Poll: Which do you use most - iPhoto, Lightroom, or Aperture?

[DaveSidaway]

No surprise you are confused

Well,

I'm officially confused here.

I'm not sure I understand what the difference is between them all (Lightroom, Aperture, Elements and Gimp). I get that Lightroom and Aperture are more powerful photo management/editing software then iPhoto but what is the difference between them and Elements? I don't get it.

The reason I'm asking is I got a new dSLR on the way and I cannot really decide what software to purchase. I'd like to keep my SLR photos seperate from my point and shoot. Mostly because my wife will use the point and shoot and I will use the dSLR.

Aside from downloading the trials and playing with them seperately what do you guys suggest?

You could use iPhoto for the both of you. You just need to understand Metadata and IPTC and the value of filling in those fields. In other words, apply your respective names to your own images... there are loads of info fields to help you database your files. Of the four apps you mentioned, I think Gimp is a windows program... I use Mac... I'm no help there. Elements is a scaled down Photoshop... you don't need Photoshop and if you buy Aperture or Lightroom, I don't think you need Elements either. If you want to spend money, I think you would be well served by either Aperture or Lightroom... they're basically the same app. I don't use either but have looked at them and found Lightroom easier to navigate.. for me.

If your cameras shoot RAW then shoot RAW. Way more control. Aperture, Lightroom and iPhoto all support RAW but iPhoto is the last app I would use to process RAW files in.

ImageIngester and Photo Mechanic are image browsers with powerful Metadata and IPTC info capabilities. ImageIngester and ImageIngesterPro pretty much do what Photo Mechanic does. ImageIngester is free and ImageIngesterPro is about $40... far cheaper than Photo Mechanic.

For the record, I use Photoshop just for the RAW plugin... everything else is done in Photo Mechanic. (ingesting, file naming, editing, captioning and transmitting via ftp). For news photographers, Photo Mechanic, or other apps like PM, is huge especially if you shoot sports. For those who want to know, code replacements is a great time saver.

Bottom line is that all the apps you mentioned have a good degree of crossover. Buy yourself a gift... Lightroom or Aperture... and learn why and how to make Metadata and IPTC work for you.

Hope that helps.

 

[Phil Lee]

I use Lightroom. Having come over from a PC last month, I already had it so transferred my license and library over and carried on working on a much faster computer. I'm looking forward to seeing what Adobe do with version 2 and how it compares with Aperture. I may test out Aperture when LR2 comes out, just to see whether there is any difference. Until then I have more pressing software needs. I somehow need to persuade my wife to let me buy Final Cut Express, I just can't do without timelines.

 

[Eric Piercey]

I prefer LR but own and have used Aperture extensively. I haven't messed with A2 but it doesn't do anything LR hasn't been doing all along. IMO LR has a better interface and workflow... I do prefer Aperture's file vault and file management over LR but not enough to warrant upgrading to A2. One of LR's biggest criticisms is the room to room workflow. Definitely check out both, and either are very fine products. I can just get a lot done and a lot faster in LR and when you're processing thousands of shots time is money.

 

[Outsiderdude26]

I use iPhoto the most for normal photo cataloging.

To edit Aperture 2 and then sometime, for variety, Lightroom 2 beta

 

[srf4real]

My g4 mini wasn't up to spec for Aperture, so my file management system was basically manual with PSE4 for developing/ editing files. Adobe Bridge made that a little more simplified for me...
Then upgraded to a g5 powermac dual 2Ghz with 4Mb ram and a suitable graphics card to run Aperture, downloaded the free Aperture 2 trial and bought it before the trial had expired. I haven't looked back. I hated the way iPhoto manages images, but Aperture seems so natural, and my images have never looked better after processing, either!!! From file storage, to edit, to web, to print all at my fingertips in a simple way. That's what an Apple experience should always be about.

 

[tony-in-japan]

Aperture or Lightroom for Olympus RAW?

I am pretty much stuck choosing between Aperture 2.0 or Adobe’s Lightroom.

I am about to receive an Olympus E-420 and noticed Aperture does not support this camera yet (only its E-410 predecessor). I have also heard Apple is slow in keeping Aperture updated with supporting the latest cameras. Is Adobe better at supporting newer cameras? And is there a difference in quality in how Aperture and Lightroom process RAW files?

What I need is a program to convert Olympus’s RAW format and allow me to have maximum flexibility in adjusting photos. Any Olympus users have any preference with Aperture 2.0 or Lightroom?

Aperture is $100 cheaper, so is Lightroom worth the extra $100? Or is it better to wait for Lightroom 2?

I am actually a seasoned Photoshop user, so will Lightroom be a better transition for me? And will my workflow be better since I also use Adobe’s other suite of programs?

Sorry for all the questions. Any advice will be much appreciated!

 

[Grimace]

I don't think knowledge of Photoshop will help you adapt any better to Lightroom over Aperture.

Both are great programs and are in most ways equal. Many think the Lightroom user interface is cluttered. Aperture has crappy web gallery output compared to LR. Both have great RAW conversion - no difference there.

You can try fully functioning demos of both. I prefer Aperture but only you know what you like best. The RAW files *might* work from your new camera right now, it all depends on how Olympus encodes it. Try it out and let us know!

 

[aafuss1]

I mainly use iPhoto for all my photo management and editing because I only own P&S type cameras (Kodak and Sony).

 

[bonafide]

Ok, I've downloaded the demo of Aperture and I'm enjoying it thus far.

I'm still confused on what Photoshop Elements is then? One user put it is a scaled down version of Photoshop but what is it compared to Aperture? or Lightroom?

 

[Grimace]

Ok, I've downloaded the demo of Aperture and I'm enjoying it thus far.

I'm still confused on what Photoshop Elements is then? One user put it is a scaled down version of Photoshop but what is it compared to Aperture? or Lightroom?

Photoshop Elements is a scaled-down version of Photoshop. You can do a tremendous amount with layering different effects. There can be a lot "creation" in those programs.

Aperture and LR are programs designed to store all of your photos, in a very organized way, and allow you to do photo editing that is not layer-based. Almost all of the adjustments in Aperture and LR are "effects" that you could have gotten by changing your composition and camera settings. Many of the effects that differentiate Photoshop from Ap and LR are NOT easily done in-camera. Different tools for different uses. Ap and LR tout their beginning-to-end workflow solution.

 

[147798]

Photoshop Elements is a scaled-down version of Photoshop. You can do a tremendous amount with layering different effects. There can be a lot "creation" in those programs.

Aperture and LR are programs designed to store all of your photos, in a very organized way, and allow you to do photo editing that is not layer-based. Almost all of the adjustments in Aperture and LR are "effects" that you could have gotten by changing your composition and camera settings. Many of the effects that differentiate Photoshop from Ap and LR are NOT easily done in-camera. Different tools for different uses. Ap and LR tout their beginning-to-end workflow solution.

Grimace is quite right. Also, another difference -- with Ap and LR, you (generall) make blanket changes to the photo. With Photoshop you can make changes (lighten, darken, blur, sharpen, etc) to areas within the photo (let's say lighten the exposure on just one face in the photo). So, PS elements (which is all you really need) can take you so much farther than Ap and LR. But many people don't want to spend the time doing customized results, so Ap or LR (or iPhoto) is enough for them.

 

[DaveSidaway]

Decisions, decisions

Grimace and bking1000 are right, Photoshop Elements is the essential elements found in Photoshop. Both of these apps are photo editors, one much more than the other. If you don't know why you need Photoshop CS3 over Photoshop Elements then Elements is probably for you.

If you do choose Photoshop Elements then Photoshop Bridge will be your browser application and you can stay with iPhoto as your catalogue app for the time being.

Initially, I was touting Aperture or Lightroom but if I was starting out, I would pick P Elements first. Pick up Lightroom later, there are things you can do with an image editor that don't seem to be in Lightroom. Interesting how you can't get it all in one package. Even if you do pick up Lightroom later, you will still use P Elements... it will never be a waste of money.

And learn to fill in all of the pertinent MetaData info in your photos.

For the record, I use Photoshop CS3 (image editor), Photo Mechanic (image browser) and Extensis Portfolio (file catalogue app)... I also catalogue with iPhoto but that's for the book and calendar publishing capabilities.

 

[bonafide]

Grimace and bking1000 are right, Photoshop Elements is the essential elements found in Photoshop. Both of these apps are photo editors, one much more than the other. If you don't know why you need Photoshop CS3 over Photoshop Elements then Elements is probably for you.

Gotcha...

If you do choose Photoshop Elements then Photoshop Bridge will be your browser application and you can stay with iPhoto as your catalogue app for the time being.

Gotcha...

Initially, I was touting Aperture or Lightroom but if I was starting out, I would pick P Elements first. Pick up Lightroom later, there are things you can do with an image editor that don't seem to be in Lightroom. Interesting how you can't get it all in one package. Even if you do pick up Lightroom later, you will still use P Elements... it will never be a waste of money.

Ok...

And learn to fill in all of the pertinent MetaData info in your photos.

Does Elements allow me to do this?

So... buy Photoshop Elements for the editing capacity then at a later date pick up Aperture or Lightroom for the cataloguing, filing & overall image editing stuff?

Can Lightroom edit the photo or just single portions of it?

 

[Grimace]

Thanks for the participation, folks! After 100 poll responses:

...

I'm not even sure you need Photoshop Elements. If you are making edits to the image overall (brightness, hue, saturation, shadows, etc.) - LR or Aperture (and in many cases iPhoto) will work fine.

If you often *need* to do "specific area" composition or editing - then look into Photoshop Elements, there may even be a free demo available somewhere.

If you are just getting a DSLR, I see more of a need for a general editing/cataloging/output tool than a very specific layer-based editing title.

 

[ChrisA]

I am pretty much stuck choosing between Aperture 2.0 or Adobe’s Lightroom.

I am about to receive an Olympus E-420 and noticed Aperture does not support this camera yet (only its E-410 predecessor). I have also heard Apple is slow in keeping Aperture updated with supporting the latest cameras. Is Adobe better at supporting newer cameras? And is there a difference in quality in how Aperture and Lightroom process RAW files?

What I need is a program to convert Olympus’s RAW format and allow me to have maximum flexibility in adjusting photos. Any Olympus users have any preference with Aperture 2.0 or Lightroom?

Aperture is $100 cheaper, so is Lightroom worth the extra $100? Or is it better to wait for Lightroom 2?

I am actually a seasoned Photoshop user, so will Lightroom be a better transition for me? And will my workflow be better since I also use Adobe’s other suite of programs?

Sorry for all the questions. Any advice will be much appreciated!

The camera will almost certainly come with software that will convert the RAW files to a few standard formats. Until Apple provides support you would need to use the Olympus software to create a 16-bit TIFF file and then use that with Aperture. Converting to TIFF preserves all the information in the RAW file so it is not that bad just a pain to have to add the extra step.
People with new Nikons did this for months.

How to choose? I'd say based on how you want to organize your images. LR is good for people who don't understand or trust things like "smart folders" and pointers to files and like to keep images in "real folders".

As for adjustments all are good, Aperture 2, LR and Camera Raw all allow enough fine tunning that you can do whatever you need to do. The difference is style mostly.

I like Apertures tight integration to iLife. I do make DVDs and slide shows and books.

Ok, I've downloaded the demo of Aperture and I'm enjoying it thus far.

I'm still confused on what Photoshop Elements is then? One user put it is a scaled down version of Photoshop but what is it compared to Aperture? or Lightroom?

Let's say you took a photo you like except that there is a utility pole and some wires in the background. With Elements you could fix that. Or Let's say you have a portrait and there are skin blemishes on the face and the teeth are not as white as you'd like. You could go in and fix all that. You could do even more editing like combine multiple images into one such as making a panorama or adding a person to a group shot who was missing. Or lets say you are doing a product shoot for a catalog you might want to remove the background and replace it with pure white. Basically you can do anything you can think of. Photoshop is also used by graphic artists to create work from scratch, not using photographs at all. Photoshop also has great text or typographic features

On the other hand iPhoto, Aperture and LR are really mostly for making a gross level adjustment to an entire image.

For anyone startig out I recomend they use both iPhoto and Elements. iPhoto is free and if you ever out grow it mgratin to Aperture is easy and automated. If you outgrown Elements Adobe has very generous upgrade pricing to the full PS CS3 so you loose nothing by starting the Elements

Elements and iPhoto integrate well together. You can set p iPhoto so that when you double click on an image in comes up inside Elements (or PS CS3 if you have that) Aerture can be set up like this too. (and I think LR too)

But I'd start with iPhoto and Elements.

 

[DaveSidaway]

Good question

Lightroom can be used to make image adjustments to the overall image but there is no lasso tool to make a selection, feather that selection and lighten or darken the selected area of the image. This isn't the only reason to have an editing app... no layers, no image size especially in RAW... and other reasons.

You have total IPTC/MetaData control in Photoshop Elements as well as at the image ingest point in Bridge through Photo Downloader. Your workflow would be... insert a card... downloader detects the card... auto name the location folder, rename and sequence the files and add preset MetaData/IPTC file info to all your images at the ingest point. You can tweek specific caption info for each individual image at a latter point during your editing.

This is my workflow at a hockey game. Insert the card... my browser detects the card and displays the ingest dialog box, I hit the enter key. I go back to shooting while the computer renames files, applies predetermined MetaData info and saves them to a newly named folder on the harddrive.

During intermission, I browse the thumbnails... open up three or four choices in RAW... apply crop marks to each image... white balance the ice... adjust the brightness/contrast, tweek the individual picture captions and save the processed images as jpeg and transmit to the paper.

One free app you should have is Adobe's DNG Converter. All your RAW files should eventually be saved in Adobe DNG file format. Camera raw formats come and go but Adobe has committed to supporting their one RAW standard... DNG. So, if you have a camera raw format that is not supported in your app of choice then try converting the file to DNG before opening in your editing app.

I think you could live without Aperture or Lightroom more than Elements. Still confused?

 

[bonafide]

I think you could live without Aperture or Lightroom more than Elements. Still confused?

Nope with your post and the previous post I'm sold on Elements. That is exactly the information I wanted to hear and more.

I'm using Aperture Trial right now but it doesn't seem to have a whole lot of features that justify the $200 price. I use iPhoto already for all of my pre-dSLR photos and I enjoy the interface.

Thanks for the help guys!

 

[tony-in-japan]

How to choose? I'd say based on how you want to organize your images. LR is good for people who don't understand or trust things like "smart folders" and pointers to files and like to keep images in "real folders".

Thanks Chris for the advice.

That is a good point. I dislike (or distrust?) iPhoto’s system of saving files in folders and like to always create new folders myself to store my master files and edited files. I presume Aperture’s folder system is very much like iPhoto or even iTunes (as iTunes uses smart playlists).

As for the voting here, isn’t it a bit pointless as obviously Apple’s software is going to be more popular as we are on a mac forum. I am wondering if professionals use/prefer Lightroom more though? Anyway, good to have a discussion on these two programs though.

 

[Grimace]

As for the voting here, isn’t it a bit pointless as obviously Apple’s software is going to be more popular as we are on a mac forum. I am wondering if professionals use/prefer Lightroom more though? Anyway, good to have a discussion on these two programs though.

I'm not so sure. All three programs are very refined and do what they are intended to do - quite well! I don't that we are fan-boys so much that we would blindly overlook shortcomings in the Apple software titles. Frankly, it seems like we are even MORE verbose when it comes to criticism of Apple products!

 

[numbersyx]

I don't think knowledge of Photoshop will help you adapt any better to Lightroom over Aperture.

Both are great programs and are in most ways equal. Many think the Lightroom user interface is cluttered. Aperture has crappy web gallery output compared to LR. Both have great RAW conversion - no difference there.

You can try fully functioning demos of both. I prefer Aperture but only you know what you like best. The RAW files *might* work from your new camera right now, it all depends on how Olympus encodes it. Try it out and let us know!

Real test is going to be Lightroom 2.0 which appears to have added some very good editing features such as selective exposure editing. Can't wait how Aperture compares to it then...

 

[Grimace]

Real test is going to be Lightroom 2.0 which appears to have added some very good editing features such as selective exposure editing. Can't wait how Aperture compares to it then...

Yeah, I use both LR and Aperture (the former just for web gallery output). The LR interface is still very clunky, something that they have NOT fixed in 2.0. Both are great products and the competition between them is great for the end consumers!

 

[Fiasco]

At the moment I use Lightroom mostly, but I am in the process of switching over to Aperture.

 

[tennez]

Iphoto...easy and simple!

 

[DaveSidaway]

Thanks Chris for the advice.

That is a good point. I dislike (or distrust?) iPhoto’s system of saving files in folders and like to always create new folders myself to store my master files and edited files. I presume Aperture’s folder system is very much like iPhoto or even iTunes (as iTunes uses smart playlists).

As for the voting here, isn’t it a bit pointless as obviously Apple’s software is going to be more popular as we are on a mac forum. I am wondering if professionals use/prefer Lightroom more though? Anyway, good to have a discussion on these two programs though.

In case you are not aware, you do not have to actually import your files into iPhoto... you can point iPhoto to wherever you decide to store your images. I keep my files on an external hard drive... iPhoto then just creates its file/folder system for the thumbnails only... prior to this ability, I refused to use the app for catalogue purposes.

While I use iPhoto, mostly for the book/calendar stuff, I actually use Extensis Portfolio to catalogue my images. If you're a working photographer, you may want to create your own ways of sorting your work... such as who bought what, how much, paid or not... not the kind of stuff for the general shooter. FYI, Portfolio catalogues any file, not just images. That said, you gotta like the direction that Aperture and Lightroom are going in.

I work in the news business. Most Mac users have Photo Mechanic as their browser... many Windows users have AC/DC. Reuters uses proprietary software. In all three cases, I'm referring to a browser software that doesn't have a cataloguing capability. Regarding Photo Mechanic, the features that attract us, is the macros, code replacements and ftp capabilities built in, to mention three. (Both Aperture and Lightroom have macros capabilities.) I think for the non-news photographers, either Aperture or Lightroom would be excellent choice.

I find it interesting that Grimace prefers the cleaner looking Aperture... it's the info-in-my-face look of Lightroom that I like. Apple's tutorials for Aperture are excellent. That's why you download the demos and play.

Again, regarding someone's Olympus RAW file format... don't save any of your RAW files in their original fromat. Resave them as Adobe DNG. I can't even remember the original model of digital Canon camera we started with but we can not open those RAW files in the latest version of Photoshop. Save your files as DNGs... Adobe promises to support that format... do you have an app that doesn't yet support your new digital camera format?... convert it to DNG and then open it.

 

[numbersyx]

Grimace is quite right. Also, another difference -- with Ap and LR, you (generall) make blanket changes to the photo. With Photoshop you can make changes (lighten, darken, blur, sharpen, etc) to areas within the photo (let's say lighten the exposure on just one face in the photo). So, PS elements (which is all you really need) can take you so much farther than Ap and LR. But many people don't want to spend the time doing customized results, so Ap or LR (or iPhoto) is enough for them.

Although with the new plug in - Dodge and Burn - Aperture now has a selective editing mode too...