Hello group, this is my first post, and am just curious how many of you have tried Aperture, what are your conclusions compared to Lightroom thus far?
My own personal take is that I just don't see what the fuss is all about with Aperture. Over the last week I have downloaded the trial, and find it far less intuitive and more difficult to use compared to LR. Raw conversions as a rule do not seem to be better, just slightly different and subjectively slightly worse than LR. So for those who have been giving both programs a spin what is your take? Am I missing something?
Thanks in advance.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=95602\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Although Iīm almost fanatic in my adherence to Apple, this time I have to agree with you. I already use LR b4 as my standard imaging software, and when Aperture finally became available as a trial, I eagerly downloaded and tried it....
And, my reluctant conclusion: almost every step in the workflow was more awkward and more "not quite what I wanted" with Aperture. The raw conversion controls were more primitive, that nice-looking "loupe" was far kludgier than just "point-and-hold-left-button" as in LR, the EXIF set available was smaller, changing the work area less intuitive &c.
The single area where Aperture did shine was in handling several versions of an image without either losing track of them or cluttering the view. But one must assume that Adobe will do something to catch up when they release LR v1.
I freely admit that I might have adapted better to Aperture if I hadnīt already got used to LR, but as it turned out, I uninstalled that demo long before it expired.
