Aperture 2.0 or Lightroom

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by thomahawk, Sep 29, 2008.

  1. thomahawk macrumors 6502a

    thomahawk

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2008
    Location:
    Osaka, Japan
    #1
    Alright i need help choosing which program to use for RAWs or just regular camera imports from my Nikon D40

    I have been trying to find sites or other forums that have this debate or discussion on aperture or lightroom but i cant seem to find a strong settlement on which to take

    i want the most compatibility. I hear aperture is great with iphoto and its obvious cuz they are made by the same company. but i also use adobe photoshop CS3 so im thinking it'll work great with Lightroom in case i ever needed to photoshop some works of mine.

    opinions and answers would be greatly appreciated!
     
  2. swiftaw macrumors 603

    swiftaw

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2005
    Location:
    Omaha, NE, USA
    #2
    There have been many threads on this question here, I'm sure you can find them by searching.

    The conclusion is that they are both good, but both do things in different ways so one may feel more comfortable to you than the other. Both offer 30 day free trials so why not try them both and see which one you prefer.

    Personally I use LR, and I found this on how to interact it with iPhoto:
    http://www.ononesoftware.com/blog/2007/06/lightroom_aperture_and_iphoto_1.html
     
  3. Westside guy macrumors 601

    Westside guy

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2003
    Location:
    The soggy side of the Pacific NW
    #3
    I have found I prefer Aperture 2 over Lightroom 2, but both are great. I concur with swiftaw's comment - try them both out.

    If you're impatient, just go with Lightroom. It'll feel more familiar from the get-go since its tools are very much like Photoshop's. I don't like the regimented, forced structure of Lightroom; but to each his/her own.
     
  4. soLoredd macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2007
    Location:
    California
    #4
    I was in a similar situation so I've been evaluating each app via 30-day trial. So far, Aperture is a much more pleasurable experience. But, I've always had a tough time adapting to Photoshop/Elements and the Adobe structure. Not sure why.
     
  5. OreoCookie macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2001
    Location:
    Sendai, Japan
    #5
    There is no settlement on the issue, because both products are good and appeal to different people. Do a search, download the trials and use them both, this cannot be settled by an academic discussion.
     
  6. John T macrumors 68020

    John T

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2006
    Location:
    UK.
    #6
    Exactly as I was about to say! :)

    A query such as this usually ends up with a discussion along the lines of "a is better than b" - "Oh no it's not, b is better than a" Leaving none the wiser!

    With respect, this type of query can, in my opinion, be really rather pointless - we all have different tastes and requirements and the only way to come to a resolution is, as has already been said, try them out for yourself and make your own decision!
     
  7. apearlman macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2007
    Location:
    Red Hook, NY
    #7
    Plenty of information available

    Thomahawk,

    There are probably hundreds of threads here and on various photo sites (dpreview, fredmiranda, etc.) comparing these two applications. There is no definitive answer to the question of "which one is better". Different people prefer one or the other based on minor feature differences or the different controls/interfaces. Both programs are available for a free trial, so you could download them and decide for yourself.

    Good luck --

    Andrew

    EDIT: Okay, everyone already said what I did. That means it must be true, right?
     
  8. Westside guy macrumors 601

    Westside guy

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2003
    Location:
    The soggy side of the Pacific NW
    #8
    Well, it wasn't - we were waiting for you to settle the matter. :D ;) :p
     
  9. bking1000 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2007
    #9
    Can the moderators make a "LR vs. Ap" sticky post? Maybe a post with links to the threads that already address this topic?


    Just a thought.
     
  10. hector macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    Location:
    Cheltenham, UK
    #10
    I agree with what others have said, although it is also worth noting that if you are using a 'slower' machine, like a macbook, then LR is ALOT faster than Aperture, at least in my experience.
    I downloaded both trials and found Aperture to be more or less unusable on my 1.83 cd with 1gb RAM. LR on the other hand is pretty snappy
     
  11. yrsonicdeath macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2007
    #11
    On a somewhat related note, does anyone know if you can use the trial of Lightroom 2.0 if we participated in the beta. I am asking because I'm at work.
     
  12. apearlman macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2007
    Location:
    Red Hook, NY
    #12
    Yes, Beta to Trial version works fine.

    Yes, you can. That was my path: from the Beta to the 2.0 trial, then to the full version.
     
  13. yrsonicdeath macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2007
    #13
    Mine as well. Thank you :).
     
  14. ChrisA macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    Location:
    Redondo Beach, California
    #14
    The frst question is "What's wrong wit iPhoto?" The way you answer that may tell us which program you'd like, Aperture or LR. So why not iPhoto?

    You can download each program and use it 30 days for free. Try both of them. But be warned. You WILL have to read and study and watch the tutorial videos. 30 Days is a short period in which to come up to speed with either program. You need to actually use the software almost every day if you are to make an informed decision.

    Both will do what you need. Both interface very well with Adobe Photoshop. I'd say both are nearly seamless. Aperture does work better with other Apple applications. Specifically the media browser built into Finder can look inside an Aperture library.

    The big difference is style. Lightroom imposes a workflow while Aperture just is a big tool box and has nothing in it to imply an order on the steps you do. Aperture uses Apple's concept of "library" and you are best off to just go with it. LR likes finder style folders and is best for those who can't understand or deal with libraries.

    Download both and see for yourself
     
  15. troyhark macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2008
    #15
    And LR works much better with Adobe apps.

    It does? News to me, i do whatever i want/need to, in whatever order I want. Having said that, LR's develop tools are laid out in a sensible order of usage, if you want to do it that way.



    If you have no interest in knowing where things are!
    Or those who realise what a mess Apple makes of file management. I use a date+label filing system that is independent of any OS, any software package, as in 50 years time, I still want to be able to find files easily. LR or Aperture still being here then!? Keywording is not all it's cracked up to be when you shoot same things repeatedly, before anyone says I do not understand metadata searching/libraries.Plus adding keywords well, involves a lot of hard work and discipline to work effectively.


    Absolutely.

    One area where LR is simply waaaaay better is presets. Aperture simply lacks this very useful feature, a very baffling omision. Make's life much harder.
    Lift +Stamp is a kludgy workaraound and is not the same thing at all.
    There's a reason why Aperture is so much cheaper than LR, it needs some advantage! :D
     
  16. OreoCookie macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2001
    Location:
    Sendai, Japan
    #16
    Really?
    ChrisA is just saying that both apps have a different UI philosophy and that some people find Lightroom's labor division into different modules restricting. That doesn't mean every user feels limited by having to switch modules.
    I know exactly where my things are.
    I have learnt how useless that is when I switched from iView Media Pro to Aperture. Knowing where the files are is pointless, because the work is in the adjustments, the keywords and not just the file structure. All of this is lost, unless you export the photos with Aperture or Lightroom. I've lost literally hundreds of hours of work when making the switch (which was necessary, because of silent database corruption problems).
    Aperture does not lack presets. It has tons of places where you can have presets (e. g. when keywording, importing, exporting, etc.). For adjustments, Apple has chosen a different philosophy with Lift + Stamp.

    In any case, to claim that one is waaayy better than the other is IMHO childish.
     
  17. Westside guy macrumors 601

    Westside guy

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2003
    Location:
    The soggy side of the Pacific NW
    #17
    Yeah, I guess the wait for the first fanboy post is over. :D
     
  18. ChrisA macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    Location:
    Redondo Beach, California
    #18
    No to argue. Just using the above to point out the way most people think.

    We tend to make up a list of features and then compare the lists. That's really wrong. What we should do is make up a list of problems to be addressed and then look to see how each product address those problems. For example cameras: We can count how many auto focus points there are and say "11 is better then 5" but the problem might be tracking moving subjects, which camera is best. Maybe the camera with 5 points had a better motion estimation algorithm and did not need 11 points to achieve better performance? Same here. The problem is that you have 20 shots all in the same light, you want to white balance the shots but you don't want to have to do it 20 times. What's the best way? Apple's idea was that first you balance one image then tell Aperture to apply the same correction to the other 19. Aple calls this "lift and stamp". Would it have been better to first "link" the 20 shots by telling Aperture they were all in the same light and then white balance the whole set in mass? Three of ways to solve this problem. Lift and stamp, presets and "linking" but as soon you pick one the feature counters find two "missing features" but are they really missing or just un-needed? If the problem is solved I'd say un-needed.

    It's like saying my car as several "missing features" no "choke" or mixture control, and the spark advance control is "missing". These feature were common in older cars. Are they missing or un-needed in my car? You can't compare feature lists. You have to compare lists of addressed problems.
     
  19. Kebabselector macrumors 68030

    Kebabselector

    Joined:
    May 25, 2007
    Location:
    Birmingham, UK
    #19
    As pointed out previously, download them both and try them for a month.

    Both are equally good applications, however you may find one is better suited to your own working.

    Ignore who makes the app as some are blinded by it's Apple/Adobe is has to be better.

    The initial cost is irreverent if you're working with a large (or potentially large) library. Both Applications have yearly updates (so it seems), so what ever the system you'll be paying for it for a number of years.
     
  20. troyhark macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2008
    #20
    Yes really.:p

    Only if using Aperture and Aperture's existence in 30-40yrs time? Unlikely

    The whole point of fillig by date/label is that it is immune to database corruptions as it is not a database. Filing by date at the OS level is what I am talking about. Far more robust. And you can then add keywording etc on top of that. So even if database goes belly up. Finding my images is not a problem.
    BTW I can also look at my developed images in Bridge without exporting them. So, having a file browser and a database solution is way better than just a database solution. Not to mentionif Aperture DB dies/gets corrupted you lose all your editing work, whereas wtith LR you don't if you save to XMP.


    No, Presets are a specific feature, not present in Aperture, whereas Lift + Stamp is simply the same as Sync/Auto Sync is in LR.

    Not if that is actually the case. I'd like to use Aperture as it's apparently cheaper, but as it's slower + clunkier in use, it will actually cost me time and therefore money.
    Besides seeing as LR has localised RAW editing and Aperture doesn't means LR trumps Aperture, just with that single feature, same goes for develop Presets.
    And to repeat from above post as it's so important - if Aperture DB dies/gets corrupted you lose all your editing work, whereas with LR you don't if you simply save to XMP. This 'tiny' little difference trumps any feature of any kind within either programme. As there's no point having a killer feature, if the work it does can be lost so easily.

    But that's that I was doing.
    Aperture cannot solve many problems that LR can. How? Simple LR has features that Aperture lacks. Just as LR lacks book publishing ability, so if I wanted to publish a book I'd have to use Aperture. Though I'd do all the work on images in LR/PS/Bridge and simply export finished shots to Aperture to lay out in book.
    Also as explained above, Lift + Stamp is not a different approach to Presets, it's a completely different tool. Lift and Stamp is a syncing solution, equivalent to Sync/AutoSync button in LR, which is very different from having develop presets, saved as 'Presets' to get a specific look. Not to mention you can apply these on import.

    What is most obvious when reading these discusions and feature request discusions is that people do not actually know how to use the software properly. As what they ask for, is actually there a lot of the time or they compare quite different tools as if they were the same.
     
  21. OreoCookie macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2001
    Location:
    Sendai, Japan
    #21
    And?
    I know that I'll have to migrate from time to time and it'll probably be a nuisance. But it's like moving from one apartment to another, it's a fact of life.
    I'll probably have less trouble migrating my Aperture (or Lightroom) library than migrating from iView to Aperture.
    The images still exist as files on my harddrive -- which I can easily access if so I desire. You're still missing the point that most of the work is not contained in the actual file structure and cannot be imitated by a file system structure.

    Plus, I have four separate backups (Time Machine plus three vaults) of my pictures, one of them offsite. Unless there is a war, even if there is a database corruption, chances are that I can restore at least work that is not older than a month. (Not that this is specific to Aperture, I have always been very proactive about backups.)
    You speak of image editing presets, not presets in general.
    If you prefer Lightroom's way to transfer image edits from one to another, good for you, then you use the right app for yourself.
    Your fanboyism is not helpful.
    Price does not matter in most cases. If I preferred Lightroom or if Aperture were more expensive than Lightroom, I'd pay for it.

    And I think nobody here is arguing that you should use Aperture when you prefer Lightroom. But why is it so hard to conceive that other people may in fact (and for good reason) prefer the other app?

    That's not how I use it at least: I edit one shot (e. g. change the white balance or make it sepia) and then transfer probably only a part of these changes to other pictures (e. g. I probably don't want to transfer crops, so I delete it from the list of changes). I have never found the need for image editing presets. And it's certainly not a syncing solution to me ;) Although you could make a sample projects and lift and stamp from them. Probably you'll say it's not the same thing and yes, it's a different way to get things done.
    What is even more obvious is that most people don't know both apps very well. ;)
     
  22. troyhark macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2008
    #22
    I am anything but a fanboi. I now simply use the better app after using both.
    And I have been extremely critical of LR in the past. It wasn't even usable enough for me until 1.3. Aperture still isn't good enough for my needs.

    I've never said people shouldn't use Aperture or nobody should prefer it. I'm pointing out that LR [at present] is a far superior tool in so many ways. And why that is the case.

    You already been let down badly by one database app, so I'm baffled as to why you are so enamoured with another [Aperture] with exactly the same potential issue. Actually worse, as image editing is at risk too.
     
  23. OreoCookie macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2001
    Location:
    Sendai, Japan
    #23
    It's vastly superior for what you do. For other people, it's the other way around. Lightroom is in no way superior in the way you describe it. Both have features and appeals that the other one doesn't have. What you may not think to be important, others think are essential. And vice versa.
    That's because you don't understand how the Aperture Library works. I've posted an explanation in the other thread. The probability that I lose all my settings, edits and files due to Aperture is essentially nil. Information is well compartmentalized into parts that are (to a large degree) self-sufficient.
     
  24. troyhark macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2008
    #24
    As you just illustrated nicely! :p :D
    Syncing and Presets in LR only alter the editable attributes you want changing, not just all of them.

    Plus Develop Presets are not a syncing solution, they are a develop solution. Syncing is done separately.
    Now where they are very useful is if you edit an image and like the look of it, you can save that look for another time. And once you've used this tool, not having it, seems a bit crippling. And being able to import files with edits already applied by using presets is a fantastic time saver. For example I shoot regularly at a place where I know the lighting white balance quirks, so I simply import all the images with the white balance corrected and the basic raw tweaks I know that are needed to get to a good starting point for editing individually. And basically that's 90% of the work done before looking through shots.
     
  25. OreoCookie macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2001
    Location:
    Sendai, Japan
    #25
    I've never claimed to know Lightroom well nor have I made claims that certain things aren't possible with Lightroom.
    I have only described the way I work now. I have not claimed that this weren't possible with Lightroom.
    Ditto for Aperture. So what's your point?
    As I said before, I wouldn't have any use for a syncing solution.
    And you're saying that cannot be done with Aperture?
    You can define presets for different editing modules in Aperture or stamp from a sample project.
    I would never apply white balance globally to an import, for example. I would find the right RAW balance for one shot in a series though and then transfer that settings to the others.

    Again, I'm repeating myself, but not everybody works like you and me. So the functions you describe may simply not be needed by others.
     

Share This Page