Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Mac Apps and Mac App Store' started by ricardo1064, Dec 13, 2007.
worth the price tag? or stick with iPhoto?
That depends on what you need.
If you give us some more information, we'll be able to answer your question more effectively.
How many pictures are you working with? What kinds of things do you do with them? What kinds of changes do you make to them? How do you make your changes?
Price depends on the way you gonna buy it. If you have edu discount its significantly cheaper, but my university bookstore have it for 89$. So just need to look around.
In my opinion Aperture is well worth the price tag once your involvement with photography moves beyond the occasional snapshot. I use it concert with DXO and CS3, but Aperture remains the first stop and centerpiece of my photographic "workflow".
Aperture does make demands on your hardware however. It's quite the memory hog and (via it's use of the Core Image API) likes a beefy graphics card. It runs great on my Mac Pro with 6GB of RAM and X1900, but those with considerably older/slower/smaller platforms may want to consider Lightroom instead (also an excellent program)
Apple offers a 30-day trial version of Aperture. Download the Aperture and Lightroom trials and see what works best for you.
If you're not interested in advanced photo managing / editing / processing, stick with iPhoto. If you work with jpg only, you're probably better off with iPhoto.
By the way, Photoshop Lightroom 1.3 is also worth considering (if you're looking for more advanced application).
ED.: Sorry yeroen, haven't seen your post...
ok, right now i'm working with about 7,000 photos...
I enjoy photography as a hobby and am planning on upgrading to a slr camera next year. I use iphoto now to correct and visually enhance photos, if I want to get really creative i break out the photoshop books and go that route...
I want to start moving into raw format next year when I get the slr camera... I have some incredible photos from all over the world and want to start preparing them to showcase on my own website soon...
In that case just download and try the both apps. They are pretty similar, it's almost a question of taste. I'm using Lightroom, in my view it's better with noise... Less hassle.
any other difference other than better with noise? Just trying to get a measure for what to look for in each program...
When I tried out Lightroom, I didn't like how it forced you to be in "develop" mode to tweak photos, where Aperture lets you do it any time. Plus, I just love the feel and layout of Aperture, and the customizable loupe tool which works everywhere. On top of that, you get better OS X integration, like your Aperture photo library available in "open" file dialogues and so on.
I've tried both applications, Aperture and Lightroom, and I'd go with Lightroom for a couple of reasons. One, the system requirements for Aperture are nuts -- even with a decent system it still feels slow. Two, the interface of Aperture is damn confusing. Ya, it looks sexy, but there are SO many options all over the place. I have used animation software, design and music software, and I find Apertures GUI the most complicated. Lightroom is fairly simple. Fourth, the integration between Lightroom and Photoshop is pretty good (considering they're both Adobe apps).
My two cents.
Even though you seemed to have made your choice, I would certainly say it was well worth the price because it provides better workflow than iPhoto does, at least where I'm concerned.
Sash, do you by chance have any examples where LR handled noise better than Aperture? I'm curious because this is the first I've heard that--though I had never really looked before.
Awesome feedback, I'm really gonna have to download the trials and test them out... thanks everyone..
I began to work with Lightroom when the app was still a public beta. Even then I've got feeling that LR is better with noise. At some stage, they've somehow reduced this filter in LR, I don't know the reason. But with the last version -- 1.3 -- I simply have no reason to use Photoshop for noise reduction... Last month I was in the US, went to a couple of deserts (South CA), took quite a lot photos in poor light conditions or at night. Even for these night photos the LR's noise reduction filter was good enough... I believe, I had to use this filter in Photoshop for about 2-3 pics -- from about 4000 I've shot.
That's not the only reason I'm using LR. I've began with this app, so I know it better than Aperture, it's way lighter and less hardware demanding than Aperture...
Anyway, here's one of the pics (from my photoblog), taken at night -- with no cleaning in Photoshop, only in LR 1.3:
Now you can do it in Library too.
Yes, that's a fact. As Lightroom is an Adobe application, it doesn't have such integration with the OS, like Aperture has.
On top of that, LR 1.1 has a bug with the Slideshow on the 30" Cinema HD Display. It's worked out now though.
One more thing I believe Aperture works well if you have a multiple display set-up (like I do). Lightroom is designed for one screen only.