Ad
Ad
Ad
Poll
Question: Is Aperture better than Lightroom?
YES - 44 (47.8%)
NO - 23 (25%)
File management is - 17 (18.5%)
File management isn't - 1 (1.1%)
Raw conversion is - 4 (4.3%)
Raw conversion isn't - 3 (3.3%)
Total Voters: 92

Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Aperture .vs. Lightroom  (Read 61047 times)
jliechty
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 113


« Reply #20 on: February 09, 2007, 03:49:10 PM »
ReplyReply

I'll care about the other aspects of this debate once Aperture can read metadata that already exists in DNGs. Right now, Aperture is blind to the XMP metadata with which my images are tagged, and this data would have to be re-entered by hand if I adopted Aperture. Fortunately I don't have to choose today, but if I did, Lightroom would win on account of Aperture's lack of compatibility where I need it most.
Logged
pvonk
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9


« Reply #21 on: February 10, 2007, 09:55:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
If it's file management you want, then it's Aperture,

Lightroom version 1 will be completely different from the Betas in that file managment will far surpass Aperture.  LR will no longer do managed files, only referenced files, and the shoots are gone.  Now it will have a folder structure that parallels the disk.  You'll be able to move, copy, etc. files from disk location to disk location just as if you were in Finder or Explorer.

Quote
if it's keeping track of various clients and who's had what it's Aperture, if it's making several versions of one image i.e. various crops colour and B&W conversions then it's Aperture,

LR v. 1 will now have versions and stacks.  I haven't played with stacks all that much in v.1, but others have reported that LR's stack's are better - I'll have to play around more with those to convince myself, I like Aperture's stacks.

Quote
if it's easy back-up to other drives then it's Aperture,

Yes,  AP's vault is great if you have managed files.  LR will also have backup capabilities.

Quote
if you need to send low res watermarked images for approval it's Aperture, if you then need to send a high res exactly the same crop/adjustments etc as the low res it's Aperture, if you want to use dual monitors one for selecting and sorting and one for full screen viewing it's Aperture.

Yes,  Adobe hasn't yet done the multi-monitor thing.

Quote
If you don't need any of that then pick one from the rest.
It's worth buying a Mac to run Aperture.

Kevin.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=100041\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
larsrc
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 173


WWW
« Reply #22 on: February 11, 2007, 01:42:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Lightroom version 1 will be completely different from the Betas in that file managment will far surpass Aperture. 
...
LR v. 1 will now have versions and stacks.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=100184\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

LR v. 1 also has spot healing and finely controlled adjustments.  It seems Adobe has only half-gotten the idea of developing with the community -- all these new features are untested except for in-house.  Why, after months of extensive testing in all manner of environments do they decide to throw in new stuff at the first release?  The time spent trying the beta releases is now half wasted, since it has changed so much.   I feel kinda cheated -- I cannot take an informed decision as to whether the new features work.  Grumpf.

Other than that, thanks for the comparisions between LR and Aperture.

-Lars
Logged

orangekay
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 65


« Reply #23 on: February 22, 2007, 06:29:15 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
LR v. 1 will now have versions and stacks.  I haven't played with stacks all that much in v.1, but others have reported that LR's stack's are better - I'll have to play around more with those to convince myself, I like Aperture's stacks.

While I personally prefer LR over Aperture, I'm finding 1.0's stack implementation to be frustrating and borderline useless.
Logged
David Mantripp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 686


WWW
« Reply #24 on: March 06, 2007, 03:34:29 PM »
ReplyReply

The really big difference between AP and LR is the mental model. The rest is detail. LR is modular, AP isn't. With LR you adjust images in Develop (or Quick Develop). With AP, you adjust them anywhere. Takes a while to get your head around this (well, it took me a while), but once the lights go on, they stay on. AP is far more revolutionary and imaginative than LR, but that isn't necessarily a good thing in itself.

Whilst I think that AP is a better DAM at present (actually much better), I think the real question is do you work in a linear way or not ? If you're linear, methodical, then LR will suit you. If you're more random, or impulsive (or have attention span deficiencies) then AP's your think.  Of course, if you use a PC then you have no choice (strange as that sounds).

There is of course the small matter than LR currently has far a more flexible and arguably better RAW engine - but then again I can think of at least two RAW engines that I prefer to Adobe's.  And AP is better at working with external applications - including Photoshop.

As for performance, well I find I can run AP on a 2Ghz MacBook (not Pro) quite adequately. And AP is perfectly happy to import 200Mb .PSDs and TIFs originating from film scans.

Honestly I'm still using an iView based workflow, and I'm not going to switch until I've had a chance to see how Microsoft's ownership of it changes things. But if I had to choose now, I'd choose Aperture.


Finally, if LR is so intuitive, why do we need so many bloody books, DVDs, Broadway Shows and Cruise Tours all about using it ?
« Last Edit: March 06, 2007, 03:36:33 PM by drm » Logged

--
David Mantripp
http://www.snowhenge.net
bazmattii
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« Reply #25 on: May 16, 2007, 07:44:34 AM »
ReplyReply

I wish I would have purchased Aperture. After trying both Aperture and Lightroom, I decided to use LR based on the fact that I am using a Power Book G4 as part of my workflow. I think I made a big mistake. For a program that centers around workflows, all the shortcomings of LR are just that. You would not beleive how nightmarish it is to move files you edited on the road to your desktop PC, and still preserve all your work.

I find out that his is so somple with Aperture. All you have to do is import your project, and Voila... it's done.
Logged
nicolaasdb
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 213


WWW
« Reply #26 on: May 18, 2007, 02:14:23 PM »
ReplyReply

if you have been shooting MF digital....Aperture doesn't support it....until I believe a couple of weeks ago! When I bought Aperture thinking Apple must have done it's homework....I got 500 bucks lighter and was SADLY dissappointed!! I have updated the version to 1.5 but never used since.....I guess reading the above reviews I have to open and try it again.

I read they changed their put all your images in one CLOSED fault system idea.....which was my BIGGEST concern...sometimes I like to open an image directly into CS2...

I will try and get back.....but for now it is LIGHTROOM! from the most trusted name in the photo editing field: ADOBE....and NO I don't work for them...just love their products and bought the MASTER suite coming out in June...can't wait.
Logged
nicolaasdb
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 213


WWW
« Reply #27 on: May 18, 2007, 03:44:32 PM »
ReplyReply

OKAY...checked out...and my final answer: aperture still sucks...the color correction tools are retarded!! who the hell thinks that these controls are actual controls?? And my Leaf files look like S... and I can't seem to find a way to get the colors right....in Lightroom the colors are right straight out of camera.

So Lightroom and the now out CS3 bridge are the way to go...managing the images in a library is easier in Aperture than in Lightroom...but I use Iviewpro which works fine.

but to each his own...in the end the final image is what you need to be perfect and any which way you use to get there is forgotten in the end!
Logged
abiggs
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 542



WWW
« Reply #28 on: May 18, 2007, 03:48:39 PM »
ReplyReply

The raw conversion controls between Aperture and Lightroom are like night and day. Aperture was completely overtaken with the Lightroom raw conversion tools. It makes Aperture look like the early days of raw conversion software. Adobe really put a ton of time and thought into Lightroom, and it shows. But there are some large shortcomings with Lightroom, most notably the database. Aperture is better in this area, but I suspect it won't take long for Lightroom to surpass.

It was frustrating to me to have raw files from esoteric cameras over the past few years, and Lightroom could handle all of them except the Hassy CFH39, but Aperture had a tough time with virtually all of the files. Leica M8, all Phase One files, Hassy CFH39, and a few more. The lack of support for cameras with DNG files is kind of stupid, IMHO.

$.02

YMMV
Logged

Andy Biggs
http://www.andybiggs.com
Africa Photo Safaris | Workshops | Fine Art Prints
The View
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 989


« Reply #29 on: May 20, 2007, 11:52:11 PM »
ReplyReply

The poll's results are distortet, because posted in the Aperture section only.
Logged

Deserts, Cities, Woods, Faces - View of the World.
CatOne
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 374


WWW
« Reply #30 on: May 21, 2007, 10:39:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The raw conversion controls between Aperture and Lightroom are like night and day. Aperture was completely overtaken with the Lightroom raw conversion tools. It makes Aperture look like the early days of raw conversion software. Adobe really put a ton of time and thought into Lightroom, and it shows. But there are some large shortcomings with Lightroom, most notably the database. Aperture is better in this area, but I suspect it won't take long for Lightroom to surpass.

It was frustrating to me to have raw files from esoteric cameras over the past few years, and Lightroom could handle all of them except the Hassy CFH39, but Aperture had a tough time with virtually all of the files. Leica M8, all Phase One files, Hassy CFH39, and a few more. The lack of support for cameras with DNG files is kind of stupid, IMHO.

$.02

YMMV
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=118430\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

In what way is the difference "night and day?"  It seems like you're talking about the number of cameras supported, rather than quality.

For number of cameras supported, this is one of two things:

1)  Not an issue at all, as your camera is supported
2)  A show-stopper issue, as a critical camera you use is NOT supported

If it's option #1, what's the big deal?  My D60 and 1D mark II work beautifully with Aperture.  The fact that the M8 is not supported doesn't affect me in the least.  For others it will be a huge issue, but for me it's no issue at all.
Logged

jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3197



WWW
« Reply #31 on: May 21, 2007, 12:09:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Finally, if LR is so intuitive, why do we need so many bloody books, DVDs, Broadway Shows and Cruise Tours all about using it ?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105074\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
So people can make money?  
Actually in reality neither are actually any less complex than PS. The complexity is in a different place that's all.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad