Aperture vs. Lightroom

[snberk103]

Try the LR 5 beta. ...
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
...

I've been using Lr5 beta, not too seriously... but I did do an actual paid job with it. It's not quite ready for prime time. It's close, but I found several bugs that needed me close and reopen Lr. At one point I decided I needed to move the files over to Lr 4. The new Lr 5 catalogue can't be exported to the Lr 4 catalogue, So I finished up in Lr 5 beta. I am looking forward to it going live too... but it is still definitely a beta.

I really hope Adobe doesn't put Lightroom into the Cloud. I suspect that they won't. The Cloud seems to be for serious professionals, and I see Lightroom as being the gateway application to get you hooked.

I have no reservations with using DNG as a file format. Adobe has made it an open format, and in fact is trying to get it accepted as an ISO standard. This means any developer can fully access all specs of the DNG format. NEF (and the other proprietary formats) are not open, and developers need to be given access. So, their programs may or may not be able to deal with these formats in the future. NEF (and the others) is not one format - but a group of formats with the same name.

 

[maflynn]

I really hope Adobe doesn't put Lightroom into the Cloud. I suspect that they won't. The Cloud seems to be for serious professionals, and I see Lightroom as being the gateway application to get you hooked.

I forgot where I saw it but adobe execs promised not to move LR to a subscription based model. Personally. If they moved PS there why wouldn't they do that to Lightroom as well. Only time will tell, but I think they are feeling the brunt of the firestorm they caused by moving to a subscription model and didn't want to feed the flames any further.

I have no reservations with using DNG as a file format. Adobe has made it an open format, and in fact is trying to get it accepted as an ISO standard. This means any developer can fully access all specs of the DNG format. NEF (and the other proprietary formats) are not open, and developers need to be given access. So, their programs may or may not be able to deal with these formats in the future. NEF (and the others) is not one format - but a group of formats with the same name.

Its not really an open format, as its adobe's proprietary format that they don't charge anyone to use. Its not universally accepted, i.e., OSX doesn't render images in DNG, they used too but I found out the hard way they don't anymore. If you're staying with adobe products it may make sense but I'm personally not sold on it. Yeah it does remove the prospect of the sidecar file but it adds a step to your workflow without really any appreciable benefit.

 

[mahmudd29]

really really a good work. You deserve full plaudit of it. Keep that up !

 

[throttlemeister]

I forgot where I saw it but adobe execs promised not to move LR to a subscription based model. Personally. If they moved PS there why wouldn't they do that to Lightroom as well. Only time will tell, but I think they are feeling the brunt of the firestorm they caused by moving to a subscription model and didn't want to feed the flames any further.

Because the target audience of LR is massively different from CC. LR is targeted to essentially anyone with a camera who wants to get more out of their images whereas CC is targeted to creative professionals. Photoshop has never been nor will it ever be intended for home users, no matter how many have a pirated version on their computer.

Home and professional software always had different pricing and licencing schemes with most software companies.

Also, adobe very much realizes (or have started to) that photographers again have very different needs than both home and more traditional CC users, and that they don't fit right in their CC model.

 

[msandersen]

Its not really an open format, as its adobe's proprietary format that they don't charge anyone to use. Its not universally accepted, i.e., OSX doesn't render images in DNG, they used too but I found out the hard way they don't anymore. If you're staying with adobe products it may make sense but I'm personally not sold on it. Yeah it does remove the prospect of the sidecar file but it adds a step to your workflow without really any appreciable benefit.

I haven't tried any Mavericks Beta, but as of the current stable version of OSX, the Finder and Preview support DNG just fine, as does Aperture. I mulled over what to standardise on a while back, and decided on DNG over CR2 for a couple of reasons; somewhat smaller file sizes becomes significant when you shoot hundreds of photos in a session, no sidecar files, and finally also for archival and interoperability reasons; DNG is a variant of the Tiff format. Yes, it adds to the workflow; I use Image Capture to a temp folder on an external drive, then DNG Converter on the contents, then rename them all (antiquated DOS naming conventions is an old pet peeve of mine; very OCD of me I know), then import. If speed was a factor, then that wouldn't be practical.

 

[neversink]

I had stopped using Aperture and went to Lightroom 5 and Capture One 7. I am now totally frustrated with both. And am thinking of going back to Aperture.

Aperture, no doubt, of the three image manipulation software, has the best tools as far as Exposure, Contrast, Dynamic Range and other controls. What they are lacking are good lens correction tools and their sharpening tools are not worth a hill of beans (whatever a hill of beans is worth!) Aperture also has the best organizing tools.

Lightroom's Auto develop is way off the mark as are their White Balance settings such as "cloudy" and "shade." Aperture's and CO7's white balance are much more on the mark, and much more realistic.
Lightroom is much more clumsy to work with

It's great that Lightroom has so many presets whereas Aperture has few, but the B&W is much muddier in Lightroom than Aperture.

It's also great that Lightroom has all these brush tools and gradient tools to work with, but I find them clumsy and sloppy. CO7 probably has the best of the three with Aperture a distant second and LR miles behind. So what if LR5 has new brushes. They are not great, and the feathering is sloppy as are the edges. At least with Aperture there are separate feather tools and separate erase tools for brushes.

I can complete and process an image much more quickly and with less frustration with Aperture than with the other two.

Although I love the way CO7 is layed out, I find image processing a bit better in Aperture, despite what everyone says about CO7.

CO7's new catalogue structure isn't bad, but I believe Aperture is the best to organize photos. However, Phase One now has introduced Mdeia Pro for managing photographic files. These programs work hand in hand, although I haven't tried Media Pro. In my opinion, Media Pro should be part of Capture One and not a separate piece of software costing an extra 200 bucks.

I am also finding that the RAW NEF files take much longer to process in LR5. The histogram controls are not intuitive, in fact, they are counter intuitive and I still, after months of using them, find that results are unpredictable and using the histogram still is uncomfortable. With Aperture, I could look at a histogram and make one or two quick corrections that were spot on. With LR, I find I am always playing with the control bars as they take a lot of fine tuning to get it to look correct.

I work as professional photographer and some shoots I have thousands of images to sort through. It is not easy. PS is cumbersome, and I prefer not to have to go back there. I would rather go tback o Aperture than PS.

Of the three, I find that Aperture, although not perfect, has the least lag time and freezes and the fewest crashes. Now this wasn't the case when Ap 3 came out, but now with updates it is very stable. And I am still running Lion. Go figure.

Just some random thoughts from someone who was up all night in Kenya using LR5 to make a deadline.

I've been using Lr5 beta, not too seriously... but I did do an actual paid job with it. It's not quite ready for prime time. It's close, but I found several bugs that needed me close and reopen Lr. At one point I decided I needed to move the files over to Lr 4. The new Lr 5 catalogue can't be exported to the Lr 4 catalogue, So I finished up in Lr 5 beta. I am looking forward to it going live too... but it is still definitely a beta.

 

[snberk103]

I had stopped using Aperture and went to Lightroom 5 and Capture One 7. I am now totally frustrated with both. And am thinking of going back to Aperture.

Aperture, no doubt, of the three image manipulation software, has the best tools ...

Just some random thoughts from someone who was up all night in Kenya using LR5 to make a deadline.

That's the wonderful thing about having these 3 applications. Different folks will find it easy to choose the tool that best suits them. My experience is almost exactly the opposite. I find Capture 1 to have - by far - the most powerful tools for correcting an image... but I find the interface slows me down. I've never been able to get to like the Aperture interface, and find it totally counter-intuitive. I can work most efficiently and quickly with Lightroom (my caveats above about Lr5 notwithstanding) and quite like the tools and the organizational features.

On those occasions when I can't get what I want with Lr, I will start again with C1 and use its tools. I could go to Ps, but I'd rather get to know C1 better and this is a good excuse. Then I'll export the TIFF to Lr to be archived/sorted/organized.

I too am a professional photographer, doing both commercial and fine art work.

Because there are these 3 (mainly) applications we are all well served, imho...

 

[neversink]

That's the wonderful thing about having these 3 applications. Different folks will find it easy to choose the tool that best suits them.

That's also quite a headache -- just trying to figure out which application works for you. If I could just combine the best of all into one piece of software I would be thrilled, but alas....

I agree that CO7 is a resource hog and it seems to take forever to import files - in multiples of the time it takes to import into LR5. i found imports into Ap the shortest. But I feel Apple has abandoned the professional photographer in favor of a watered down consumer oriented version of Aperture. So, it's now between LR5, which seems to be easier to use, or CO7, which seems to have a much better algorithm designed into its "processing engine." LR5 is more intuitive in its workflow, but you can arrange the tools in CO7 in any way you desire and even make up your own modules and rearrange the modules. But CO7 crashes, crashes, crashes.

Perhaps the two new updates to both LR5 and CO7 will show some improvements, but I doubt it. Neither are as stable as Ap, but Ap is so far behind the times.

I also hear that CO7 now allows you to import LR catalogues with many prior adjustments except color adjustments like saturation. I wonder how this works and what the time constraints are. If CO7 were more stable I would definitely make it the image editing application of choice.

I am working in Lion and have not upgraded to Mountain Lion due to warnings from colleagues. Perhaps I should upgrade and I will see more stability in CO7 but I doubt it. I will wait until the new Mac OS is available and see what people say about it.

I wish digital imaging was equivalent to processing Tri-X in either HC110, D76 2:1 or 1:1, or another developer at whatever dilution one chooses and then at whatever processing time one chooses. There are subtle differences and then once you develop the neg you need to choose what printer developer you are going to use and how to dilute it and what type of paper. There were so many choices, but the learning curve was easier and once you found the best way to develop, you usually stuck with it and didn't have to worry about upgrades and crashes. Traditional photography was much easier than digital imaging.

 

[snberk103]

That's also quite a headache -- just trying to figure out which application works for you. If I could just combine the best of all into one piece of software I would be thrilled, but alas....

No argument from me here!

I agree that CO7 is a resource hog...

I never said that... but I'm using it on a MacPro with loads RAM. ymmv, of course...

.... So, it's now between LR5,

I'm still using Lr4 as my main application. Still works really well. I always wait for an update or two before moving my main stuff over to a new version, though I have put some work through Lr5 because they could use one of the new tools, and it gave me a chance to test drive it with real work.

.. you can arrange the tools in CO7 in any way you desire and even make up your own modules and rearrange the modules....

I try not to go too overboard personalizing CO7... you could spend more time personalizing than working if you aren't careful

But CO7 crashes, crashes, crashes.

I very very rarely get a crash in CO7. Too much personalization maybe?

...
I also hear that CO7 now allows you to import LR catalogues with many prior adjustments except color adjustments like saturation. I wonder how this works and what the time constraints are.

I've read, from a trusted site, not to use that migration feature. I didn't both reading the details why as their advice was bolded and in red.

...
I am working in Lion and have not upgraded to Mountain Lion due to warnings from colleagues.

I've not had any issues with Mountain Lion, but of course your situation is different ... different apps and different usage.

Perhaps I should upgrade and I will see more stability in CO7 but I doubt it. I will wait until the new Mac OS is available and see what people say about it.

Don't do it. At least not initially. Apple tends to need 2 or 3 updates before a new OS is ready for primetime. OS 10.8 is just about finished now. I will stick with it until 10.9 is at least half a year old.

I wish digital imaging was equivalent to processing Tri-X in either HC110, D76 2:1 or 1:1, or another developer at whatever dilution one chooses and then at whatever processing time one chooses. ....

I would argue that it is. You don't have to upgrade applications and OSes. You can keep using the same software for years if you need consistency - and lots of people do that. I hear this argument a lot, and there is a common flaw in the logic. Your example really only applied to BW photography. Colour darkroom work was much more constrained. You didn't have the paper choices. The dilutions and temperature ranges were very tight, or you produced cr*p. There wasn't the range of developers, nor the range of toners and all the other stuff BW users had access to. Digital photography has given colour images the same range of choices that wet BW images always had. Ironically, digital has - imho - diminished the BW palette. But that is another debate.

... you usually stuck with it and didn't have to worry about upgrades and crashes.

Perhaps. But did you have to worry about the Ph of your water... and whether it changed seasonally. You had to worry about the additives that the water company was adding to your water. You had to worry about the relative humidity, and how that would affect your paper and film drying. You had to worry about dust in the air, and speckles in the water that could and would adhere to your film emulsion. You had to work with paper companies that 'upgraded' their paper emulsions.... sometimes with little warning (I'm looking you Ilford). And most importantly... your precious one-of-kind originals (negs or positives) were always at risk of permanent loss or damage from handling or from water or chemical contamination, or whatever. No real backups were possible... copies were always just not quite as sharp.

Traditional photography was much easier than digital imaging.

They are both different from each other. It would be huge challenge to do a wet darkroom here. My water is cr*p and I'm on a septic field. I have no idea how I'd deal with the used fixer (a hazardous waste) here.

 

[John.B]

Something else to think about:

Adobe Hacked, 2.9 Million Customer Accounts Compromised

There's no way to buy Lightroom upgrades without using a credit card (also true of any version of Photoshop via Creative Cloud).

 

[flynz4]

Something else to think about:

Adobe Hacked, 2.9 Million Customer Accounts Compromised

There's no way to buy Lightroom upgrades without using a credit card (also true of any version of Photoshop via Creative Cloud).

In the current world of electronic commerce, this is a fact of life. Adobe is certainly not unique. That is why I use unique passwords for every site (contain any breach to that one site). Also, check monthly credit card statements for transactions... and cancel the card if any fraudulent activity happens.

or... we could hide under a rock... but that is a worse option.

/Jim

 

[John.B]

In the current world of electronic commerce, this is a fact of life. Adobe is certainly not unique. That is why I use unique passwords for every site (contain any breach to that one site). Also, check monthly credit card statements for transactions... and cancel the card if any fraudulent activity happens.

or... we could hide under a rock... but that is a worse option.

Websites getting hacked probably is a fact of life. Especially Cold Fusion websites.

OTOH, storing customer credit card data in an internet facing database is inexcusable (encrypted or not) and is a design decision that shows a blatant disregard for their customers' financial well being. Especially given that a credit card is all but required for Lightroom upgrades -- as well as any of the subscription-based Creative Cloud products. Which, IIRC, was the point of my post.

 

[maflynn]

Something else to think about:

Adobe Hacked, 2.9 Million Customer Accounts Compromised

There's no way to buy Lightroom upgrades without using a credit card (also true of any version of Photoshop via Creative Cloud).

And when Apple's site gets hacked will you swear off apple products as well? The decision to buy or not buy a product should be on its own merits not because some hacker stole information as bad as that is.

 

[Kebabselector]

There's no way to buy Lightroom upgrades without using a credit card (also true of any version of Photoshop via Creative Cloud).

Really?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Adobe-Photo...380921140&sr=8-1&keywords=lightroom+5+upgrade

Amazon also sell prepaid versions of CC as well.

 

[flynz4]

Websites getting hacked probably is a fact of life. Especially Cold Fusion websites.

OTOH, storing customer credit card data in an internet facing database is inexcusable (encrypted or not) and is a design decision that shows a blatant disregard for their customers' financial well being. Especially given that a credit card is all but required for Lightroom upgrades -- as well as any of the subscription-based Creative Cloud products. Which, IIRC, was the point of my post.

I agree that it does shake confidence in a company when personal data is compromised. My point is that if we assume that this is going to happen (with any company)... and take whatever steps are available to us... then we are doing the best we reasonably do. I try not too worry too much about things that I cannot control. IT security of every possible company that I deal with is one of those things.

/Jim

 

[TonyK]

Thankfully my updates were done in July and I declined the CC versions of anything. I've checked my credit card statements each time and just checked online the other day for a different reason.

Adobe did mark my account to require a password change. It is now a stronger password than before and the original, at least from what I found, was used only for Adobe.

Still, no entity should store credit card information un-encrypted and never on a web facing system. There should be multiple layers between the UI and the DB server. Additionally the encrypted information should always be heavily seeded.

 

[fivedots]

Certainly will be interesting to see if we get a new version of Aperture before the end of the year, alongside Mavericks and the Mac Pro.

I'm working under the assumption that Aperture uses maps and waiting until Mavericks brings Apple Maps to the desktop makes the most sense.

I'm very excited to see what comes of this. Hoping for controls that are at least in the same league as Lightroom 5 (sharpening, noise reduction, lens correction, and vignetting specifically, along with standardizing the light to dark slider direction) as well as some native ability to merge HDRs and panos. And an interface and layout very similar to the current version.

The power of Lightroom 5 is out of this world, but I just can't get into the interface despite years of using it. Aperture always tempts me but I can never get the same results out of it.

 

[John.B]

I agree that it does shake confidence in a company when personal data is compromised. My point is that if we assume that this is going to happen (with any company)... and take whatever steps are available to us... then we are doing the best we reasonably do. I try not too worry too much about things that I cannot control. IT security of every possible company that I deal with is one of those things.

Point taken (and well stated).

 

[whynot83706]

In LR there is Luminance (Noise Reduction) option which I like and use a lot, what is similar option in Aperture or options that will give me same effect?

 

[Bending Pixels]

In LR there is Luminance (Noise Reduction) option which I like and use a lot, what is similar option in Aperture or options that will give me same effect?

Under the RAW Fine Tuning brick, there's a slider for noise reduction that does the same.

I have a D7100 and shoot a lot at 3200 and 6400. The results are virtually identical in both Lr5 and Aperture.

 

[hulk2012]

Under the RAW Fine Tuning brick, there's a slider for noise reduction that does the same.

I have a D7100 and shoot a lot at 3200 and 6400. The results are virtually identical in both Lr5 and Aperture.

DXO Optics Pro 9 latest noise reduction algorithm blows them all out of the water. Make sure you've got a enough power under the hood as it will take your computer fan for a "real" spin..

 

[neversink]

Oops --- sorry -- meant to reply to someone who made very thoughtful comments to my previous post but I erased the quote before posting and don't know how to delete this post, if it is even possible. So just pass this post by.

 

[John.B]

... storing customer credit card data in an internet facing database is inexcusable (encrypted or not) and is a design decision that shows a blatant disregard for their customers' financial well being.

Dan Goodin, security editor at Ars Technica, is reporting that Adobe used symmetrical (reversible) encryption to "safeguard" this data, despite all security industry best practices to the contrary. SMH...

How an epic blunder by Adobe could strengthen hand of password crackers - Ars Technica

 

[snberk103]

Oops --- sorry -- meant to reply to someone who made very thoughtful comments to my previous post but I erased the quote before posting and don't know how to delete this post, if it is even possible. So just pass this post by.

In the sidebar, to the left of your post, there is a red triangle with an exclamation mark. Clicking that opens up a message box to send a note directly to the Mod On Call (or something like that). Just type a short and quick note asking them to delete the post.

Also, if you see an inappropriate post (like spam) you can message the Mods about the post by clicking that link.

 

[Ramius]

I may be cursing in the church here. But I use iPhoto + Photoshop in my work as a photographer.

Any reason I should be using these other programs?