PDA

View Full Version : Does Aperture use significantly more resources then Lightroom?




fwtong
Sep 2, 2007, 10:13 PM
I know that there are a ton of Aperture and Lightroom threads out there, but mine is slightly different, I am looking to find out if Aperture uses significantly more resources then Lightroom. I know that the best thing to do is to try both myself. However, that really won't work well for me since I'm new to photo editing, but I want to get more into it, so I won't be able to put the programs through its paces. I just want to pick one app and just learn it from the ground up and since I don't have any prior experience, I won't bring any personal biases into either program.

The key differentiating feature for me is going to the speed of the program. I have a MacBook Pro 2.16Ghz with 2GB of RAM. I'm not looking into upgrading further because the prices on laptop 2GB RAM is pretty outrageous. I know that LR uses fewer resources the Aperture, but will the difference in performance be significantly noticeable on my system?



66217
Sep 2, 2007, 10:16 PM
I have a MB with 2Gb of RAM and I use Aperture. It is definitely slower than Lightroom when editing photos, but I can't say that it is a pain to use it, in fact, I love Aperture.

I would guess that the MBP would be even better. So I suggest you buy the one you like the most.:)

Kamera RAWr
Sep 3, 2007, 12:46 AM
I will say that Aperture uses a significant amount of resources. I've heard Lightroom uses less, but I've never used it. You will notice it on your system, even the MBP, if you have a few applications open at the same time. Occationally I notice it even on my 2.4 SR MBP with 2gigs ram.
That being said, Aperture is a fantastic program. Its great for organizing and managing your digital photo library and doing common image adjustments. The benefits outweigh, IMO, any "stress" it might put on your system :p:D

valiar
Sep 3, 2007, 02:09 AM
Yes, Aperture most certainly uses more resources than Lightroom - dramatically so for certain operations.
For example, try patching dust spots with Aperture. It will literally bring your computer to a halt. Always used to bring my computer to a screeching halt for sure.

redrabbit
Sep 3, 2007, 03:50 AM
Aperture did not run well at all on my CD 2.16 MBP with 1 gig of ram. Lightroom ran GREAT, even with lots of other apps open. When I upgraded to 2 gigs of ram, it made a huge difference and aperture runs just fine.

OreoCookie
Sep 3, 2007, 05:15 AM
It depends whether it is noticeable or not: if you edits lots and lots of RAWs at the same time, the RAM consumption is dominated by buffering those RAW files.

You have a decent machine for Aperture and you'll enjoy that it harnesses the power of your graphics card. I have an older 2 GHz first-gen ProBook with 2 GB RAM and it works just fine.

Abstract
Sep 3, 2007, 09:47 AM
Yes, Aperture most certainly uses more resources than Lightroom - dramatically so for certain operations.
For example, try patching dust spots with Aperture. It will literally bring your computer to a halt. Always used to bring my computer to a screeching halt for sure.

Aperture is too clunky. The fact that patching dust spots slows your computer down so much means Apple should really optimize it to make it perform better. There's no reason why simple tasks such as using the loupe should slow your computer down like it does in Aperture. There's just no excuses.

Lightroom doesn't run as slow, but I'd still consider it slow for what it's doing when it experiences slowdown. I know other software like iView MP are quite different from Aperture and Lightroom, but its aim is essentially the same.

Also, I find that if I go to non-Mac photography forums (and I rarely do this), the discussion isn't "Lightroom vs Aperture". Those 2 pieces of software aren't mentioned, used, or recommended as frequently as people do here. They mention other apps and other ways of doing things. And even in these other forums, I find Lightroom gets mentioned more often than Aperture.

Westside guy
Sep 3, 2007, 12:19 PM
I've got the exact same computer as you, fwtong. Aperture runs great on it. Back when I tried out Lightroom, it also ran great on it. I have seen no performance issues with either program.

You will always find at least one person that has had issues with any particular program. Once that person discovers this thread, it will deteriorate rapidly. :D

OreoCookie
Sep 3, 2007, 01:00 PM
Instead of theorizing on either of them, give them a spin. With your computer, you'll be fine.
It depends on your personal taste which of the two you actually prefer using.

fwtong
Sep 4, 2007, 11:36 AM
Instead of theorizing on either of them, give them a spin. With your computer, you'll be fine.
It depends on your personal taste which of the two you actually prefer using.

Thanks for all the info. I guess I'll try out the demos even though I won't know enough about photo editing to really give it a true evaluation. But based on what I've read, Lightroom may be a better choice since I have a tendency to have a bunch of applications open and hate having to go through and constantly quitting and restarting them.

OreoCookie
Sep 4, 2007, 11:39 AM
Thanks for all the info. I guess I'll try out the demos even though I won't know enough about photo editing to really give it a true evaluation. But based on what I've read, Lightroom may be a better choice since I have a tendency to have a bunch of applications open and hate having to go through and constantly quitting and restarting them.
It's not that bad. You should quit Safari, though, which is usually hogging a lot of RAM. Other than that, I don't think you can underestimate the GUI concept. Personally, I find Lightroom outright aggravating with work with -- not because the UI concept is bad (more orderly and organized), but because that's not the way I work.