Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I neglected to state in my above post, that I recently attempted to permanently switch to Capture One (which I have had for many years,) which has great raw processing, especially with version 7. However, I find C1 a bit daunting in some aspects.
1. Importing takes an awful long time as compared to Aperture.
2. The dynamic range tools (highlights and shadows) is not as good in C1 as it is in Apple.
3. C1 is definitely not as intuitive as Ap, particularly in an organizational sense. I am still trying to figure out how to use Catalogues. in Aperture the filing structure is quite easy to figure out -- There are projects and then albums and folders... etc... In C1, all this exists, but there is definitely a learning curve.
4. C1 does offer much better processing power.
5. C1 has an incredible amount of presets compared to Apertures minuscule presets.
I am sure there is more to compare, but this is a start....
 
My bad... Just went to Adobe's site and they have an annual fee plan for CC. Still have problems with this type of business model. Don't like renting my software. Oh well... We shall see what the future brings....

I wish Apple would get its act together and either make a permanent commitment to their professional software or abandon it. Apple has discontinued past software too many times. I'm not sure what is going on at Apple, but am dismayed that there seems to be too much reliance on iPhone and iPad at the expense of other departments, such as software.

There is no need to decrease their commitment to software because of the iPhone's phenomenal success. In fact, this gives them much more revenue for them to compete with the likes of companies like Adobe, and put out a much better competitive product.

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:
I wish Apple would get its act together and either make a permanent commitment to their professional software or abandon it.

Aperture 3 was released in Feb 2010. In the 39 months since then, there have been a further 20 versions released (the equivalent of an update every 2 months).

Since the start of 2010 there have been a total of 27 versions of lightroom, but of these 15 were either release candidates or betas.

While it's true that many of Aperture's updates over this period were fixes and performance improvements I think that does show that Apple still has a degree of commitment to the software. It's just that Adobe obviously includes their user-base in the software's development and this community engagement means updates are generally met with greater fanfare.

I honestly believe the real issue many people have comes down to a simple label - the version number. "Why is Aperture still only on version 3 when Lightroom is now on to version 5?" they ask. Because they're different pieces of software made by different companies! The same people don't seem to have an issue with Lightroom "only" being on version 5 when Capture1 is now on version 7. Many people are crying out for Apple to release Aperture4 with a bunch of new features that pros need. I'd certainly welcome the release of Aperture4 because it would signal that Apple is commited to developing the app for at least another couple of years; however in terms of features I'd much prefer Apple to stick with 3.x upgrades because I don't have to pay for those. Similarly, I still use Lightroom4 and have no intention of upgrading when the retail version of Lightoom 5 comes out.
 
I honestly believe the real issue many people have comes down to a simple label - the version number. "Why is Aperture still only on version 3 when Lightroom is now on to version 5?" they ask. Because they're different pieces of software made by different companies! The same people don't seem to have an issue with Lightroom "only" being on version 5 when Capture1 is now on version 7. Many people are crying out for Apple to release Aperture4 with a bunch of new features that pros need. I'd certainly welcome the release of Aperture4 because it would signal that Apple is commited to developing the app for at least another couple of years; however in terms of features I'd much prefer Apple to stick with 3.x upgrades because I don't have to pay for those. Similarly, I still use Lightroom4 and have no intention of upgrading when the retail version of Lightoom 5 comes out.

You really don't give users enough credit. I very much doubt any of the photographers who have paid $80 - $150 for either of these tools is adolescent enough to think, "Hey, that one has a bigger number, so it must be better! I'm getting ripped off!".

It's all about features, plain and simple. While Apple was releasing 20 updates, Adobe was rolling out significant feature enhancements. With Lightroom 4, they greatly pulled ahead. Either Lightroom's features are more powerful (e.g. noise reduction, vignettes) or Aperture is missing them completely (e.g. lens corrections, output sharpening). The impending release of Lightroom 5 with even more features is just salt in the wound at this point.

Aperture users look at Lightroom and think, "Hey, why can't I do that? I can do essentially the same things I could do 3 years ago, but all of my Lightroom friends can do more and more each year." Nobody cares what the version numbers are.
 
^^ fivedots, good, well-considered response. It may sound like we're saying very different things, but in fact I completely agree with you.

I didn't mean to tar all users with the same brush - my comment was really aimed at a vocal minority. A number of blogs / posts / comments across the internet claim aperture hasn't been updated in years (it has, although not in the way many users would like) and clamour for Aperture4 without knowing anything at all about it. I've read countless posts where the author suggests they'll need to consider switching to Lightroom if Apple doesn't release aperture4 soon. This way of thinking is crazy - as you said yourself, version numbers have nothing to do with features. Apple could release aperture 4 tomorrow and it might still lack many of Lightroom's features.

Each user should use the software that best suits their needs. If the software you currently use doesn't meet your needs then it's definitely time to switch to a solution that does. However, if it does meet your needs but you still have "gear envy" over another option then obviously you have to weigh up the benefit vs the cost&effort of switching.
 
Each user should use the software that best suits their needs. If the software you currently use doesn't meet your needs then it's definitely time to switch to a solution that does. However, if it does meet your needs but you still have "gear envy" over another option then obviously you have to weigh up the benefit vs the cost&effort of switching.
Yeah, it's a hard place to be. I much prefer using Aperture from a workflow and interface perspective but the reality is that I just cannot get the results I want with it vs. Lightroom. At least not without several plug-ins and constantly using TIFF files.

- I've had situations where the noise reduction literally does nothing other than making the image slightly blurry. Huge deal now that I'm on a noisier m43 sensor.

- Lack of output sharpening means that my web JPEGs always look worse than when done with Lightroom.

- No lens corrections means what can be done with one click in Lightroom (when Upright works, it is absolutely amazing) takes a bunch of manual fussing about in Photoshop unless I purchase a plug-in. Either way, a massive TIFF file in the end.

- Weak vignette tool just doesn't do enough, period.


On a lesser scale and mostly due to personal tastes:

- Separation of crop and straighten isn't the best way to do things.

- Having replicate/redraw brushed in adjustments one by one instead of doing it once and tweaking the sliders for the desired effect.

- Spoiled by the fact that all Lightroom sliders now all move in the same way, from light to dark.


There are some other things that I can't fault Aperture for because it's expected that Lightroom would integrate with Photoshop much more smoothly. But merging to TIFF and tone mapping back in Lightroom is a little known yet amazing feature. And pano stitching with Photoshop. Even with plug-ins in Aperture, none of them seem to integrate well enough to the point that I can just highlight multiple files and click stitch. I would not be surprised if the next version of Aperture has HDR and stitching built in. That would be most excellent.


On the flipside, I can't stand Lightroom's interface:

- Too many lines and boxes everywhere. Images don't need to be in squares, just let them float. Not everything needs its own little cubby hole inset into the interface.

- Both left and right panels. We don't need both. Tabs work fine in Aperture. Choose right or left, please. With 4 different panels on a small screen, things get crowded fast. Even when collapsed, too much space is give to the bar with the arrow on it for expanding.

- Modular approach. Not a huge issue, but the fact that hotkeys work differently in each module drives me mad.

- When working in a smart collection, if you have one setup as "Has Adjustments" for example and you're in develop and decided to reset all adjustments and start over, the image immediately disappears from your screen because it no longer meets the criteria for the collection. Then you have to find it somewhere in your library. Why? Just take the image out of the collection. Maybe do this in the Library module, but don't change the image I'm working on while in Develop. If you're going to force a modular approach, stick to it. Library-type activities shouldn't be happening in the Develop module.

- Lightroom 5 finally introduces a fullscreen preview, but I would absolutely love the floating HUD that Aperture provides. There's still no way to edit while in a true fullscreen view.


And I'm done! :p
 
Last edited:
Noise reduction, effective ca removal, lens correction, publish services, perspective correction (auto in lr5), its not even a close race now. I switched from aperture to LR 9 months ago and loving the results :)
 
^^
Each user should use the software that best suits their needs. If the software you currently use doesn't meet your needs then it's definitely time to switch to a solution that does. However, if it does meet your needs but you still have "gear envy" over another option then obviously you have to weigh up the benefit vs the cost&effort of switching.


Unfortunately, there is no software that best suits my needs. The one's I have worked with the most - Aperture 3.x, Capture One Pro 7 & now Lightroom (beta) 5 all have their pros and cons....

Here is how I look at it:

Aperture has the easiest interface to learn; and much of it is very intuitive; and Apple and third-party help and tutorials are well written. File management is simple and they have the easiest importing tools. However, Aperture needs better tools - for example -- sharpening, noise reduction, and masking all need to be improved. I love the idea of feathering on dodge and burn - but the dodge and burn tools need to be stronger. The problem with Aperture is that despite many upgrades, with improvements in some tools, Apple hasn't really done an overhaul on many of the adjustment tools. When importing raw images, the algorithm is darker and duller than Lightroom's or even Capture One's. Upon importation, the raw images appear closer to linear in Capture One.

(In fact Lightroom's default interpretation of raw images upon import is similar to the "film standard with shadows" in Capture One. Lightroom's interface is awful and the least intuitive of the three.

Capture One seems to have the best algorithm (in my eye's opinion) for raw decoding and you have a choice of different settings upon import. Capture One has some great tools and easy to work with, but as far as I can see they aren't advanced enough. For instance, I could be wrong, but so far I haven't seen anyway to smooth out the regions and eliminate the hard edges between areas adjusted locally and those ares not touched, such as when using burning in or dodging an area. Aperture is very good at providing the feathering to smooth out these boundaries; it's just that some of Aperture adjustment tools are just weak. Perhaps I am missing something....
 
Continuing on my last post, in which I hit the submit button too soon...

Capture One also takes the longest to import files...

Lightroom has the most unintuitive sight and the least room for the image. Too much clutter exists in the Lightroom window.

Conclusion of this and my last post above...
Capture One has the best Raw processor according to my eye. However, I have noticed that if you increase the Luminance to 50 on noise reduction in Lightroom 5, you will get a similar image as Capture One produces on import if "film extra shadow" is chosen in the "base characteristics" right after the import before any adjustments are made. The default import algorithm is "film standard" in Capture One Pro 7.
 
You can make the side, top and bottom bars autohide if you want.

Even so, the bar with the arrow on it for expanding remains on the screen and there is a overly generous amount of padding around the image. Nothing quite parallels Aperture's fullscreen editing mode with the floating HUD.
 
Even so, the bar with the arrow on it for expanding remains on the screen and there is a overly generous amount of padding around the image. Nothing quite parallels Aperture's fullscreen editing mode with the floating HUD.

I've always hated that, even when I was a diehard Aperture user. I always just hid the panels in Aperture (as I do in LR) and pushed the image to the upper right or left of the screen.

When i have two displays, I just put the image on one, and the browser and panels on the left.

Although, the Interface opinions I agree with. As far as looks, Aperture is my preferred. Same thing with library management. Aperture has always been my favorite for organizing my images and doing regular backups.
 
I've always hated that, even when I was a diehard Aperture user. I always just hid the panels in Aperture (as I do in LR) and pushed the image to the upper right or left of the screen.

When i have two displays, I just put the image on one, and the browser and panels on the left.

Although, the Interface opinions I agree with. As far as looks, Aperture is my preferred. Same thing with library management. Aperture has always been my favorite for organizing my images and doing regular backups.

I can see how the floating HUD would be annoying, though the way it fades out when you're tweaking a slider helps. Ideally, Lightroom's new fullscreen mode would allow turning on/off the right palette so you could edit an edge-to-edge image without distraction (varying with ratio, of course).
 
Rather than using the auto-hide, I sit with my left hand over shift+tab in Lightroom. It's a quick and easy way to hide all menu bars so you can focus on only the image.

Personally I prefer Aperture's full-screen view (and when I'm using that I just sit with my hand over the H key instead so I can show/hide the HUD quickly). It's completely down to personal preference though, so I doub't either will ever be to everyone's tastes unless they implement customisable views.

Aperture has always been my favorite for organizing my images and doing regular backups.
I'm with you on this one, Skunk! I'm much more familiar with the way Lightroom works, but think Aperture's management options are far better. It would be great if Adobe could somehow consolidate Collections and Folders - having to switch back & forth between the two is annoying and confusing. I want to be able to manage my images in LR without creating additional folders on my computer - some kind of virtual folder within my folder structure would solve this perfectly.
 
I'm with you on this one, Skunk! I'm much more familiar with the way Lightroom works, but think Aperture's management options are far better. It would be great if Adobe could somehow consolidate Collections and Folders - having to switch back & forth between the two is annoying and confusing. I want to be able to manage my images in LR without creating additional folders on my computer - some kind of virtual folder within my folder structure would solve this perfectly.

I would agree with that. I try to work without touching folders and have actually turned the Folders section off in the palette for less clutter but since not every image must be in a collection and you can't create collections upon import, it doesn't work so well.
 
....
I'm with you on this one, Skunk! I'm much more familiar with the way Lightroom works, but think Aperture's management options are far better. It would be great if Adobe could somehow consolidate Collections and Folders - having to switch back & forth between the two is annoying and confusing. I want to be able to manage my images in LR without creating additional folders on my computer - some kind of virtual folder within my folder structure would solve this perfectly.

I would agree with that. I try to work without touching folders and have actually turned the Folders section off in the palette for less clutter but since not every image must be in a collection and you can't create collections upon import, it doesn't work so well.

I'm just skimming this thread.... but am I missing something here? What about Collection Sets? They are essentially folders for Collections, Smart Collections, even saved Print Jobs. Collection Sets can also be nested inside another Collection Set. I have one CS for Clients and another one for Personal Projects. Within each of these top CSs are further CSs.

Or am I missing a point here....
 
I'm just skimming this thread.... but am I missing something here? What about Collection Sets? They are essentially folders for Collections, Smart Collections, even saved Print Jobs. Collection Sets can also be nested inside another Collection Set. I have one CS for Clients and another one for Personal Projects. Within each of these top CSs are further CSs.

Or am I missing a point here....

Yes, image all of that that you just said, being done for you at ingest. Furthermore, being able to have Lightroom "manage" (ingest the images into a application folder) the images and when you backup your library all of the metadata, projects, folders, images, previews, etc. being backed up into a single location.
 
Yes, image all of that that you just said, being done for you at ingest. Furthermore, being able to have Lightroom "manage" (ingest the images into a application folder) the images and when you backup your library all of the metadata, projects, folders, images, previews, etc. being backed up into a single location.

But I am doing all of what you are suggesting, with Lightroom. I let Lightroom put the images into its default Year-Month-Day real folder structure. I keep the Lightroom Catalogue with the images. The Catalogue is where all the Collections, Smart Collections, Print Jobs, Web Galleries etc are recorded. When I back up my Photos, I am backing up the Catalogue at the same time, which is the 'virtual' organization.

When I import (which I believe you mean by 'ingest' - But my Canadian English might be a funny to you :) ) I keyword, so most of my images are being put into Smart Collections while I import. My next step after import is to sort the images into the appropriate Collections. Whether I was doing this 'virtually' with Collections or with real folders, I would still need to do it after an import since any single import will likely have several projects.

I could, if I wanted, create a real nested folder structure that exists in the OS - Lightroom is just as happy to do that as to use the date structure. I simply found I kept forgetting to put my images into the correct folders, so I ended up spending more time tracking them down and moving them. I don't do that now.
 
I'm just skimming this thread.... but am I missing something here? What about Collection Sets? They are essentially folders for Collections, Smart Collections, even saved Print Jobs. Collection Sets can also be nested inside another Collection Set. I have one CS for Clients and another one for Personal Projects. Within each of these top CSs are further CSs.

Or am I missing a point here....

Hi snberk, Glad to hear you've got Lightroom working in a way you like. Personally my issue with Lightroom's file management is simply that it separates the 'Folders' and 'Collections' views. If Adobe merged these 2 features then the file management solution would be perfect - I could see my actual folder structure, but could also create 'virtual' collections within that structure without switching to a different view.

I used to do everything using Collections as you do, however for many people's workflow it's not possible to completely stop using the Folders section - it's still needed for file management/importing/exporting. After a while, I started to find the Collections solution clumsy. I had far too many Collections listed, so resorted to creating a Collection structure that exactly mirrored my Folder structure (albeit, with additional sub collections) just to manage them - quite a bit of unnecessary work on the user's part.

In the end, I reverted to doing everything using Folders rather than switching back & forth between Folders & Collections views. It's now very rare that I use Collections in Lightroom - I only use them when a feature (like creating slideshows) demands I have to.

Aperture's file management solution just seems simpler, and yet more versatile.
 
Hi snberk, Glad to hear you've got Lightroom working in a way you like. Personally my issue with Lightroom's file management is simply that it separates the 'Folders' and 'Collections' views. If Adobe merged these 2 features then the file management solution would be perfect - I could see my actual folder structure, but could also create 'virtual' collections within that structure without switching to a different view.

I used to do everything using Collections as you do, however for many people's workflow it's not possible to completely stop using the Folders section - it's still needed for file management/importing/exporting. After a while, I started to find the Collections solution clumsy. I had far too many Collections listed, so resorted to creating a Collection structure that exactly mirrored my Folder structure (albeit, with additional sub collections) just to manage them - quite a bit of unnecessary work on the user's part.

In the end, I reverted to doing everything using Folders rather than switching back & forth between Folders & Collections views. It's now very rare that I use Collections in Lightroom - I only use them when a feature (like creating slideshows) demands I have to.

Aperture's file management solution just seems simpler, and yet more versatile.

That't the nice thing about having competition in the market place - different strokes for different folks. Personally, I don't have any issues with trying to keep real Folders and Collections/Collection Sets aligned... because I don't even try anymore. I used - and like you found it awkward. So I let Lightroom revert to its default real Folder structure of Year-Mon-Day and instead just worked with Collection Sets.

I never need use the real Folder structure anyway (with one exception). I don't import from it. And I only export to temporary folders that I don't keep exported images on my computer. I immediately delete the temporary exported-to folders after the images have been used in their intended way.

The one exception is when I have 'lost' an image. Maybe I gave it a wrong colour label and it disappeared from the Smart Folder. I just click on the neighbouring image and have it take it me to real Folder, where I will find my lost image. I could have just gone to the (unsmart) Collection with project images, but doing it this way saves a couple of clicks. I'm kinda lazy that way.... ;)
 
That't the nice thing about having competition in the market place - different strokes for different folks.
I couldn't agree more! I use aperture & lightroom and they're both great. For some things I prefer aperture's approach & for others I prefer Lightroom's - it's all just down to personal preference though.

I've never tried using Lightroom in the way you suggest (letting LR chose the file location). Sounds like a good approach if all your files are in one location. My workflow is to have working files on the internal HDD, then move final files to an external HDD once the job is complete/delivered. That may complicate things a bit, as I'd have to use the Folder view to shuffle the files about depending on the stage of the job.

I could have just gone to the (unsmart) Collection with project images, but doing it this way saves a couple of clicks. I'm kinda lazy that way.... ;)
You call it lazy, I call it "workflow"! ;) The quicker / easier I can do something in one of these apps, the better!
 
Aperture's file management solution just seems simpler, and yet more versatile.
I go with fully managed with Aperture and I've spent less time dealing with organizing my pictures then I have with LR. Plus its much easier to have self contained libraries. That is I have a 2013 library of all my images. In LR, I can't really do this. Sure I can have a catalog for 2013 but the images are on my drive. Its easier to manage in aperture since I can move my non active libraries to my NAS.
 
....
I've never tried using Lightroom in the way you suggest (letting LR chose the file location). Sounds like a good approach if all your files are in one location. ....

You call it lazy, I call it "workflow"! ;) The quicker / easier I can do something in one of these apps, the better!

...Plus its much easier to have self contained libraries. That is I have a 2013 library of all my images. In LR, I can't really do this. Sure I can have a catalog for 2013 but the images are on my drive. Its easier to manage in aperture since I can move my non active libraries to my NAS.

Again, this is just personal preference.... I add this for anybody yet to read this thread looking for points of view.

I can do this because I have a MacPro (multiple internal HDDs). I have one internal drive that contains nothing but photos - but it contains all my photos. (Including photo projects that aren't in Lightroom -I also do photobased fine art). Every night I backup that Photo HDD to an external drive.

Lightroom contains all of my photos (with the exception noted above). I internally (virtually) separate commercial/self-work into Collection Sets. I could do the same with years I suppose. I had tried setting up two separate Catalogues (Libraries) - but all that meant was a delay while I shifted from one to the other when a client called to talk about one of the their images. I was not able to see any benefit in having my images spread out into different real places. Or in specially named real folders. Once I stopped trying to manage where my images resided in reality, I had more time to build a virtual management system.

Now, I just dump everything into Lightroom. Lightroom takes care of putting it somewhere - and I get so tinker with the virtual organization to my hearts content.

But that's just me. :)
 
Try the LR 5 beta. It has an updated healing brush you can paint,,,not just draw circles, a great new radial filter that let's you alter the area inside or outside (inverse mask). In the lens correction area there are new options for correcting perspective problems.

Can't wait for LR5 to go live.....especially with it NOT being part of the cloud subscription packaging.
 
Try the LR 5 beta. It has an updated healing brush you can paint,,,not just draw circles, a great new radial filter that let's you alter the area inside or outside (inverse mask). In the lens correction area there are new options for correcting perspective problems.

Can't wait for LR5 to go live.....especially with it NOT being part of the cloud subscription packaging.

I would have to second that!
I watched the vid on youtube from adobe and the new features look good
Still cant get my head around to changing to dng though, I have a Nikon and would like to retain my NEF raw files

The only reservation though is Adobe changing LR as a cloud only option at a later date,
I know they, (Adobe) said they would not but!

And, even if we do some edits in Photoshop Elements, we have another file format to contend with

Now, I'm not conversant with Aperture but am willing to give it a go, about 1/3 of the price also but not sure on the native file type?
Regards,
Gary
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.