Aperture vs. Lightroom

Ozzwald

Lightroom is a little more expensive, but i don't mind spending the extra cash. Which one would you recommend for a new mac user?

jnorthcraft

Ozzwald wrote:

Lightroom is a little more expensive, but i don't mind spending the extra cash. Which one would you recommend for a new mac user?

I used aperture for a while about 6 months this year.... It integrates well with Mac although it is not nearly as flexible or robust as lightroom. Lightroom has a lot more support/user groups and 3rd party add in products to help in your work flow.

Hope this helps.
Justin

W.W. Webster

Ozzwald wrote:

Which one would you recommend for a new mac user?

These products offer a very similar range of functions and features, but the UI differs. However both vendors offer trials, so use them for yourself and see which product suits you best.

Be aware that major new (v3.0) releases are expected for both products shortly, so right now would not be a good time to buy as upgrade fees will be required to move to the newest versions when these are released in the coming weeks or very few months.

Lightroom is presently available in an early 3.0 beta version, but this is not a complete product. To get to grips with LR, I suggest you trial the 2.5 version, but by all means take a peek at the 3.0 beta. The Aperture trial will be with the current (v2.x) version.

colourbox

One possible tipping point if you shoot raw is what camera you use. Is your camera supported by one app or the other or both? If not, when is the support coming? I have two cameras that are currently not supported by Aperture yet both are supported by Lightroom.

BinaryFx

Both of these apps are more for "workflow" than just simple raw processing/conversion.

If you don't shoot a lot of images and like to spend more time processing a single image, then there is Raw Photo Processor, which has been designed around image quality more so than processing speed or workflow:

http://www.raw-photo-processor.com/RPP/Overview.html


Regards,

Stephen Marsh

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~binaryfx/
http://prepression.blogspot.com/

Miguel Delinquento

Try consecutive 30-day trials
None of us are you.
Software use and preference is pretty personal and subjective.
If you choose one of these tools, there is a strong likelihood that you will spend many hours of use.
Both Lightroom and Aperture cover similar kinds of work processes; both are good; both run on Macs.
Both offer free 30-day trials.
Allow yourself to discover what works and what doesn't. Download one and use it for 3-4 weeks. Then download the other and repeat. Make note of what you like and dislike about features and functions. You'll know what's right after two months. A worthwhile investment of time. I did it this way.
Make sure you try version 2.x of Lightroom; version 3 is a beta with some functionality disabled or half-baked and it's folly to base serious decisions on that.

M

pathfinder

One comment I have, concerns whether you feel you will ever want to integrate Photoshop with either Aperture or Lightroom. Many shooters no longer feel the need for PS, but there are some who will always desire the pixel wrangling ability that only Photoshop offers.

I find PS integrates with Lightroom very nicely. I would be loathe to give this up.

Can some Aperture users who use Aperture AND Photoshop, comment on how easily those programs work together in that situation?

CTUphoto

pathfinder wrote:

Can some Aperture users who use Aperture AND Photoshop, comment on how easily those programs work together in that situation?

I would love to hear from some folks who are using Aperture and PS, as I'm in the same boat in trying to decide which to go with.

~jb

W.W. Webster

CTUphoto wrote:

I would love to hear from some folks who are using Aperture and PS, as I'm in the same boat in trying to decide which to go with.

Before I switched from Aperture 1.5 to Lightroom 1.0, I was using Aperture with PS Elements, and the integration was very similar to my present experience with LR. With both applications you step out to PS, then step back fairly seamlessly.

I doubt any difference between the products in this respect would amount to a deal-breaker for many.

BradfordBenn

I know that you said you were a Mac user, however one of the nice things about LR and PS is that it can be used on a Windows machine, if you change later on. I went from Win to Mac with LR & PS no problem. I have also gone back just to check. It was very transparent and easy.

carmel6942

CTUphoto wrote:

I would love to hear from some folks who are using Aperture and PS, as I'm in the same boat in trying to decide which to go with.

~jb

When working with aperture you do your raw workflow then you can select to edit your image with any program you choose in this case photoshop. Aperture exports an image to Photoshop you do whatever changes you deem necessary then save the image. This also saves the changes into aperture and you move to the next image. you now have two copies of the image the original and the copy from photoshop. My work flow is as follows.
1. import images to aperture
2. make changes to the raw file with aperture
3. right click on image and select edit with photoshop
4. Aperture makes copy of image and exports to photoshop
5. Make changes as needed in photoshop
6. select save in photoshop then close window
7. move back to aperture and go to next image.

Aperture manages all copies of the image and if I want to make changes in photoshop I start at #3 and edit the same copy this time around it does not make a 3rd copy of the image it just reopens the same one. If you leave all your layers open they will be there on the 2nd time around. Hope this helps.

CatOne

CTUphoto wrote:

I would love to hear from some folks who are using Aperture and PS, as I'm in the same boat in trying to decide which to go with.

~jb

Aperture integrates fairly well with Photoshop as well. The handoff between the two applications is pretty seamless.

The areas where LR+PS has an advantage are:
* For panoramas and HDR the integration is better (you can select multiple images and have it go straight to PS's tools for HDR or pan)
* Smart objects are supported
* You can use the ProPhoto color space (Aperture only will send over as Adobe RGB)

Other than that, it's fairly similar.

mercphoto

CatOne wrote:

* ... (Aperture only will send over as Adobe RGB)

That's actually my only gripe about Aperture, as I'd prefer it send over in sRGB instead.

pathfinder

CatOne wrote:

Aperture integrates fairly well with Photoshop as well. The handoff between the two applications is pretty seamless.

The areas where LR+PS has an advantage are:
* For panoramas and HDR the integration is better (you can select multiple images and have it go straight to PS's tools for HDR or pan)
* Smart objects are supported
* You can use the ProPhoto color space (Aperture only will send over as Adobe RGB)

Other than that, it's fairly similar.

A few of the reasons I am in the LR + PS camp......

I get to choose the camera profile used for my RAW images as well.

CatOne

mercphoto wrote:

That's actually my only gripe about Aperture, as I'd prefer it send over in sRGB instead.

I can't see why you would want to throw away the info and go to sRGB at that point in the process. You are compressing the color gamut. Only at the last stage when exporting as sRGB would you want to do this?