Aperture Vs. Lightroom

[aaronw1986]

Which would you rather use, Aperture or Lightroom. They would cost the same price for me. Which one do people think is better?

[dllavaneras]

That depends... Lightroom would integrate better with PS and Aperture with iPhoto, so which programs you use may determine which one is best. Also, Aperture relies much more on a powerful graphics card. I say try them both out and see which one you like better

[adrianblaine]

Which would you rather use, Aperture or Lightroom. They would cost the same price for me. Which one do people think is better?

Don't they both have free demos? I agree with dllavaneras, you should try them yourself. I think you'll find it split pretty much 50/50 so it really comes down to what fits you better.

[purelithium]

That depends... Lightroom would integrate better with PS and Aperture with iPhoto, so which programs you use may determine which one is best. Also, Aperture relies much more on a powerful graphics card. I say try them both out and see which one you like better

That's a poor analogy...

Aperture will launch whichever external editor whenever you choose by simply right clicking on the image. It will convert the image to a .tiff and then pop it open!

I'm going to check out Lightroom today, and see which is better for me...

[Phatpat]

I used Aperture for a month, and recently started using Lightroom. They're both good programs, but I prefer Aperture. I'm going to give Lightroom 1.0 a shot when it's available, then make a purchase.

[compuwar]

Which would you rather use, Aperture or Lightroom. They would cost the same price for me. Which one do people think is better?

Lightroom had issues handling a large number of photos when I tried the demo. It basically made my Macbook Pro unusable for about 10m. Aperture was slow, but the computer was still useful for other tasks while it was importing about 230 large raw files from a D2x. That sealed it for me (I tried the other package that escapes me at the moment too- I didn't like it.)

Ideally, try it yourself with your standard workflow and see what fits your needs best. That's the value of the companies offering demos.

[Clix Pix]

I have been using Aperture since it was first released. I tried the first couple of Beta versions of Lightroom but preferred to concentrate my energy on learning Aperture.... I didn't try later beta versions of Lightroom so can't really fairly compare the programs now, but I definitely can say that I like Aperture very much and plan to stick with it.

[Aperture]

I use Aperture and it's great.. (Hence my username)

I watched a preview of Lightroom over at Adobe.com and it looks really nice. I'm not sure though, too bad Lightroom doesn't offer a demo.

[Abstract]

Lightroom had issues handling a large number of photos when I tried the demo. It basically made my Macbook Pro unusable for about 10m. Aperture was slow, but the computer was still useful for other tasks while it was importing about 230 large raw files from a D2x. That sealed it for me (I tried the other package that escapes me at the moment too- I didn't like it.)

Ideally, try it yourself with your standard workflow and see what fits your needs best. That's the value of the companies offering demos.


Both software takes awhile when you first start importing. For some people who had 2000-10000 photos to import, they would start the process and go watch TV, go out with friends/wife/kids, and then go to sleep. When they woke up, they went to check their machine.


I like Lightroom because I don't feel like I need to leave Lightroom to edit my photos effectively. I know that Aperture is slightly better/faster for organizing and cataloguing photos, and it includes the 'versioning' feature, which is invaluable. I also know that for editing, you can use an external editor like Photoshop CS/CS2/CS3/Elements, so it doesn't matter. However, I only have a laptop, and when I'm already running a RAM hungry app like Lightroom (and especially Aperture), running a program like Photoshop isn't optimal. That's when Lightroom's Develop module shines....I don't need to use other software very often. Aperture can do the same sort of editing, but it's harder to use.

So:
Lightroom = famous for it's incredible 'Develop' module.
Aperture = famous for it's superior viewing, rating, and cataloguing of photos.

Now, Lightroom has versioning in the v1.0 release, so that's a non-issue. If Lightroom's Library module was 90% as good as Aperture in terms of viewing and cataloguing photos, then Lightroom is superior in my opinion. However, if v1.0 is still far behind Aperture in these areas, then it's still a toss-up for me.

I'd give Aperture the advantage if I found it intuitive to use. It doesn't really look or feel like an Apple app.

[mashinhead]

I think they both work well, but i just like that aperture UI so much better, it's really easy to work with, the learning curve is small. Lightroom feels awkward and unfamliar. You can export your images as psd from aperture, so i don't know how relevant, or how much of an advantage it working with Photoshop would be. Personally i love aperture. I'm one of those people that likes to have all my stuff in one place. So i don't even use iphoto, aperture manages everything. highly recommended.

[biturbomunkie]

both are very similar to me but personally i prefer aperture b/c the way it organizes photos.

[sarge]

I wonder if Aperture is going to eventually merge with a more robust data manager like Filemaker. Seems like this might eventually distinguish the two apps. Use lightroom before manipulating your images, but Aperture to make your selects and build your catalogue.

[Mydriasis]

Why would Aperture want to merge with Filemaker? Filemaker is program that allows the novis user to create and work with data structures, to build a data base. Why would you want to edit aperture's data base structure?

Remember: Lightroom and Aperture are a pro verions of of programs like iPhoto or Picasa (for lack of a better analogy). They are basically just image organization tools that layout the post production work flow.

[2ms]

not to be OT too much (i hope not at least), but could someone quickly tell me what the roles of Aperture and Lightroom are relative to Photoshop? I am new to photography but want to become excellent at working with photos. I am very familiar with Photoshop (though not for working w/ photos) because Ive used it considerably along with Illustrator for graphics.

Right now I do not own any of them though, so am trying to decide what to get.

[balofagus]

The two are used for cataloguing and organizing your photos and then making global edits. They can make some non-global edits like cloning. I generally don't have to use Photoshop for anything more than cloning (its not in the Lightroom Betas, but will be in the final release however it isn't as good as the one in PS) and sharpening, because LR sharpening ain't so great. It also doesn't have text or layers...solely for photography, not design.

PS. I use Lightroom and will be purchasing it in a couple days when it is released.

[sarge]

[QUOTE=Mydriasis;3349936]Why would Aperture want to merge with Filemaker? Filemaker is program that allows the novis user to create and work with data structures, to build a data base. Why would you want to edit aperture's data base structure?


I can't exactly. I have not used Filemaker to build any databases of my own, but I do know that HBO uses it to catalogue all their film elements/scripts etc. I've also worked in other image libraries that utilized it. I have not used Cumulus ( I have had to work w/some pretty bad custom built high end image databases, which is why I think these folks have tended to go w/Filemaker) but I am thinking of situations where you'll need to be able to customize large fields of data down the road, like video for example.

You've illustrated the point I was trying to make. Lightroom and Aperture seem more geared toward the post production workflow, where you just need to see which images you want to bring into an app. that can manipulate the image. I think the one that can better manage the meta-data will be the one I am interested in buying.

[wmmk]

I think Abstract really hit the nail on the head. Aperture just doesn't make as much sense as Lightroom to me. As a recent convert from film, the darkroom metaphor is also rather comforting. The develop module is just amazing! I hope LR's versioning system is more intuitive than Apeture's. Then again, maybe I'm being too harsh on Aperture. It doesn't accept PEFs or DNGs made from my K100D's RAW files, which is certainly my biggest reason to favor Lightroom. Oh, and FWIW, the most intuitive and fast photo browser for people who shoot JPEG is iViewMedia Pro. I shoot RAW, so it's not much of an option.

[islandman]

I prefer Aperture by far. The learning curve was slightly steep, but there are books for it that have helped. Now that I know the software, there's no way I'll go to Lightroom (which I beta-tested from the beginning).

[compuwar]

I think Abstract really hit the nail on the head. Aperture just doesn't make as much sense as Lightroom to me. As a recent convert from film, the darkroom metaphor is also rather comforting. The develop module is just amazing! I hope LR's versioning system is more intuitive than Apeture's. Then again, maybe I'm being too harsh on Aperture. It doesn't accept PEFs or DNGs made from my K100D's RAW files, which is certainly my biggest reason to favor Lightroom. Oh, and FWIW, the most intuitive and fast photo browser for people who shoot JPEG is iViewMedia Pro. I shoot RAW, so it's not much of an option.

If you're used to film developing, I'd really encourage you to try LightZone as an editor. It's hands-down the best darkroom-like editor out there, makes getting levels adjusted to a particular zone a snap.

The free trial lives at:

http://www.lightcrafts.com/products/download.php

They've got a "light" version to plug into Aperture or Lightroom.

[mlevison]

In "Aperture vs. Lightroom - best comparisons (http://www.notesfromatooluser.com/2007/02/aperture_vs_lig.html)" - I'm tracking and summarizing the best comparisons out there.

Glossing over many of the important differences.

Aperture pros:
Many users find it easier to make quick changes in Aperture since you don't have to switch back to the Develop module. Aperture users always have access to all their tools via the HUD.

Lightroom pros:

faster, faster, faster - Lightroom just runs faster for a lot of operations (probably because Aperture relies on the GPU for rendering)
Works well with smaller screens. Apparently Aperture really needs a large display. Otherwise your image will be overlayed with tools that your currently using.

[mcarnes]

I use Aperture on my 15" MBP and find it very usable. The latest version 1.5.2 is way faster than 1.5.1. Speed in a not an issue with raw files from a 5D.

I've tried both and prefer Aperture. Lightroom just feels clunky. For me, most image processing is done in PS anyway, so I find Aperture a better image organizer than Lightroom. If you don't use PS, I guess Lightroom might have a few advantages. But the Aperture/PS combo is hard to beat.

[Westside guy]

I think Aperture's photo editing tools are significantly better than many Lightroom users realize - but they don't follow the Photoshop/Camera Raw paradigm, so there's a learning curve if that's what you're used to (and frankly most of us ARE used to that).

I also think it's funny how, for some people at least, this is turning into Canon versus Nikon all over again. :D They're both great tools. Having tried both... personally I prefer Aperture. If you prefer Lightroom, more power to you - we'll both benefit from the competition.

[valdore]

I want to resurrect this thread and hear some new input on this subject.

There are several things about Aperture that irritate me. It's a memory hog, and a lot of its operations seem counter intuitive and poorly thought-out. Maybe it's just me.

Let me know what you guys think.

[Lovesong]

What are you finding unintuitive? I have used both extensively, and I think that for the most part, there is little difference between Lightroom and Aperture. The big one for me, and the one that got me to stay with Aperture, was the way it organized pictures into a distinct vault, letting me organize all my images through the software itself, instead of struggling with Finder (and then Bridge). Neither Lightroom nor Aperture has the processing power of PS, so for more serious things, I just open the image through CS3.

[valdore]

What are you finding unintuitive?

The thing about Aperture that irritates me the most is how I can't just start a new sub-album or folder within a project and then import the photos directly into that sub-album or folder. Everytime I try, the imports always end up in the parent project. I've recently taken to saying to hell with it, importing directly into the project (no sub folder) and then clicking/dragging to where I want the image versions.

I will concede that maybe there's something I'm doing wrong, and would love to hear suggestions, but it seems to be the software developers could have done a better job at making Aperture more user friendly.

[MacNoobie]

Lightroom by far has been my work flow since its Beta testing period, tried Aperture and I'm just not feeling it. I might end up creating the books I need in Aperture.

[Glen Quagmire]

I prefer Aperture as well. I tried both before buying Aperture. The way things were organized, the structure of the program: all far more logical and easier to learn than Lightroom.

Plus, I don't really like Adobe that much. Apple are far nicer!

[Westside guy]

I think that a lot of people are just used to the "Photoshop way of doing things", and Lightroom basically offers that. Many people are just not patient enough to learn something new. It's the same reason so many people can't break away from Word - other programs just "don't work like Word" in one respect or another.

Even if everyone gave both programs a fair shake, I'm sure a good chunk would still choose Lightroom - but Aperture's user base would likely be significantly larger than it is. Of course I'm an Aperture user so I'm biased. :D

[valdore]

Guess what everyone!

I downloaded a trial of Lightroom, and I think it sucks too!

[Lovesong]

The thing about Aperture that irritates me the most is how I can't just start a new sub-album or folder within a project and then import the photos directly into that sub-album or folder. Everytime I try, the imports always end up in the parent project. I've recently taken to saying to hell with it, importing directly into the project (no sub folder) and then clicking/dragging to where I want the image versions.

I will concede that maybe there's something I'm doing wrong, and would love to hear suggestions, but it seems to be the software developers could have done a better job at making Aperture more user friendly.

The general idea is that you have folders and projects. Folders are based on your projects. So let's say I have a bunch of pictures that I took on such and such a date at this location. If I want to have a picture that shows something- say landscapes, or some particular location, or this person, I can create a folder to link the files that are in my project to it. Think of folders as links (or aliases, you Mac freaks). You need to have the original somewhere in order to link it.

[Westside guy]

Guess what everyone!

I downloaded a trial of Lightroom, and I think it sucks too!

I've heard good things about Microsoft Paint...

:D

[Digital Skunk]

Guess what everyone!

I downloaded a trial of Lightroom, and I think it sucks too!

I am an Aperture user, but I don't think LR sucks at all. In fact I think it's a wonderful alternative to Aperture when you don't have the muscle to move Aperture or the desire for full integration with other Apple Apps. I chose Aperture because it was in final version while LR was still a very young beta.

The only things I loved about LR that Aperture didn't have was fixed in the Aperture update, so now I have come to love Aperture as my solid workflow choice. There is nothing that LR does that Aperture can't do (or do in Photoshop anyway like accurate color corrections) but there is a long list of things that Aperture does that LR can't and may never do.

[obeygiant]

I've got 32672 images in LR and I love it. The workflow is intuitive and fast.
One thing LR has that I don't believe Aperture has, feel free to tell me about it, is the identity plate available in LR. I can put my Studio logo onto the interface for presentations and on websites and slideshows. I still use Aperture to make photo books and montages however. I'm running it on a 2.16 macbook with 2gb of ram. However I'm trading this one in for the new macbook with 4gb of ram. Should make a difference.

[georgemann]

I prefer Aperture as well. I tried both before buying Aperture. The way things were organized, the structure of the program: all far more logical and easier to learn than Lightroom.

Plus, I don't really like Adobe that much. Apple are far nicer!


1. Who exactly is it, that is being so nice to you from the Apple Aperture team? I honestly would like to know because I have never found anyone (outside of the marketing people) willing to meet the public.

2. At Adobe anyone can communicate directly with almost the entire software development team. Example go to - http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/

We tend to forget that Adobe was once a Mac only software company and most of the key people at Adobe are still Mac fanatics. Lightroom runs much better on a Mac than on a PC and came out first on the Mac. Plus Lightroom works very well on older Macs and laptops (G4 1GHz no problem). Aperture seems to have been developed to help sell high end Mac workstations (I know it is getting better but it doesn't really like older computers).

I have been both a Mac and Adobe user for over twenty years and wish that Apple would hurry up and buy Adobe (I have had the same wish for over 20 years) so that this silly rivalry can end.

[andym172]

1. Who exactly is it, that is being so nice to you from the Apple Aperture team? I honestly would like to know because I have never found anyone (outside of the marketing people) willing to meet the public.


I contacted Steve Jobs around this time last year:

Dear Steve,

I purchased Aperture 1.5 two-to-three weeks ago, and - as with most Apple software - have found it very intuitive, and to a great extent a real pleasure to use.

Yet, this is not my reason for contacting you. My Aperture experience has taken a massive downturn, leaving me questioning my future use of the application.

What has caused this? Aperture's speed (or lack of it!).

My personal library contains 50,000+ of images taken over a period of 5-6 years, using cameras in variety from a 0.3 megapixel camera phone, to my current camera – a 12.8 megapixel Canon 5D.

Upon importing my library to the computers hard drive, I noticed my computer (a high spec dual 2.5GHz G5) was badly labouring. Not the result I was expecting from a computer which had been a real power-house from day one, but then again the computer was nearly 2 years old and so maybe it was a time to upgrade.

Soon I was the happy owner of a 2.66GHz Mac Pro, with XT1900 graphics card, and 2GB RAM. A computer which was “ushering in a new era of outstanding performance”, which contained a “state-of-the-art processor, [making] Mac Pro one of the fastest desktop computers on the planet.”

Again, I imported my library of images directly into Aperture. Result: much the same as with the G5. Frustrating, but maybe I’d expected too much.

I then purchased another 2GB of RAM in the hope that a total of 4GB would pep things up a bit, and what’s more, to help ease the situation I reduced the size of my library; again, and again, and again. Having slashed my library down to 15,000 images (approx 40GB), and with very little improvement, I stopped. With so little return, why reduce it further still? Why move further and further from my original hopes and expectations?

“Shooting more than you’ve ever shot before? Everyone is. And that’s why Aperture was designed with powerful photo management tools. Not only can this innovative application accommodate hundreds of thousands of images…”

Hundreds of thousands?!! Not in my experience...

Aperture must be one of Apple's most in-efficient applications ever to have been invented, and is certainly one of the most frustrating.

To rule out a hardware problem, I tried iView Media Pro, and Adobe Lightroom beta. These two applications fly, and are infinitely faster than ambling Aperture.

As it currently stands, Aperture 1.5.2 is dead in the water for me.

My sanity is worth more...


Yours Sincerely,

Andrew XXXXX.

---

I then received:

Andy,

Please let me know where you're located as I'd like to send one of my techs to your location to identify the source of your performance problems with Aperture 1.5.



Kirk XXXXX
Senior Director
Professional Applications Product Marketing
[number supplied] cell

To which I replied:

Hi Kirk,

Many thanks for your e-mail. I was not expecting a reply, let alone such a speedy one!

I live in the north of England, in a village called XXXXX in XXXXX.

I'm due to fly to Asia in the next 3 weeks, but would very much appreciate if somebody could visit.

As a precaution I have also returned 2GB of RAM to Crucial.

Kind Regards,

Andy.

---

And received:

Hi Andy,

I appreciate your patience with this matter. The fact that you've reconfigured your machine shows that you're determined to make this work for you.

Bahram,

Let's discuss first thing on Monday, as I'd like you to arrange to fly to the UK to sort this out ASAP.


Kirk

Followed by:

Hello Andy,

Can you please tell me a little bit more about what's been going on. Please let me know if you have any questions. I'm available 24/7.

Best,

Bahram


XXXX XXXX
Aperture Market Development
Apple Computer Inc.

[phone number supplied]
XXXX@apple.com

http://www.apple.com/aperture/
http://www.apple.com/shake/
http://www.apple.com/finalcutstudio/
http://www.apple.com/logicpro/


So, they were willing to send somebody over from The US to The UK simply to look at my machine, and I'm not even a professional user.

I declined their offer as I thought it was too much, and have since moved to Lightroom as, a year on, it's light years ahead of Aperture in almost every way.

I hope Apple give Aperture another push, but as it is right now Adobe have them licked and appear to be losing market share day by day.

[georgemann]

So, they were willing to send somebody over from The US to The UK simply to look at my machine, and I'm not even a professional user.


I could also tell some pretty incredible stories about Apple marketing department support (they can be strangely extravegant at times) but when it comes to day to day support Apple just does not have the kind of support group in place that can help the entire photographic community get over whatever problem they are having that day. Adobe does, in the form of paid evangelists, volunteer evangelists, developers who are always willing to listen to the end user, etc., etc.

It is of course the old network of Photoshop users who are the core of this support group but for whatever reason it exists and I have my doubts that Apple either understands or is willing to build this kind of support group.

Please believe me I am not anti-Apple, I just think that Aperture is for now a lost cause and that Apple themselves seem to be unsure of what they want to do with it in the future. (And yes I do have a copy and could re-install it at any time if I am given a good enough reason)

[Digital Skunk]

Plus Lightroom works very well on older Macs and laptops (G4 1GHz no problem). Aperture seems to have been developed to help sell high end Mac workstations (I know it is getting better but it doesn't really like older computers).

I have been both a Mac and Adobe user for over twenty years and wish that Apple would hurry up and buy Adobe (I have had the same wish for over 20 years) so that this silly rivalry can end.

Running on old G4 machines is pretty much the only thing Lightroom good for. Aperture does take a lot of resources, but with the power you get from it it's worth it. My girlfriend ran LR on her 12" PowerBook but now that she has 24" iMac she wants to switch over to Aperture after seeing all the things LR can't do that Aperture can.

So far the only laptop that can't run Aperture is the older G4 models, that's because they were underpowered at the time anyway.... and i mean they were about a year behind the competition which is why Apple switched to Intel and put out these screaming MacBooks and MacBook Pros.

It is of course the old network of Photoshop users who are the core of this support group but for whatever reason it exists and I have my doubts that Apple either understands or is willing to build this kind of support group.

Please believe me I am not anti-Apple, I just think that Aperture is for now a lost cause and that Apple themselves seem to be unsure of what they want to do with it in the future. (And yes I do have a copy and could re-install it at any time if I am given a good enough reason)

Actually, Apple's support is much better than Adobe's when you have an Apple Store near you. The Genius Bar will help with more than software problems too. And I don't have to pay for them. I have heard stories about idiots running the Genius bar, so I guess it's up to where you live.

I declined their offer as I thought it was too much, and have since moved to Lightroom as, a year on, it's light years ahead of Aperture in almost every way.

I hope Apple give Aperture another push, but as it is right now Adobe have them licked and appear to be losing market share day by day.

FALSE. Trust me and trust the Apple user base. Aperture is not losing market share to LR. LR is missing far to many features that Aperture has to lose any market share, and the only reason LR works for many people is because they have an underpowered machine.

If anything .... the market leader is Photo Mechanic, which Aperture and LR cannot compete with at all, and PM doesn't have any editing capabilities.

[rscott4563]

FALSE. Trust me and trust the Apple user base. Aperture is not losing market share to LR. LR is missing far to many features that Aperture has to lose any market share

Could you just quickly note what all these features are that Aperture has that are missing from LR?

I've tried LR quite a bit and I find it really easy and intuitive to use and can't think of any functions it doesn't provide outside of full blown editing ala PS, I've used Aperture much less but generally feel its harder to get to grips with. The one thing I think Aperture does do better is that it allows editing within any screen unlike LR and it's distinct modules.

R

[Digital Skunk]

Could you just quickly note what all these features are that Aperture has that are missing from LR?

I've tried LR quite a bit and I find it really easy and intuitive to use and can't think of any functions it doesn't provide outside of full blown editing ala PS, I've used Aperture much less but generally feel its harder to get to grips with. The one thing I think Aperture does do better is that it allows editing within any screen unlike LR and it's distinct modules.

R

Sure I shall. Before I do, keep giving both a try, once you make your decision it's hard to switch your entire library over, which is what I had to do twice. Once when I switched to LR, and again when I moved back to Aperture.

Now LR is a good program, and definitely a great alternative to Aperture and others, but Aperture is by far more powerful, hence the learning curve and the resources needed to run it.

(1) Simple Loop. Not zooming in to a photo but an actual loop. Not only does the loop provide me a closer preview of the image, but I can get a preview of my edits in the loops, saving me time and allowing me to compare the looped area with the rest of the image to see the difference in my edits. Also, the loop can be used with images in the workspace and viewer, allowing me to see how an adjustment compares to another version of the image. The loop is a very powerful tool in Aperture, one that LR doesn't have.

(2) The projects pane is infinitely customizable in Aperture. I can group images how I want them, where I want them, make smart albums for my managed files, offline files, referenced files and so forth. I can make a smart album for all my best images and call that album my portfolio.

(3) Light Table... I always use it before I make a photo album

(4) Photo Albums... they aren't that great, but in this day off fast paced output many clients don't care that their book is the same quality as the ones made in iPhoto, they just want their images.

By the way... web galleries in Aperture SUCK. LR has Aperture beat there do to Adobe's acquisition of Macromedia. I am sure the new flash galleries from iPhoto will find their way into Aperture 2 at some point.

(5) I can move the UI of Aperture to suit my needs. I just shot 300 photos in portrait orientation, I can swap my view and workspace so that the images have much more room to stand up. Not a big problem in LR, but something I was used to and could not adjust to when I moved to LR. Same thing for....

(6) Full screen and Dual screen editing. I have two monitors, two monitors may not be for some, but I edit video as well and need both of them. When using Aperture i can view my image fullscreen on one monitor and everything else on the other. Or, if I have one screen and want to isolate my image I can go full screen and call up the huds.

(7) I know LR can do this, maybe it can't, but I can move my referenced images from Aperture to wherever I need them to be. Not only that, but I can have a combination of reference and managed images, very useful for laptop owners that have desktops as main machines. I can reference the main library, so I know what I have in my entire library, and I can take my current projects with me and let Aperture manage them, or reference them from another folder or drive on my laptop. I can do this however I please, from wherever I please. And with .Mac, I know I will be able to upload images to iDisk and reference them from their, or use "Back to my Mac" to get the referenced images over the web without having to use 3rd party services.

Now a big issue I have with both LR and AP, is referenced image editing. When you edit in either application, they show you the preview of that image to preserve the original file. If I have previews that are about the same size as my D2hs files, why can't I edit offline images via the previews? Then when I come back to my files, I can export the masters with the edits. Come on Apple/Adobe.

(8) I find myself making slideshows here and there with images, or other forms of media that need my images as well. AP reaches all the way over to the iLife suit, giving me access to my previews when I need to drop them into another project... like iWeb (which sucks but works as an online presence) or Pages or Keynote. And it reaches over to the pro Apps. I can export an entire project into Final Cut Pro with transitions and durations, then edit the transitions and durations in FCP if I change my mind. I can also access images from DVD Studio Pro, Motion, and even iPhoto.

(9)If you are using iPhoto, Aperture is a no brainer. You get to keep the hierarchy of your iPhoto library, and even reverse the way iPhoto jumbles up your images, and make them an image of reference beauty from Aperture.

(10) I like that I can view more than one line of photos while I am editing. I can adjust the size of my gallery/workspace to show me a row or column of three images, or two, or five. Not just one strip at the bottom. You can get gallery images in the Library module, but not the develop module in LR.

(11) I can do anything, anywhere, at anytime. LR uses Modules, which are very intuitive and easy to learn, but after that there is no where to go. You can't adjust your workflow. I can't change my project names or hierarchy in the Develop or Print modules, only the Library modules. AP lets me adjust the app to my liking.

(12) I like LR's flags and color labels, but I can't live without the keywords hud.

(13) Core Image ROCKS, and keeps my images looking the same from application to application. When I make a change in AP it can be seen in iWeb and looks the same throughtout.

This is about 75% of what I can recall without having to go back and use LR and AP at the same time to see what I like and don't like. All in all both programs have their issues, and neither one solves my main problem -- editing offline image previews and reverting back to the masters later on -- so none is a definite winner on that front. But when it comes to using the Mac and all the Apple apps, Aperture has the higher ground. Lightroom works better in many areas, but when it comes to shear power Aperture is the king in many photog's books.

[andym172]

FALSE. Trust me and trust the Apple user base. Aperture is not losing market share to LR. LR is missing far to many features that Aperture has to lose any market share, and the only reason LR works for many people is because they have an underpowered machine.

If anything .... the market leader is Photo Mechanic, which Aperture and LR cannot compete with at all, and PM doesn't have any editing capabilities.

InfoTrends recently surveyed 1,026 professional photographers in North America to determine which software they used for raw file processing. Here's what was reported:

- 66.5% using the Photoshop Camera Raw plug-in
- 23.6% using Lightroom
- 5.5% using Aperture

I'm not interested in 'point and shoot' photographers - neither Aperture nor Lightroom was designed for them - but I don't know that I can name one fellow photographer who uses Photo Mechanic?!

Also, Aperture runs pig slow on my 2.66 Mac Pro, with 4GB RAM and X1900 - underpowered?!

There's not a shadow of doubt in my mind that Aperture is lagging way behind Lightroom. It appears the pro's agree with this sentiment.

[Michael73]

So I want more out of my app than iPhoto can give me and I've been trying to to weigh the LR vs. Aperture debate. This is a simple question based on something I thought I remember reading ages ago...

I thought I'd read somewhere that a distinct advantage that LR had over Aperture was that if you made 5 different changes to a photo each change was distinct so that if you liked changes A, B & D (and not C & E) you could keep this version whereas Aperture forced a user to essentially, undo, undo, undo, undo or rollback from version E to D, D to C, C to B and B to A. Does this make sense?

[andym172]

So I want more out of my app than iPhoto can give me and I've been trying to to weigh the LR vs. Aperture debate. This is a simple question based on something I thought I remember reading ages ago...

I thought I'd read somewhere that a distinct advantage that LR had over Aperture was that if you made 5 different changes to a photo each change was distinct so that if you liked changes A, B & D (and not C & E) you could keep this version whereas Aperture forced a user to essentially, undo, undo, undo, undo or rollback from version E to D, D to C, C to B and B to A. Does this make sense?

Yes, it makes sense.

Lightroom has a history panel which allows you to retrace your steps, and alter accordingly which not necessarily changing those steps you made later in the cycle.

So, you have the image with 5 steps: A, B, C, D & E. In Lightroom you can alter step 'B' for example, and not have to undo C, D & E.

[Clix Pix]

I use Photo Mechanic and Aperture and am quite satisfied with the workflow of this combo...

[kitmos]

InfoTrends recently surveyed 1,026 professional photographers in North America to determine which software they used for raw file processing. Here's what was reported:

- 66.5% using the Photoshop Camera Raw plug-in
- 23.6% using Lightroom
- 5.5% using Aperture

I'm not interested in 'point and shoot' photographers - neither Aperture nor Lightroom was designed for them - but I don't know that I can name one fellow photographer who uses Photo Mechanic?!

Also, Aperture runs pig slow on my 2.66 Mac Pro, with 4GB RAM and X1900 - underpowered?!

There's not a shadow of doubt in my mind that Aperture is lagging way behind Lightroom. It appears the pro's agree with this sentiment.

Actually I do know a Nat Geo photogrpaher and Mac user that loves Photo Mechanic as well as PS

[redrabbit]

Lightroom has curves editing and history. Seals the deal for me. No multi-monitor support doesn't bother me that much, as it's pretty obvious it's coming in LR sometime or another. There is also a LR sdk on the way, which should make for some great plugins in the future. Also, LR lets me work on my photos and do whatever I want while I'm importing/exporting, something I remember Aperture couldn't handle.

[Digital Skunk]

It all boils down to how much of the program you know, who you know, and how you work. There isn't anything desperately wrong with LR... it's just not more powerful that Aperture.... continue below.

InfoTrends recently surveyed 1,026 professional photographers in North America to determine which software they used for raw file processing. Here's what was reported:

- 66.5% using the Photoshop Camera Raw plug-in
- 23.6% using Lightroom
- 5.5% using Aperture

I'm not interested in 'point and shoot' photographers - neither Aperture nor Lightroom was designed for them - but I don't know that I can name one fellow photographer who uses Photo Mechanic?!

Also, Aperture runs pig slow on my 2.66 Mac Pro, with 4GB RAM and X1900 - underpowered?!

There's not a shadow of doubt in my mind that Aperture is lagging way behind Lightroom. It appears the pro's agree with this sentiment.

LR is both Mac and PC. Aperture is Mac only... how many photogs and customers use PCs as opposed to Macs. When you take into account the Mac community, and reasons I mentioned before that talked about compatibility with the other Apple apps I am sure that many have taken to Aperture... if not... they must not be into multimedia creation as much.

I run Aperture on a Dual Core 2GHz G5 with 1.5GB RAM and a MBP Dual Core Duo 2.16GHz with 1GB of RAM and have not had any problems. The multimedia department at the Baltimore Sun runs it on 8 Core Mac Pros with 8GB of RAM and it doesn't even hesitate on 12MP RAW Nikon D2xs files. Maybe your machine is faulty. My MBP now has 2GB of RAM and I am running it along with FCP 5, Motion, PS CS3, Bridge CS3, Safari, iChat, and iCal, and that memory hog Pages 1 that was made for PowerPC chips only. I am switching between them constantly and Aperture is have a little difficulty showing me those hi-res previews.

One thing that I learned to do from other photogs that use Aperture is to reference my entire library and only keep working projects in the Aperture Library file. It has helped greatly, and it's a rule that video editors live by. Don't import one large video clip and expect performance not to take a hit. Accessing the info off of one large file takes longer than accessing it from many smaller files.

Photo Mechanic is the photojournalist's industry standard and handles metadata and captioning better than LR or Aperture. It is also faster than either program at importing, backing up, captioning, outputting, making contact sheets or spec sheets, archiving, and retrieving an image. It's faster at searching as well... and I mean searching a database of over 500,000 images over a networked server faster.... blazing fast. The new Photo Mechanic I hear adds some more features but I haven't gotten to reading about them yet.

So I want more out of my app than iPhoto can give me and I've been trying to to weigh the LR vs. Aperture debate. This is a simple question based on something I thought I remember reading ages ago...

I thought I'd read somewhere that a distinct advantage that LR had over Aperture was that if you made 5 different changes to a photo each change was distinct so that if you liked changes A, B & D (and not C & E) you could keep this version whereas Aperture forced a user to essentially, undo, undo, undo, undo or rollback from version E to D, D to C, C to B and B to A. Does this make sense?

Yes Aperture can do this. In the HUDs or the adjustments palette you can turn different edits on or off. Also, this issue is more a matter of workflow than software capabilities. You can make any number of versions in either program and copy changes over from one to the other, turn edits off or on, and adjust changes as you see fit whenever you see fit. Both Aperture and LR handle this issue very well.

I use Photo Mechanic and Aperture and am quite satisfied with the workflow of this combo...

I have grown accustomed to Bridge and Aperture. There was time when I wanted an Aperture Lite just so I can view images and other files without having to launch the entire app. Then came along the information about referencing my images in Aperture... now... on my main computer I reference all the images, every single project, so I can view it in Bridge. Bridge can also preview and play a plethora of media files and can rate them and sort them and move them around, so Bridge is my Honey when it comes to accessing my media files. Aperture handles the images, and FCP handles the video and so forth. I have never had a workflow that can span from still images and graphics to video files and internet content.

Because Aperture and my other apps can move between each other... it's truly a great day to own a Mac.

Lightroom has curves editing and history. Seals the deal for me. No multi-monitor support doesn't bother me that much, as it's pretty obvious it's coming in LR sometime or another. There is also a LR sdk on the way, which should make for some great plugins in the future. Also, LR lets me work on my photos and do whatever I want while I'm importing/exporting, something I remember Aperture couldn't handle.

Aperture handles editing images while importing them just fine. I don't think it can handle exporting them and editing them though. Curves was what almost sealed the deal for me when I switched to LR. LR edits like Photoshop which is AMAZING, but understandably so since it's an Adobe app. But once I lost my ability to sync between the other apps I use, and when I had to adjust my workflow to LR, I had to move back to Aperture. LR just took to long to do things, and couldn't adapt to changes in the way I and my co-workers moved throughout the day.