Aperture Or Lightroom for Macbook

Discussion in 'Mac Apps and Mac App Store' started by M@lew, Mar 30, 2007.

  1. M@lew macrumors 68000

    M@lew

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2006
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    #1
    Lately to organise photo's I've been using Aperture to organise/adjust all my photo's. (Before that was iPhoto) But I've found it to be a little slow on my Macbook. So I had a try of Lightroom and found it to be faster. I was wondering, should I export my library and move over to Lightroom because it'll work better on my Macbook?

    The reasons why I haven't used Lightroom in the past is because I really like the iLife integration and FlickrExport in Aperture. So would the move to Lightroom justify the loss of these features?
     
  2. CaptainHaddock macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2004
    Location:
    Nagoya, Japan
    #2
    I've tried both and like Aperture much better, both for its integration in the OS and other reasons. The only reason to pick Lightroom would be if you do a lot of heavy edits on your photos. Aperture applies filters and edits in real-time on your graphic hardware, and the Macbook can't handle the serious stuff too well.
     
  3. Mitthrawnuruodo Moderator emeritus

    Mitthrawnuruodo

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2004
    Location:
    Bergen, Norway
    #3
    I also tried both and liked Lightroom better (actually good enough to purchase it :)), it just felt better on my CD@2.0 MacBook, than Aperture did, doesn't require nowhere near what Aperture to run smoothly and it didn't need to be hacked into working, because of screen resolution and GPU.
     
  4. M@lew thread starter macrumors 68000

    M@lew

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2006
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    #4
    Aperture doesn't need to be hacked to work anymore, does it?
     
  5. OldSkoolNJ macrumors 6502

    OldSkoolNJ

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2006
    #5
    I found Aperture and Lightroom to work at the same speed. When you "tried" lightroom did you actually have it loaded with a whole library like your Aperture had? Either way after trying lightroom I was right back to Aperture in the same week. I stick with Aperture now and on the rare occasion use CS2 if I nee to do some graphic work with the photo.

    Kevin
     
  6. netdog macrumors 603

    netdog

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2006
    Location:
    London
    #6
    I import from my camera and touch up using Adobe Elements (accepts my raw files from the Leica), and I store everything in iPhoto.

    What are the advantages in terms of warehousing photos using Aperture or Lightroom over iPhoto?
     
  7. Mitthrawnuruodo Moderator emeritus

    Mitthrawnuruodo

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2004
    Location:
    Bergen, Norway
    #7
    Not for the GPU, the GMA 950 has been added... but I'm not sure how well it likes only 800 lines on the screen (used to require 852, IIRC), but I'm guessing it will install and run... as long as you don't add any images that is... ;)
     
  8. Abstract macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location Location
    #8
    Was this before or after Lightroom version 1.0 was released?

    Lightroom saves me so much time in editing that its drawbacks in sorting and cataloguing are more than made up for. And since v1.0 is quite a bit improved over Beta 4, it has caught up to Aperture 1.5 in its ability to catalogue and sort photos easily and quickly, while Aperture hasn't made much ground in the ease of editing that Lightroom offers.

    And besides, Lightroom is much, much more MacBook friendly. Aperture taxes the video card too much.......the video card that the MacBook doesn't have. MacBooks also don't have enough screen resolution for it to run Aperture really well, while Lightroom seems to make more efficient use of screen space for my photos.

    Of course, this is a moot point for those with external LCDs (like my 20" Dell with S-IPS lcd panel), but I'm guessing that if I had Aperture, it would be using my integrated graphics quite a bit, and would make running external LCDs a bit choppier.
     
  9. flopticalcube macrumors G4

    flopticalcube

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    In the velcro closure of America's Hat
    #9
    I have tried both on my Macbook C2D and found Lightroom to be, as you said, "more Macbook friendly". Aperture barely fits on the screen. It really was designed for a large display. When it runs, the fan kicks up and the CPU temp rises almost 20°C. Lightroom seems more...lightweight.
     
  10. Leeds macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2007
    Location:
    Calgary, Alberta
    #10
    Aperture is a far superior program. Period.

    After trying both Aperture 1.5 and Lightroom 1.0, I can say that there was not a noticeable difference in speed when you have a library of pictures loaded. People who complain about needing a bigger screen are the same people complaining that you can't get by with only an 8mp camera.
     
  11. Mitthrawnuruodo Moderator emeritus

    Mitthrawnuruodo

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2004
    Location:
    Bergen, Norway
    #11
    Which kind of Mac did you try them on, and what's its specs...?

    A MacBook, which the OP is asking about has a 13" screen, so screen size is an issue...
     
  12. Leeds macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2007
    Location:
    Calgary, Alberta
    #12
    I'm talking about a Macbook C2D 2.0ghz Stock... Lightroom uses JUST as much space on the screen as Aperture
     
  13. M@lew thread starter macrumors 68000

    M@lew

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2006
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    #13
    But how is the speed? Are they both bad on performance? Because I find that Aperture lags when editing some aspects of photo's.
     

Share This Page