Do you use Aperture or Lightroom? (Poll)

[FF_productions]

I KNOW, this dead horse has been beaten miserably..but I wanted to hear the opinions of users of both applications, and why they use it and how it has effected their workflow (and what their workflow is, from camera->final product)

My situation, I use Aperture, I love it's simplicity. My issue is that I'm kinda leaning towards Lightroom. After using it today, it seems much more feature packed, and dare-say, better than Aperture.

 

[h0e0h]

I use...

both, as it makes file sharing easier with other (PC) users...

 

[FF_productions]

How do you use the 2 together?

 

[h0e0h]

For certain corroborations with my business partner I use Lightroom so that he and I can be more on the same page... my personal work is still done in Aperture, but after he has got me using LR more and more, I'm leaning towards it

 

[wheelhot]

Hmm, I have used Aperture all the while and a few things that I do hope Apple update Aperture with is lower the memory usage, S - curve, ND filter effect like those found in LR and the final one is, real time 3rd party plug in effect rather then having to duplicate a .TIFF image.

I dunno, but to me, it will be good enough, if example, edit using 3rd party and it will just apply the effect as a layer, of course the editing will open a new window if how the 3rd party design the plug in but after you apply, it will just create a new layer and that you can disable it, delete it or edit it (by double clicking it), something like Photoshop layers see?

A good example of what I meant is that if you use Nik software in Photoshop, the adjustments will be saved in layers where you can delete or blah blah blah, so I want something similar with Aperture.

 

[ckseid]

Lightroom. It seems to run faster than Aperture. Like the tight integration with Adobe Photoshop too.

 

[thomahawk]

i used lightroom, then i switched to aperture cuz LR somehow kept hogging my ram. but now im thinking of going back to LR cuz i can create those flash galleries and im more familiar with it.

still thinking about it.

 

[hector]

Lightroom. It seems to run faster than Aperture. Like the tight integration with Adobe Photoshop too.

Yep. When I started shooting RAW I was using a 1.83 core duo macbook, Aperture wasn't an option. I downloaded trials of both and Lightroom and Aperture; LR was usable, AP was not.
Now on a 2.4 alu iMac and LR runs very smoothly, I have no reason to relearn another program.

In terms of workflow, mine goes like this...

1 - Import RAW album from camera to my own file structure on hdd (folders for year, month, album title)
2 - Import (without moving) into LR library
3 - Post process everything in there, exposure, b/w conversions etc
4 - (Very rarely) further PP in PS Elements
5 - Export completed album from LR as jpeg to file on desktop
6 - Import jpeg album to iPhoto for viewing (never editing)
7 - Upload from desktop to web (smugmug, flickr)
8 - Delete desktop file

 

[Kronie]

Lightroom for me. I used it on windows before switching to OS X in February. I did try out Aperture but am so used to lightroom that its easier for me to stay with that. I also really dislike how apple duplicates everything, like in Aperture or iphoto.

Honestly I have SO busy lately that I don't have time for much photo work and if its a quick edit I have been skipping lightroom altogether and just using Adobe RAW editor in CS3.

 

[pprior]

Actually I use both. I started with Aperture, but switched to LR about 3-4 months ago. There are things about each that I like, but I felt Adobe was moving LR faster and Apple was letting Aperture get long in the tooth so I'm slowly migrating to LR.

 

[147798]

When I started working with Raw in November, I really, really, really wanted to use Aperture. I liked iPhoto and Mac apps in general very much, so I tried to make Ap work, but in the end I chose LR. Local brush was a big reason. Also, I have a PC laptop from work, and I am able to put LR on there. And although the modules can somewhat get in the way, I like the LR interface better. I found the font size on Ap too small. Also, in LR I like the ability to make custom Presets.

I miss, though, soft proofing in Ap, and some of the DAM features in Ap and also the vault. So, I don't think it's a clear cut where one is better than the other. It depends on what you want and how you work.

Final reason for LR is photography (and images in general) is a big part of Adobe's business. Less so with Apple, so going forward I have a bit more comfort thinking LR will be here and progress, whereas Apple is know for dropping businesses they feel are not core for them anymore.

My workflow is just like Hector's above with a few minor tweaks:

Hector wrote:
1 - Import RAW album from camera to my own file structure on hdd (folders for year, month, album title) (I add "YYYYMMDD-" to the beginning of each file)
2 - Import (without moving) into LR library
3 - Post process everything in there, exposure, b/w conversions etc
4 - (Very rarely) further PP in PS Elements
5 - Export completed album from LR as jpeg to file on desktop (I actually put them in a folder "iphoto load")
6 - Import jpeg album to iPhoto for viewing (never editing) (I do make a copy of the jpg in iPhoto if I want different crops for printing)
7 - Upload from desktop to web (flickr, FB, .mac, Picasa, but I'm thinking about going smugmug)
8 - Delete desktop file (I delete the jpg desktop file, and then archive the raw files offline through LR).