Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Lightroom vs. Aperture on a Mac  (Read 9867 times)
Scott O.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 312


WWW
« on: January 30, 2012, 06:55:02 PM »
ReplyReply

I have always been a Lightroom user on the PC platform.  Recently bought wife a Mac, and I am wondering whether I should put Lightroom or Aperture on her computer.  Or does it really matter, as both are excellent programs.  She has little to no editing experience, but does shoot RAW so that eliminates iPhoto.  I don't want this to degenerate into a Mac/PC or a Lightroom/Aperture bashing contest.  Interested in some opinions!  Thanks in advance.
Logged

Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6972


WWW
« Reply #1 on: January 30, 2012, 06:57:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Never used Aperture so can't advise for that application, but from experience switching between PC and Mac, LR works the same way on both platforms.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
jeremypayne
Guest
« Reply #2 on: January 30, 2012, 06:59:43 PM »
ReplyReply

From this forum:

Adobe Lightroom Q&A: A Forum for user-to-user questions and answers about Lightroom   
20,221 Posts
2,985 Topics

Apple Aperture Q&A: A Forum for discussions relating to Apple's Aperture   
1,350 Posts
229 Topics
Logged
k bennett
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1463


WWW
« Reply #3 on: January 30, 2012, 07:02:55 PM »
ReplyReply

If you are a Lightroom user, I think you'd be a valuable resource as she learns the application. Seems less intuitive to put an entirely new app on her computer, which you would both have to learn from scratch.
Logged

Equipment: a camera and some lenses.
sbay
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 92


WWW
« Reply #4 on: January 30, 2012, 07:31:36 PM »
ReplyReply

I have used aperture on a mac and really liked they way they implement some functionality like brushes (more so than lightroom). But if you think about the long term longevity of your raw processing software, and the work you put into your images, lightroom seems to me to be a much better bet. I think it's more likely that lightroom will be around on multiple platforms years/decades into the future.
Logged

jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3533



WWW
« Reply #5 on: January 30, 2012, 09:22:49 PM »
ReplyReply

I've tested every version of Aperture since it came out and although it is much better value at 50ish than the 500 odd when it first came out, it still seems very poor value compared to LR even at LR's full price. Aperture has the odd nice aspect, but overall it seems to be getting more like iPhoto with each version and not in a good way.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
Moosehead222
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« Reply #6 on: January 31, 2012, 07:48:25 PM »
ReplyReply

If you both enjoy learning, I would give Aperture a try.   I like LR a lot and since it is platform independent, I have it on both my desktop pc and my MBP.  I also have Aperture and like it a lot as well.   Aperture just seems a bit easier (my opinion), integration is great, and their slide show is so easy to create it is almost worth it for this feature alone.  For $79, Aperture is an excellent value.   
Logged
Ch-Jaeger
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 11


« Reply #7 on: February 02, 2012, 05:26:49 AM »
ReplyReply

I think Aperture is a real bargain if you are only interested in showing your images on screen or outsource your printing to labs. Because what Aperture really really lacks is decent printing capabilities. If the print is your goal LR is so much better. In terms of RAW development I don't see a huge difference. Both have their strength.

--
Christoph
Logged
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3533



WWW
« Reply #8 on: February 03, 2012, 08:48:28 PM »
ReplyReply

In terms of RAW development I don't see a huge difference. 
There is.  Grin
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6034


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #9 on: February 16, 2012, 09:46:28 AM »
ReplyReply

...  She has little to no editing experience, but does shoot RAW so that eliminates iPhoto...

Why would that eliminate iPhoto? It does do RAW, and for a beginner it would be a much more easy and fun to use. I made that progression, from iPhoto to Aperture to Lightroom (all the time alongside Photoshop), and I can freely admit I often miss the user-friendliness, simplicity and simply fun that iPhoto is.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Scott O.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 312


WWW
« Reply #10 on: February 16, 2012, 10:30:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Why would that eliminate iPhoto? It does do RAW, and for a beginner it would be a much more easy and fun to use. I made that progression, from iPhoto to Aperture to Lightroom (all the time alongside Photoshop), and I can freely admit I often miss the user-friendliness, simplicity and simply fun that iPhoto is.

Thanks for that tidbit Slobodan. I appreciate it.  iPhoto would have been my first choice, but she was told by 2 different people in the Apple store when she went for lessons (the latest was yesterday) that there were problems using iPhoto with RAW files.  She is now trying to decide between Aperture and Lightroom, taking beginning lessons in both.  I guess I will have to ask her to re-visit iPhoto..since I am a PC guy I am of little to no help!
Logged

Tim Lookingbill
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1201



WWW
« Reply #11 on: February 17, 2012, 01:07:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Interesting, I didn't know iPhoto worked on Raw files.

I gave it a try in iPhoto 9.2.1 in Mac OS 10.6.8 and am quite impressed with its highlight recovery and Definition (Clarity) sliders. Sharpening is limited even for my 6MP Pentax PEFs maxing out the slider. It allows saving to a 16bit tiff in the color space selected incamera which in my case is AdobeRGB. Not much can be done with color except WB and saturation. No HSL panel as in ACR/LR.

You can edit in full screen mode at 200% max zoom view but the preview is being interpolated up to not show stairstepped pixelation as would be seen in Photoshop at the same zoom magnification.

It's good for basic edits to normalize/brighten Raw files that look dark, flat and murky. Further sharpening is required.
Logged
Scott O.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 312


WWW
« Reply #12 on: February 17, 2012, 02:36:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Sounds like iPhoto might just be her "cup 'o tea" so I will make that suggestion.  She isn't really into heavy duty editing, she has me for that!  I know that iMovie is far superior for normal consumer use to anything on the PC side, so I don't know why iPhoto would be any less for image editing.  Thank you all for your responses, they really helped.
Logged

Chairman Bill
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1567


WWW
« Reply #13 on: February 17, 2012, 03:11:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Aperture is cheaper than Lightroom. Various reports & reviews suggest very little between the two programs. Having both gives you options, enabling you to play to their respective strengths maybe.
Logged

Scott O.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 312


WWW
« Reply #14 on: February 17, 2012, 03:50:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Good point Bill.  I do understand that the jump from iPhoto to Aperture is very easy, and I will still have Lightroom to fill in any holes Aperture might have.  Whatever she decides will be her choice, I'm just gathering information.  I'm just tickled she wants to do any editing at all...
Logged

Tim Lookingbill
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1201



WWW
« Reply #15 on: February 17, 2012, 07:54:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Found something else about iPhoto that might make it even more useful.

The Raw I worked on in iPhoto and converted to 16 bit tiff to the desktop outside the folder of the original Raw, when going back to the original Raw, found it kept the original edits where I left off from converting it to tiff.

I didn't have to name and save the edits to a registry as I have to do with other third party Raw converters that don't use ACR/LR's writing of edit instructions to an xmp side car which is one among many of the reasons I use ACR.

I can also apply individualized edits to a group of images, quit iPhoto, and reopen and the edits are still retained.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad