bad. I could understand iPhoto having less options, but I'd expect Aperture to have it all since it's a paid application. I guess there is feedback for Apple
Cheers, R>
Just to add another voice to this thread. I use LR as my main tool for my photo business. Occasionally dipping into PS when needed. I agree that some of the logic behind the modules is quirky, but I'm used to them. That said, I actually enjoy working in LR.
However, I also keep a copy of Aperture around (thanks to the Mac App Store pricing it's not hard to do) because I like Aperture's book building module. When I want a book, I will export the images I I've already flagged and finagled in LR to Aperture, build the book, and send it off. I know that LR has the ability to add book-building plug-ins as well, but I'm used to the Apple way of doing it, having started in iPhoto.
Just watch out though, iPhoto and Aperture use seem to use different printing houses - so some options in iPhoto are not available in Aperture, and vice versa. And I was not able to find a way to move a completed book project into iPhoto.
