Aperature 3 or lightroom 3 on macbook 15 inch mid 2010

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by shaun319, May 1, 2011.

  1. shaun319 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2010
    Location:
    New York City
    #1
    Just wanted to asked which program will run better on a mid 2010 macbook pro 15 inch with 4 gb of ram and i5 2.4 Ghz. I have heard that lightroom might be better and that aperture is a resource hog. Just wanted to confirm and hear what you all think.
     
  2. unclet macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2011
    Location:
    Bloomington, IN
    #2
    On my 2009 15" MBP I preferred Lightroom over Aperture for the reason you mention. Aperture seemed to lag a bit. However, I now do my editing on a 13" MBA Ultimate, and I've found it runs Aperture just as well as Lightroom. I prefer to use Aperture, so I've switched over now that the performance isn't an issue. I don't know how this will translate on your machine. Can you still get a free trial of Aperture to try it out? I would do this before deciding.
     
  3. tmagman macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2010
    Location:
    Calgary AB
    #3
    i haven't used A3, but LR3 is amazing on my mid 2010 (specs below)- ran really good even when I only had the 4GB of RAM.
     
  4. chrono1081 macrumors 604

    chrono1081

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Location:
    Isla Nublar
    #4
    I've used both extensively and just recently made the permanent switch to Aperture. Its less resource intensive than LR3 and I like the layout of Aperture better after I got used to it and learned the shortcut keys.
     
  5. maflynn Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #5
    Really, I think its the opposite. I've found Aperture to be more sluggish and while the UI is definitely personal preference. There's a lot of threads at dpreview about aperture's performance woes and folks recommending LR.

    I'm running LR on a core i7 and so both Aperture and LR's performance is fine. on my laptop (2010 13" MBP) I have to give nod to LR for performance.

    Personally, I go back and forth on which one works best. I've more or less rested on LR because I think the edit module performs a bit better for me and to be honest I like how ACR is over apple's RAW processing. Now I know there's been plenty of comparative reviews over Aperture's RAW and ACR handling and those reviews have stated there's virtually no difference but for me I like adobe's. Its just me ;)
     
  6. mahood macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    Location:
    UK
    #6
    I believe you can still get a 30-day trial of both apps for free, before you have to commit - why not try them both out and see which works better for you?

    http://www.adobe.com/go/trylightroom

    http://www.apple.com/aperture/trial

    Make backups of your images before you import them, so you don't accidentally lock yourself into needing one or the other, though!

    Mark
     
  7. OreoCookie macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2001
    Location:
    Sendai, Japan
    #7
    In my experience, Aperture and Lightroom are slow when it comes to different things. Lightroom often appears quicker, but when I tried it last time, it would often take a long time until the pixelated preview is replaced by a rendered version of the image when zooming in and using the loupe. Aperture renders everything immediately -- which shows more readily.

    In the end, it's a matter of math: my D80 RAW files measure about 8~10 MB/image while the D7000 produces ~19 MB RAW files. It's not uncommon for me to have about 50-100 images per project. That's 500~2000 MB of data per project which needs to be stored and processed. Just reading this much data with modern harddrives (especially on notebooks) takes quite a while. This means, Apple and Adobe have to think hard how to conceal this load and processing time.

    Instead of giving you a recommendation on a specific app, I suggest you try both apps. The UI philosophies are very different. Personally, I find Adobe's decision to structure Lightroom in modules very constricting and against my grain. Aperture's more free flowing UI feels a lot more natural. Plus, I very much prefer Aperture's file management.

    YMMV.
     
  8. MattSepeta macrumors 65816

    MattSepeta

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2009
    Location:
    375th St. Y
    #8
    I recently switched to LR3 (Provided nothing disastrous happens before the 30 day trial is up).

    Pros of Aperture 3:
    -Great UI
    -Some more "fun" features, like faces and all that
    -Fast and Easy to upload images
    -Love the plugin interfaces and functionality

    Cons of Aperture 3
    -In my experience doing pro work with large images, it would crash / need force closed a couple times an hour, no joke.
    -Took FOREVER exporting images, even web-sized watermarked


    Pros of Lightroom 3:
    -Quick. Very quick.
    -Great Noise reduction, great processing in general
    -LENS PROFILES! This was what pushed me over the edge, aside from the incessant crashing of A3. I have already saved hours after only one wedding by using automatic profiles to correct distortion on my UWA shots.
    -Water mark and export options are 10x better for my needs.

    Cons of Lightroom 3:
    -UI is disastrous. Still fumbling around a week later.
    -UI is THAT disastrous.
    -UI
    -UI

    ;)
     

Share This Page