Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Lightroom 3 vs Aperture 3  (Read 29798 times)
jalcocer
Guest
« on: February 15, 2011, 12:44:41 PM »
ReplyReply

I was looking for a topic about it but couldn't find it, so I decided to post about it.

As I said on another post, I'm new at photography, so I guess this question is more than acceptable comming from me.

I'm now with aperture 3, but still wondering about it. What are the advantages of one over the other? Is lightroom 3 really way better? I know aperture has places and faces, but as pretty as it seems, let's face it, I really won't use it (havent used it since started with aperture).

What I want is good library organization, keywords, speed, less crashes as possible and a tool that manage well my raws and allow me to edit them with the best quality possible. I like tha aperture is pretty much all you need when editing, but don't know how far lightroom let you edit until you have to launch photoshop (that's key also).

So I would like to read what you have to say about it, especially with that many experienced photographers on this site.

thanks
Logged
Chairman Bill
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1577


WWW
« Reply #1 on: February 15, 2011, 04:29:16 PM »
ReplyReply

I've certainly seen nothing to take me away from Aperture. Aperture 3 & a suite of Nik plug-ins (Viveza & Silver-Efex are indispensable IMO) does everything I need.
Logged

alanscape
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 56


« Reply #2 on: February 19, 2011, 10:20:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Lightroom's not an editing suite... it's a digital darkroom. I have it only because I need to open Nikon NEF files for editing in Elements 5.
Logged
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1471



WWW
« Reply #3 on: February 19, 2011, 11:56:15 AM »
ReplyReply

I haven't used Aperture much, but I use Lightroom quite a bit and it fits the needs you listed very well.  It excels at organization, does most edits you could want this side of Photoshop, and included some more advanced features such as split toning and localized editing.  Most modern plug-ins for Photoshop are also available for Aperture and Lightroom.

As far as when you need to open Photoshop.. This would be when you need layers and localized editing isn't a suitable substitute for layers.

Adobe provides a 30 day free trial, you have nothing but time to lose by giving it a try.  I would recommend running through their tutorials first though, chances are you'll learn everything you need (between Aperture and Lightroom) during the course of completing the most basic tutorials.
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
jalcocer
Guest
« Reply #4 on: February 23, 2011, 01:02:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for your comment, I'm still wandering, have both installed and see advantages and disadvantages in both, but I'm starting to see more disadvantages in aperture.

For starters I'm seeing a way better noise reduction in lightroom, in aperture you practically won't see any change, it's very difficult to see it. Other thing I can't get used in aperture are projects, folders and albums, in that department I also like lightroom better, lot of people say aperture is way better manager but i like the simplicity in lightroom, just your folders, your catalogs and pretty much that's it. And I'm the kind of person that first arrange everything in my hard drive and then I import.

Also the importing is much simpler, aperture ask you lots of things, and also if it is raw, jpeg, jpegs as masters, raw + jpeg, havent seen that option in lightroom which make me think that the software don't need to tell it what to do, it just do it, no matter jpeg or raw.

Another thing that's been bugging me in lightroom is about flickr integration, in aperture i have my flickr folders and automatically see the pictures in each folder, even pictures I didn't exported with aperture, is this possible in lightroom?

also, there are way more tutorials for lightroom, adobe tv has some great tutorials with julianne kost, really good lessons may I say.

The UI is much nicer in aperture, but have a bit more trouble with the workflow in editing, don't know why. Faces and places, haven't used them.

Another issue with lightroom is after imported, I notice than when scrolling in grid mode, the pictures at the bottom some took a few seconds to show up, is this ok? cause aperture shows everything instantly, is there anything I should change in settings??

thanks
Logged
jalcocer
Guest
« Reply #5 on: February 26, 2011, 02:15:37 PM »
ReplyReply

So I kept checking out both softwares, and keep saying, aperture looks really nice, has faces and places, but still don't feel quite comfortable with it, there's something missing, something I can't get used to. Has really great tools, some really good, others kind of fall short, but still all around is great.

Lightroom on the other hand after more tutorials and digging on the internet, kept discovering amazing things about it, the noise reduction is amazing, the importing options keep it simple but at the same time are covering everything, the renaming feels more natural, the tagging, loved the isolated color correction, the library is simple, clean, only your folders your catalogs, no albums, no projects, no folders all messing with your head, really, really good piece of software.

Aperture being from apple really conects with the OS, you feel it like a part of snow leopard, but still, besides lightroom not being that connected in the UI department, looks great, and for me, I love the dark colors, the fact that you can customize it with your own plate or name, the sync button is amazing. For aperture, it's amazing software also, only used places and faces at the beginning and that was it, really time consuming to do it manually (for those pictures with no gps tag, and I don't have a camera with that feature). I just want my photos organized and being able to do amazing editions and from time to time do some experiments in photoshop.

So, the decision is final, I'm keeping lightroom, both are great, but for me, for my needs, for my personality, for my tastes and workflow, lightroom is the best option. Aperture is still great but don't feel it an extension of me, keep feeling out of place when I use it.

Logged
Philmar
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 354


WWW
« Reply #6 on: March 29, 2011, 03:11:46 PM »
ReplyReply


I NEVER have used Aperture. I did do a google search of Lightroom for something iinteresting to read while idling an hour away. I remembered this article. Enjoy:

http://digitalmedia.oreilly.com/2007/03/05/lightroom-vs-aperture.html
Logged

An office drone pension administrator by day and a photo-enthusiast by night, week-end and on vacation who carries his camera when traveling the world:
Please have a chew on my photos:
http://www.fluidr.com/photos/phil_marion/sets
jalcocer
Guest
« Reply #7 on: March 29, 2011, 08:50:14 PM »
ReplyReply

thanks a lot, I'll check it out
Logged
Nick Rains
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 704



WWW
« Reply #8 on: March 30, 2011, 03:28:19 AM »
ReplyReply

I have spent a lot of time with both and I think they rate very similarly.  There are very few fundamental things that you can't do with both.

A3 has soft proofing.
A3 has more brush effects
A3 has more Smart Album search parameters.
L3 is easier to use.
L3 integrates into an Adobe-centric workflow better.
A3 has extended histograms
L3 has better noise reduction.

Either will be good for you if you learn them well.
Logged

Nick Rains
Australian Photographer
Leica Akademie Instructor
www.nickrains.com
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad