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 currently use Lightroom4, however Im in the process of moving over to aperture3. This has been a hard decision, because I have no idea what the future looks like for Aperture and hate how secretive Apple are about their new releases they could certainly learn a thing or two from Adobe when it comes to community testing.
So why the switch? I use my raw converter as part of a professional workflow, however the editing tools within the raw converter are not important to me what matters to me is getting the best raw conversion possible. For this, Aperture wipes the floor with lightroom. Bear in mind, raw files are not images they are only information about what the camera saw at the time the shot was taken. A raw converter must interpret this information and then build a visible image from it. The algorithm that apple has developed for aperture3 to render raw images on screen is simply the best one out there. By FAR.
The truth of the matter is that ALL raw converters are fairly poor for image editing. Im sure many people will disagree with this statement, but if you want the best results you still need to export to a professional editing package such as photoshop. The problem with the raw converters is to do with masking none of them do masks well, which means even basic edits such as contrast & sharpening look average at best. Theres no denying that Lightroom offers many more sliders, but they all still have to work with the poor raw conversion that lightroom/ACR creates (and the 2012 algorithm is even worse than the 2010 one!). Aperture on the other hand offers many fewer sliders, but creates a far better starting image if youre going to export to a separate image editor anyway.
Once I finalise the switch to aperture, the things I will really miss from lightroom 4 are: the history palette; built in lens correction; great noise reduction. I keep my fingers crossed that Apple implements these into aperture at some stage.
So to round up, get lightroom if: you shoot JPEG, or you plan to do all your editing inside the raw converter, or you really need a history palette, built in lens correction and great noise reduction.
Get aperture if: you want to give your raw files the very best starting point possible and are going to edit them in a proper image editor anyway.
Hope this helps (and doesnt start a flame war).
So why the switch? I use my raw converter as part of a professional workflow, however the editing tools within the raw converter are not important to me what matters to me is getting the best raw conversion possible. For this, Aperture wipes the floor with lightroom. Bear in mind, raw files are not images they are only information about what the camera saw at the time the shot was taken. A raw converter must interpret this information and then build a visible image from it. The algorithm that apple has developed for aperture3 to render raw images on screen is simply the best one out there. By FAR.
The truth of the matter is that ALL raw converters are fairly poor for image editing. Im sure many people will disagree with this statement, but if you want the best results you still need to export to a professional editing package such as photoshop. The problem with the raw converters is to do with masking none of them do masks well, which means even basic edits such as contrast & sharpening look average at best. Theres no denying that Lightroom offers many more sliders, but they all still have to work with the poor raw conversion that lightroom/ACR creates (and the 2012 algorithm is even worse than the 2010 one!). Aperture on the other hand offers many fewer sliders, but creates a far better starting image if youre going to export to a separate image editor anyway.
Once I finalise the switch to aperture, the things I will really miss from lightroom 4 are: the history palette; built in lens correction; great noise reduction. I keep my fingers crossed that Apple implements these into aperture at some stage.
So to round up, get lightroom if: you shoot JPEG, or you plan to do all your editing inside the raw converter, or you really need a history palette, built in lens correction and great noise reduction.
Get aperture if: you want to give your raw files the very best starting point possible and are going to edit them in a proper image editor anyway.
Hope this helps (and doesnt start a flame war).
I moved over this year to Aperture and its my hope that Apple updates the app.
My workflow fits Aperture's strengths a lot better then LR's. I like LR, but I found Aperture is better for me because I can easily create different libraries based on my needs. I like the UI better though I gotten used to LR's UI.
I was disappointed that LightRoom's DNG format is not compatible with OSX. Luckily I have the originals in RAW format.
My workflow fits Aperture's strengths a lot better then LR's. I like LR, but I found Aperture is better for me because I can easily create different libraries based on my needs. I like the UI better though I gotten used to LR's UI.
I was disappointed that LightRoom's DNG format is not compatible with OSX. Luckily I have the originals in RAW format.
So....you think that Apple's Aperture, who does this as a "hobby" and what looks to have abandoned it, does a better Raw conversion, than Adobe's Lightroom, who does it as their bread and better and is deeply active in the photographic community, who's Photoshop serves as the standard for all photographic manipulation and processing, and who's developed their own version of Raw called DNG?
Your opinion is interesting for certain. I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for Apple to implement features that Lightroom already has. It's been over a year since LR 4 launched with those features out of the box, and you're still waiting?
What I'm saying is that in the very plainest terms of raw conversion (ie – taking a .CR2/.NEF/.PEF/.whatever file straight off a camera's memory card and turning it into an image that you or I could see on a screen) Aperture creates an image that shows more accurate colour and tonal transitions. It's also capable of accurately recovering more of these fine details from the darkest shadows and the brightest highlights than Lightroom is.
I completely concur that adobe make some of the very best image manipulation software available with Photoshop – it's clearly the industry standard and is what I use to edit my own images. This is by no means me slating lightroom or saying it is "bad" at rendering raw files – I've been a happy lightroom user for several years. However as my workflow has changed I decided that what I want from my raw converter isn't lots of options & features but the very best 'start point' to then go and edit in photoshop. For this, aperture is better.
Truth be told, this switch is a real hassle for me. I like how well lightroom & photoshop work together and have spent time building a decent library structure and workflow within lightroom. I honestly wish lightroom's algorithm was the best available, because then I wouldn't feel the need to switch to an app with a dubious future – but it’s not.
It's not even that I'm waiting (I'm not waiting yet, as I currently still use lightroom much of the time) - I am making a conscious decision to switch to an app without these features because, FOR ME, the improved algorithm is worth it. With that said, I completely agree with your sentiment and do not hold out a great deal of hope for Apple to implement them any time soon.
Last edited:
LR5 looks great and I really hope Apple is looking at something to fire back with. The Radial Gradient feature is clever, flexible and powerful...I am very intrigued. But the "Upright" feature basically looks like a one-click method to make your photos boring by flattening potentially interesting perspective and composition...maybe I'm missing something from the brief videos.
I've been eying the switch to LR for awhile now...although, with Apple's most recent RAW update they have finally added support for Fuji's excellent X-TRANS sensors. Apple's implementation was worth the wait and wipes the floor with Adobe's admittedly "preliminary support".
I was about ready to plunk down serious cash on CaptureOne just to have decent X-TRANS raw support. Crossing my fingers for Apple to show increased interest in Aperture beyond fixes.
I've been eying the switch to LR for awhile now...although, with Apple's most recent RAW update they have finally added support for Fuji's excellent X-TRANS sensors. Apple's implementation was worth the wait and wipes the floor with Adobe's admittedly "preliminary support".
I was about ready to plunk down serious cash on CaptureOne just to have decent X-TRANS raw support. Crossing my fingers for Apple to show increased interest in Aperture beyond fixes.
Well, with any feature there are always times when you should use and when you shouldn't. Sometimes a different perspective looks interesting, sometimes it just looks wrong. This is for those "wrong" times.
I would have to agree. Bottom line is, you can't compare the RAW processing from a company that's done it right for the past 13 years to a company that just got in the game. One of the biggest complaints for earlier Aperture users (myself included) was the lack of steady updates to the RAW engine. If Nikon or Canon (the top two) put out a few new cams we'd be waiting almost 6 months to get an update from Apple. Lightroom had it within weeks.
For me, I spent much of my time processing RAW files in Photoshop, bypassing either Aperture or Lightroom. While some can argue that Aperture looks the best that may just be from a monitor to web perspective. If they do print I am sure the lab is matching color on their end. For those that print in house, or need to color match for other color spaces Lightroom-->Photoshop keeps everything consistent. Once that photo that was toned in PS goes into AI, or ID, or PR it looks the same. I can print it out on an Epson or HP or Fuji and it looks the same.
I never got that with Aperture.
While it doesn't invalidate the rest of your comment, Aperture was released in 2005. 8 years is hardly "just got in the game".
Regardless, I would agree that Adobe/Lightroom is just "doing it better" despite my hopes that Aperture is updated.
I was going to put that date in there, but didn't primarily because of the lack of an update for the past three of those years. But I agree otherwise.
On the other side, we'd have to consider that Photoshop had been around since 1990 (23 years) but didn't touch RAW file formats via ACR until 2002. I did overestimate the time that Adobe had been working in RAW formats natively.
Yep, you're absolutely right. Apple sucks at this! It's one of the many internal processes where they could learn a lot from Adobe. Hell, even a simple announcement to acknowledge the release of a new camera and letting users know roughly how long they'll have to wait for compatibility would be better than the silence we're used to.
Opening raw in PS uses exactly the same algorithm as lightroom. You say you're bypassing lightroom - but PS itself can't edit raw files, it needs to open them up in Adobe Camera Raw, then make a raster image to open in PS (baking in any changes you make). ACR is lightroom without the file management.
As for which one looks better being a "monitor or web perspective", I disagree. My previous comment wasn't that I think aperture "looks the best" - that's completely subjective. I was saying that Aperture can extract more accurate detail and tonal gradation from the extremes of a raw file - something which is not subjective, it's simply stating the facts. Because of this, Aperture is a better tool to create the raster image that we then go on to edit in photoshop.
I've never tried printing directly from any raw converter so can't comment on any discrepancies there. Like you, I use the Adobe creative suite to manage my edited files with great results.
Stating it's a fact means there needs to be supporting proof. I do know that from my experience, as I've said, if you go from Aperture --> PSD --> PS or Lightroom --> PSD --> PS it's a toss up on how you work the tools. But when I go from Aperture --> PSD --> PS --> InDesign --> Press or Fuji printer using the same color spaces, I have to pay much more attention than when I go LR --> PSD --> ANYTHING ELSE.
I used to use both, but with the lack of an update in 5 years, much of my issues with LR nixed or worked out, and the Creative Cloud giving me LR I've stuck with LR and I get a much more consistent look from app to app to physical media.
This is all still to say that I'd love to see where the facts come from, I am never against going back to AP3.
You're absolutely right. When writing my previous post I did start including a description to back up my claim, but the response was getting very long so I cut it out. Reading my previous post again I see that it sounds rather arrogant - that certainly wasn't my intention.
To be completely honest, I feel like we're drifting very far off topic from the OP's original question and I'm not sure whether this is the best place for this discussion. Nevertheless, here's the test I'd encourage everyone to try when comparing any raw converters (not just Lightroom or Aperture). Apologies in advance for the length of post.
Go outdoors a couple of hours before sunset on a bright day & take a south-facing wide-angle photo that includes both scenery & sky. Doing this 2 hours before sunset reduces the chance of the sky containing a lot of different colours - what we're looking for is a nice smooth gradation in the sky from medium-blue high up to very light blue (perhaps even white) right at the horizon. If there are some wispy clouds in the sky that's even better as it will help highlight any differences between raw processors but you want a mostly clear sky with a gradation in lightness.
Aim at the sky & set your meter so that it's overexposing the image by 2-3 stops (We're keeping some foreground in the shot and facing south, so we'll need to overexpose the image to prevent the land going to pure black), then, shooting in RAW, take your photo. If you've got blinking highlights turned on then they'll be going crazy - it's fine, the detail will be there in the raw file.
When you get home open the same image in both aperture and lightroom (and any other converters you want to try this in). The aim here is simply to make the shot look like the camera had exposed for the sky, not the foreground, so take the exposure slider and reduce it by the same 2 stops you overexposed by in camera. Don't move any other sliders to try & make the image look it's best, just compare the conversion. The 2010 algorithm in lightroom usually gives more accurate results than 2012, but be sure to try both (many will argue that 2012 looks better, but once again, this is subjective. Even with the Highlight slider set to 0, 2012 adds Recovery to the image to reduce clipping. You'll notice the difference in red clipping between the 2 algorithms. This dramatically flattens the image and reduces fine detail).
Regardless of camera, every time I have seen this experiment tried aperture can produce far more natural skies from the blown out detail. Lightroom's blues are always too intense and most of the time an unusual yellow cast is given to the sky as it nears the horizon where it should only get lighter (this is why it's important not to do this during sunset).
If there were whispy clouds in the sky, Lightroom's will have a harsher look, not the light & translucent look you actually saw with your eye - this is particularly evident around the edges of the clouds. Aperture keeps more smooth gradations within the clouds, and the edge between the white cloud and blue sky is far more natural.
A similar experiment is to shoot photo of a person, but overexpose them by the same 2-3 stops. When you lower the exposure in the raw programme, aperture can recover far more information from the blown out skin tones, where lightroom will leave areas of pure white with harsh, jagged edges.
We're not paid by these companies so don't have to defend them - if we want to find the best tool for the job then don't believe the marketing hype, do the tests, be honest and be critical of the results. I'd be interested to hear what people find.
Apologies again for this long post, but I hope it's helpful to those interested.
All the best.
Last edited:
Aperture 3.x user looking at switching to LR. LR has leaped ahead of Aperture but all we hear from Apple is a code of 100% silence. Not a way to treat customers. I want to use a software product that I know has a future. Aperture offers Zero assurances.
Based on today's events, Adobe is moving to 100% rental software. I fully expect Lightroom 5 will wind up being renamed Lightroom CC. Every month you have to connect to the Adobe collective and pay financial homage to allow your software to run for another 30 days. Which swings the pendulum back 180° toward Aperture for me.
This might clear things up a bit
http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2013/05/lightroom-and-the-creative-cloud.html
Very helpful and I agree. I don't dare defend either Adobe or Apple. But they do indeed have the tools that I need for my work.
It's sad about the Creative Cloud. I'd prefer it as an option to those of us that don't want to do the subscription model, or the month-to-month / contract stuff makes them ill.
I have the subscription because it's cheaper for me when I look at how many apps I use, and how not every package comes with all of the apps. My Production Premium didn't include InDesign, and the Web & Design didn't include production apps. Buying one Suite then individual apps even over the course of 3 years didn't look promising when compared to the Cloud . . . even with my EDU discounts.
That's a shame - I'm sure it wouldn't be difficult for apple to offer a free trial version through the app store with in-app upgrade. There are various other alternatives out there that do offer free trials though - Corel Aftershot, ACDSee pro2 and Capture One for example. Personally I think it's worth comparing them all to see which one best suits you as a user. Fortunately raw converters are quite cheap compared to some other "professional" software, so it doesn't cost an arm and a leg to switch. Although there's no free trial, Aperture can be made a little cheaper by waiting until supermarkets have a deal on iTunes vouchers (happens around most public holidays) and buying the app using iTunes credit - doing that can give the equivalent of approx 20% discount.
I'm not against this business model for adobe - their software is obviously some of the most pirated on the planet and this should help them reduce that. I do think they need to seriously reconsider their pricing structure though.
I've not tried it, but I'm sure it'll work fine with aperture - you just need to set GIMP to be aperture's external editor and save your GIMP projects as PSDs. If you do that then it should work just as fluidly with aperture as photoshop does. The real question is whether GIMP will meet you editing needs. For me it doesn't even come close. Another app to look at is Pixelmator (on the app store). It's a good app and IMO a step up from GIMP, however it still lacks a lot of photoshop's key features.
Last edited:
This is a problem for me, as I am in Kenya. When in Nairobi, I have great fiber optics internet, nearly as good as my connection in upstate NY (except when the power goes out.) However, I am often out of Nairobi for more than a month at a time and in the bush, where I have little (poor cellular modem connection) or no internet service.
What good is subscription for me, if I can't renew on time.....
I haven't checked out Adobe's rental policies. Perhaps they have quarterly or yearly contracts. Maybe my complain is premature....
Oh well... I also deeply dislike having to pay a monthly fee for use of software I could buy!!!!!
Adobe should give us rental or buying alternatives.
Last edited: