Aperture and Lightroom - at the same time?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by edk, Jul 23, 2010.

  1. edk macrumors regular

    Apr 12, 2006

    I'm currently a Lightroom user with a 13k photo library.

    I'm planning to make a special family photo album (parents 60th birthday) - and thus Apertures faces tagging and book making abilities are very interesting to me.

    However, I'm not sure right now that I want to transition 100% over to aperture.

    Can I run both at the same time, using referenced files to access and view the same photos? Will I cause problems doing this?

    (I realise that edits wont carry over - not an issue here)

    Thanks! ;)
  2. OreoCookie macrumors 68030

    Apr 14, 2001
    Sendai, Japan
    Yes and no. There will be problems if there is interference between the apps, e. g. when you move files in Lightroom, you will have to reconnect the files in Aperture.

    Also, be aware that either apps knows nothing about changes you make to images in the other -- unless you export these images and re-import them in the other app.

    If you want to evaluate Aperture or at least use it for a specific project, I recommend that you export all of the RAW files (I assume you're shooting RAW here) in Lightroom and import them to Aperture. Don't necessarily use references files, try how Aperture can work when you're using it by itself.

    Do the edits, use all the features and create the book.

    Once you're done, you can at least export the edited images as jpgs or tiffs and re-import them in Lightroom.
  3. edk thread starter macrumors regular

    Apr 12, 2006
    thanks. but assuming I dont move files, or make edits - then there shouldn't be an issue just pointing aperture to the photo folder, and using the reference mode?
  4. CrackedButter macrumors 68040


    Jan 15, 2003
    51st State of America
    What I tend to do is use Aperture first and if there are a few things in Aperture which I can't do, then I finish what I can, make a full res jpeg version of it and take it into Lightroom.

    Could be long winded but there is no duplication or problems working with both Apps. Noise reduction is one area I find myself taking my work into Lightroom from Aperture for example.
  5. pdxflint macrumors 68020


    Aug 25, 2006
    Oregon coast
    You should be able to do exactly what you're talking about (importing RAW files into Aperture) by simply referencing their folders/locations without copying the original files.
  6. OreoCookie macrumors 68030

    Apr 14, 2001
    Sendai, Japan
    I still wouldn't recommend it.
    Again, none of the edits you make in either application will be visible in the other. That's because Aperture and Lightroom create small files that contain all the changes you want to make to an image and then apply them afresh when you load said image. The original files (which are typically RAW files) are not touched. The files that contain the edits are contained in the respective libraries (= databases).

    If you want to try Aperture, try it in its natural environment. Later on, when you prefer one app for one thing and the other thing for another, I would use the app you prefer for data storage/sorting (e. g. Aperture). When you want to do some edits to specific files you find are easier in, say, Lightroom, export the image to Lightroom, do your stuff in Lightroom and export back.

    Most people seem to be convinced that the majority of the work is contained in the (RAW) files. It's not. It's the changes and tweaks you've made to them, the tagging, them being added to books, web pages and albums. This data is invariably contained in the respective library and it's impossible to transfer most of these settings from one app to another.
  7. Phrasikleia macrumors 601


    Feb 24, 2008
    Over there------->
    The short answer is yes, you can have LR and Aperture point to the same referenced raw files without any technical problems. OreoCookie's reservations are the most significant: trying to use both apps for organizing or keywording will be fussy and redundant. If you want to stick with Lightroom, then perhaps you should just use Aperture for bookmaking. Do you really need the faces feature? At any rate, the worst that can happen is that you'll create an organizational morass; you won't be at any risk of corrupting your apps or files.
  8. edk thread starter macrumors regular

    Apr 12, 2006
    thanks for your comments.

    I guess I should clarify. Once I've made this photobook project - it's unlikely I will want to stay with Aperture (unless I see that its so much better).

    So, I just need to use Aperture to pick out the faces that I want, and then create the photo book. Once that's done, I can remove the aperture trial etc.

    My only fear is, even that process might mess up lightroom.... But having thought about it - I guess it shouldn't.

    Again, I don't plan only "using" aperture, no edits to be made etc - just 1) run faces, then 2) make photobook, 3) remove aperture.

  9. OreoCookie macrumors 68030

    Apr 14, 2001
    Sendai, Japan
    If that's the case, the solution is simple:
    (1) Prepare all the photos in Lightroom to your liking.
    (2) Export them in an image format of your choosing (.jpg/.tif).
    (3) Import them in Aperture. Don't use referenced files, just use all the default settings. If you use managed files, Aperture copies the exported files into its Library.
    (4) Create your book/do whatever.
  10. edk thread starter macrumors regular

    Apr 12, 2006
    true - if I didn't want to use faces, to help narrow done my 12,000 photos to just the few hundred that I need. :eek:

    But in the end, maybe I will just spend a few hours going through by hand in lightroom selecting them - this way, I can also tag them in lightroom at the same time.

    If only lightroom would add the faces option, would be nice... :)

Share This Page