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 Westside guy
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I use Aperture at the moment, but was a LR user in the past.
For me, LR has the edge in photo editing, with grad filters, better noise handling, more fine tuning with sharpening, lens correction and so on. However Aperture's asset management is much more user friendly. I'm lazy and just have a managed library, so I don't have to bother running my own system.
Nevertheless I'm always tempted to go back to LR because of the fantastic editing capability, and the slow development pace of Aperture doesn't make resisting any easier. We'll see...
For me, LR has the edge in photo editing, with grad filters, better noise handling, more fine tuning with sharpening, lens correction and so on. However Aperture's asset management is much more user friendly. I'm lazy and just have a managed library, so I don't have to bother running my own system.
Nevertheless I'm always tempted to go back to LR because of the fantastic editing capability, and the slow development pace of Aperture doesn't make resisting any easier. We'll see...
Aperture's managed library
Been comparing the two...my 2 cents...
Love Apple and Aperture and I hope they get it right in version 4, but for me it looks like LR is the clear winner.
1. Performance is better, much better in LR.
2. Having used photoshop for years, it's nice that many of the core concepts and terminology in LR are similar.
3. Having had my 'managed' library in Aperture go corrupt, I can tell you I'll never go back. If Aperture adds better support for referenced assets, I may try it again since I still find the Aperture interface more friendly.
4. I'm very concerned about Apples neglect of Aperture. They've been de-emphasizing their pro apps in recent years. They revamped Final Cut into more of a prosumer product whereas it was the goto pro video editing suite. They've taken similar steps with Aperture by working in iPhoto features.
If you don't want a ton of image editing flexibility via better integration with Photoshop, and you're just looking for a solid step up from iPhoto... Give Aperture a try. If you have a history with PhotoShop and want solid performance and good integration with CS, go with LR.
Been comparing the two...my 2 cents...
Love Apple and Aperture and I hope they get it right in version 4, but for me it looks like LR is the clear winner.
1. Performance is better, much better in LR.
2. Having used photoshop for years, it's nice that many of the core concepts and terminology in LR are similar.
3. Having had my 'managed' library in Aperture go corrupt, I can tell you I'll never go back. If Aperture adds better support for referenced assets, I may try it again since I still find the Aperture interface more friendly.
4. I'm very concerned about Apples neglect of Aperture. They've been de-emphasizing their pro apps in recent years. They revamped Final Cut into more of a prosumer product whereas it was the goto pro video editing suite. They've taken similar steps with Aperture by working in iPhoto features.
If you don't want a ton of image editing flexibility via better integration with Photoshop, and you're just looking for a solid step up from iPhoto... Give Aperture a try. If you have a history with PhotoShop and want solid performance and good integration with CS, go with LR.
Last edited:
I agree with the previous poster about the integration with other Adobe apps. If you're already heavily invested in that ecosystem then LR is probably a no brainer.
However on the asset management side I think that's down to user experience. As a former LR user, one of the things that prompted me to look elsewhere was the amount of time I was spending managing my library, looking for "lost" files and so on. Aperture's managed library elimanates all that. Sure if it went corrupt on me I'd be pretty pissed like the previous poster, but it's never happened so far and I have daily backups so it wouldn't be a problem to switch the corrupted library out. Like I say, I'm lazy, I want to spend my time creating images, not managing a file system.
I agree with the concerns about Apple's neglect of its pro apps. Aperture 4, if it ever comes, will be the make or break point for me. If it goes further down the iPhoto route, I think a lot of users will jump ship, me included.
However on the asset management side I think that's down to user experience. As a former LR user, one of the things that prompted me to look elsewhere was the amount of time I was spending managing my library, looking for "lost" files and so on. Aperture's managed library elimanates all that. Sure if it went corrupt on me I'd be pretty pissed like the previous poster, but it's never happened so far and I have daily backups so it wouldn't be a problem to switch the corrupted library out. Like I say, I'm lazy, I want to spend my time creating images, not managing a file system.
I agree with the concerns about Apple's neglect of its pro apps. Aperture 4, if it ever comes, will be the make or break point for me. If it goes further down the iPhoto route, I think a lot of users will jump ship, me included.
Switch from iPhoto
I've been using iPhoto and have been thinking of upgrading to either Aperture or Lightroom. I honestly don't know which I want to use, but wonder if it is easier to switch from one to another at a later date (I.e., is it any easier to move from Lightroom to Aperture than the opposite?).
My iPhoto pictures are all JPEGs and I don't really have any tags or other data to worry about. I am planning to start shooting some in Raw and would like to get my photo management going forward on the right foot. I would like to use whatever is less likely to lock me in to some format or software in the future.
Is one program a better bet than the other?
I've been using iPhoto and have been thinking of upgrading to either Aperture or Lightroom. I honestly don't know which I want to use, but wonder if it is easier to switch from one to another at a later date (I.e., is it any easier to move from Lightroom to Aperture than the opposite?).
My iPhoto pictures are all JPEGs and I don't really have any tags or other data to worry about. I am planning to start shooting some in Raw and would like to get my photo management going forward on the right foot. I would like to use whatever is less likely to lock me in to some format or software in the future.
Is one program a better bet than the other?
I've been an avid Aperture 3 user now for about a year and absolutely love.
However, yesterday I did decide to try Lightroom 4. I have heard great things and I am not opposed to finding/trying new software to improve my images.
Upon installing Lightroom 4 I get a message saying that "an error occurred while attempting to change modules." After trouble shooting I found that installing the software in another User's account allowed me to use it.
However, on my main account I cannot get the software to work, and I cannot locate the .plist file (com.adobe.lightroom.plist) anywhere!
Anyone have any suggestions? At this point I am about to give up on this software and just stick with Aperture.
However, yesterday I did decide to try Lightroom 4. I have heard great things and I am not opposed to finding/trying new software to improve my images.
Upon installing Lightroom 4 I get a message saying that "an error occurred while attempting to change modules." After trouble shooting I found that installing the software in another User's account allowed me to use it.
However, on my main account I cannot get the software to work, and I cannot locate the .plist file (com.adobe.lightroom.plist) anywhere!
Anyone have any suggestions? At this point I am about to give up on this software and just stick with Aperture.
You need to look in App Support folder in the Library. I think on Lion/Mountain Lion Apple has hidden this area.
Adobe has a very good Lightroom support forum at: forums.adobe.com/community/lightroom
From the "Go" menu in Finder, hold down the Option button and the ~/Library menu item will appear.
From the "Go" menu in Finder, hold down the Option button and the ~/Library menu item will appear.
Thank you very much for your help. This worked like a charm. So far so good now with LR4!
iPhoto uses a database for metatags; I haven't used iPhoto in a long while now, but I made an Applescript to embed metatags into the files without having to export them. Aperture and iPhoto use the same library, and from Aperture you can simply save the file to embed the metadata without altering the image. So you could download a trial of Aperture, open your iPhoto library, select all, and Save. Might take a while depending on how many pics is involved. Running Aperture for the first time might also cause it to create thumbnails for all the images, all of which take time and resources.
Mind you, I have not specifically tested the Geotagging metadata, and in the past there has been some compatibility issues between Adobe which use XMP tagging exclusively (which they invented) and Apple which has used the older IPTC standard by default, and other software which implement things yet differently.
It is a matter of preference which is "better"; they both have their plusse and minuses. Aperture users are waiting for version 4 to come out to match LR4s new features. Having used both, I prefer Aperture for its workflow, but I prefer certain aspects of LR4 and hope the next version of Aperture will address these.
If you had a lot of tagging and comments, I'd say start with Aperture where you can open the iPhoto library and resave the metadata easily. Otherwise it is a toss-up if you choose to use Referenced libraries (like on an external disk) versus Managed which keeps them all in the app's folder (in Aperture it is inside a library Bundle in the Pictures folder).
Both are non-destructive editors, and the edits are all non-transferrable, so if you move from one to the other, you can resave the metadata, but you cannot transfer edits either way.
So the answer in your case with no tagging to preserve from iPhoto; there is no difference.
To be fair, while they mucked up the transition from Final Cut 7 to X (both should have been available concurrently while they finished the missing features), all the missing Pro features in the initial release has been reinstated as promised; Final Cut X may not please all Pros, and their handling of the transition lost them support in a conservative industry that needs longterm certainty, but it is no Prosumer app, even if it is more user friendly.
As for Aperture, they are positioning it to make transitioning from iPhoto smoother by unifying the libraries, but it is not "dumbing down" or any less Pro for things like changing a tab from "Metadata" to "Info" as some have said. Apple is secretive and with a lack of feedback people worry about what Apple is up to, esp with the Final Cut debacle and the long-overdue Mac Pro. Aperture users like myself are naturally worried by the delay in a new version and lack of communication of what is going on. Their extensive reference to it and emphasising it as a Pro app at recent events and use in the Macbook Pro ads lends suport to it remaining supported and as a Pro app.
But they need to be more forthcoming, as without any formal statements all we have is rumours, which point to job ads seeking IOS developers for Aperture development and unreleased books on Aperture 4 listed on book sites.
So hopefully the delay is simply one similar to when OSX was delayed due to the developers having been diverted to developing IOS. In a time when Android tablets are becoming more prominent and Adobe has released PS Touch for both IOS and Android, it is not a far stretch of the imagination. Hopefully a major revamp and optimisation is also on the cards and another reason for delay. One hopes.
Well I decided to jump ship to Lightroom v4. Have been with Aperture since v2 and while it is good, I find myself liking LRv4 better. Ordered my copy today off Amazon and it should be here next week long before the free-trial runs out.
Thankfully my plug-ins were for either Aperture or LR so I don't lose anything there.
Thankfully my plug-ins were for either Aperture or LR so I don't lose anything there.
Thinking of making the switch. But before I do - I'm wondering if my biggest frustration with Aperture is my own doing.
I really only use Aperture for cataloging. I do most/all my adjustments either in Photoshop Raw Import and/or Photoshop
BUT... Aperture lags so much and always says "processing." So my question is - have I set up my Aperture "wrong" for speed. I imported my iPhoto (and subsequently - all my raw images from my camera) into an Aperture library. Is it better/faster to set it up where the photos are in regular photos on your hard drive and just referenced by Aperture?
I own (now) both LR4.3 and Aperture 3. So switching isn't a cost issue. I don't have a problem with Aperture other than its laggyness.
Thanks for any heads up...
I really only use Aperture for cataloging. I do most/all my adjustments either in Photoshop Raw Import and/or Photoshop
BUT... Aperture lags so much and always says "processing." So my question is - have I set up my Aperture "wrong" for speed. I imported my iPhoto (and subsequently - all my raw images from my camera) into an Aperture library. Is it better/faster to set it up where the photos are in regular photos on your hard drive and just referenced by Aperture?
I own (now) both LR4.3 and Aperture 3. So switching isn't a cost issue. I don't have a problem with Aperture other than its laggyness.
Thanks for any heads up...
Really depends on what camera you have. You might find that it's all down to your RAM and potentially lack of.
I used to run it with 3GB and struggle. I then upgraded to 12GB and it sales now. I have a feeling I remembered reading that you needed to get over the magic 4GB number or you would continue to have issues.
I assume you mean what computer I have (not camera)? I have an iMac with 4gb. But good to know...
Incidentally - I have the T3i
It is imperative for photo apps to have 8GB+ memory and minimum 512MB GPU memory to have a decent experience. Especially when using RAW files! CPU is less important but will still make a difference, more so with video/audio apps than photo.
I have both, but I can't seem to gel with Aperture. LR4 seems to work more natural for me and I get better results quicker using that. Also, performance of Aperture is not that great when compared with LR in my experience.
I have the exact same experience. I tried long and hard to bond with Aperture and while I got proficient at it, Lightroom just "feels" better to me so I have gone back to it.
If I purchased Aperture now, do I receive the eventual upgrade of the software when it is released for free? Or do I have to pay all over again?
Depends on when it is released. Not sure anyone could answer the question with certainty.
My wife purchased Aperture for me one Christmas just as I was about to buy Lightroom. For several years I used Aperture but in the end I switched because of issues having to keep smaller catalogs in Aperture.
My wife purchased Aperture for me one Christmas just as I was about to buy Lightroom. For several years I used Aperture but in the end I switched because of issues having to keep smaller catalogs in Aperture.
I obviously understand that. I was hoping, from previous incremental releases, someone may be able to offer a guess.
Aperture has went off to no man's land. And still no word from Apple if they'll ever been an update, I've written it off like I have iPhone, iMovie and iWork. 4 years is a long time not seeing a significant update. There's a better community and support for LR4.
I agree. While I may have used both in the past, I've pretty much moved entirely to Lightroom.