Lost: What is the Difference between Photoshop and Aperture?

[iBunny]

I dont understand why you have to have more than 1 image editing software solution. To my understanding, Photoshop was the best of the best right? Unless I am confused at what each program does?

What are the main differences between Photoshop and Aperture (besides one is made by Adobe, and the other by Apple)

And in what sceniero would you want to have both programs?

Thanks sorry for the n00b question. I am trying to get into this digital imagining stuff, and just trying to get opinions from you experts

 

[Digital Skunk]

You want to have both

Photoshop is image editing and manipulation hands down.

Aperture and light room only edit images on the basic level (color correction, noise reduction, etc) but their main purpose is image organization, input and output.

 

[ChrisA]

I dont understand why you have to have more than 1 image editing software solution.

Right, you don't really need two but Aperture is not really an "image editing software solution"

Aperture is for organizing, sorting, cataloging and making minor, gross level "tweeks" or changes to images. Aperture is not able to go inside an image and make "edits" like say, removing a utility pole from a background or taking dust specks off a scanned image.

Photoshop is more useful for make heavy changes to the content of the image. Yes it can also make color corrections and crops but if that's all you use PS for it's a huge waste of money.

Many images will never need PS. Some will. Most normal snapshots don't need much work and even Aperture is a bit of overkill but then, I shot some underwater images and I sometimes like to apply color corrections to only localized areas of the images and sometimes I like to apply the old darkroom technique called "Edge Burning" and the water is never perfectly clear so I need to edit out little floating specs. Sometime I might want to make a composite image from several photos Aperture can't do any of this so I use a more powerfull image editor like Adobe Photoshop Elements.

I think the best way to say it is "Aperture and Photoshop is overlapping features but are mostly used for different purposes"

 

[iBunny]

Got it, Thanks for the explination.

Now my next question is...

What does Aperture do that iPhoto does not?

iPhoto sorts and stores my photos....

 

[OreoCookie]

What does Aperture do that iPhoto does not?

iPhoto sorts and stores my photos....

Aperture can cope with many, many more pictures than iPhoto and allows you to do a lot more things manually.
Honestly, if you don't know what it's good for, try iPhoto and get to know its limitations. If you know its limitations, then you will probably also know whether you need Aperture (or Lightroom) or not.

For a newbie, Aperture will probably offer too many buttons, settings and options. IMHO Aperture will take care of most pictures and I don't really need Photoshop (with very, very few exceptions) as most dslrs (or even p&s) have good image quality.

Just to give you an idea: I've been to Vegas this week and took about 300 pictures. Many of them are `dupes' (several different shots of the same motif) and Photoshop would not really help me make a decision which picture I should keep. As you said, Photoshop focusses on altering one picture.

 

[Mr.Noisy]

I use PS CS2, but i have used Aperture and i like the Batch processing, being able to change something and add that change to all the images in that batch, i think the only thing about aperture that PS would benefit from would be Batch processing of images, processing images 1 by 1 in PS can be a pain for standard images, or an adventure for those special projects.
Aperture can seem a bit too overwelming at first, but then again PS isn't exactly a picnic either.

As for iphoto, i like to use it as a library for storing processed images, and some of the effects are good.