Aperture For Hobbyist?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by JulesK, Nov 18, 2007.

  1. JulesK macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    #1
    I've read through the Aperture v. Lightroom threads and have a slightly different question: I'd like something more than iPhoto for manipulating/editing primarily JPEGS, and is either Aperture or Lightroom the right package, or should I be looking for something else entirely? I guess it is possible that I'll shot RAW files in the future, but right now I'm not doing that. I have a 15" MBP with a 2.33 Core 2 Duo. What I really want is something that will be relatively easy to use. I understand that Aperture is not for heavy duty photo processing, but I'm not looking to do that. Any thoughts/comments much appreciated. Thanks in advance!
     
  2. swiftaw macrumors 603

    swiftaw

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2005
    Location:
    Omaha, NE, USA
    #2
    Both Aperture and Lightroom offer 30 day free demos, give them both a try, see if either of them offer you anything you'd be interested in.
     
  3. Westside guy macrumors 601

    Westside guy

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2003
    Location:
    The soggy side of the Pacific NW
    #3
    While both Aperture and Lightroom are sold as "pro apps" (and pros do use them), it's pretty obvious that the target market is much broader than that. The fact that they both have "red eye reduction" is a good indicator of that. :D

    If you try both of them - and you should - be sure to spend more than 30 minutes using each. Lightroom will feel more familiar out of the box simply because its tools are very much like Photoshop's. Aperture's interface is different, and I think a lot of people try it for 20-30 minutes, say "this is different than what I'm used to!" and give up. You may still decide you like Lightroom better - just give Aperture a fair shake.
     
  4. Abstract macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location Location
    #4
    There are more options out there other than Aperture and Lightroom, and some of them would be noticeably faster....
     
  5. mcarnes macrumors 68000

    mcarnes

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2004
    Location:
    USA! USA!
  6. Doylem macrumors 68040

    Doylem

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2006
    Location:
    Wherever I hang my hat...
    #6
    Well, I've got a 15in MBP for my Photography too. I use Aperture for organising/tweaking my pix, and very seldom need any function that Aperture doesn't have. It's an elegant solution to 99% of my photographic needs...
     
  7. Malfoy macrumors 6502a

    Malfoy

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2005
    #7
    +1
     
  8. irishgrizzly macrumors 65816

    irishgrizzly

    Joined:
    May 15, 2006
    #8
    Why cos a pro would never get red eye in any of his shots?
     
  9. Malfoy macrumors 6502a

    Malfoy

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2005
    #9
    Not if they're uber leet pro. If they are simply pro, they might.
     
  10. R.Youden macrumors 68020

    R.Youden

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    #10
    I always used to find that it was easier to organise my photos in Aperture, but now with iLife '08 it is, in my opinion, better, and now the organisaton of your photos carries across to your iPod and Front Row.
     
  11. carlgo macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    #11
    That's why I want Blue Ray to win out over HD DVD.
     
  12. Westside guy macrumors 601

    Westside guy

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2003
    Location:
    The soggy side of the Pacific NW
    #12
    Given that a pro is almost certainly shooting with a flash bracket (assuming he/she is using a flash at all) - no, probably not.

    Heck, I don't see much red eye at all just using my SB600; and that just raises the light source a few inches.
     
  13. BigJohno macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2007
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #13
    Since we are on the topic of Aperture does anyone know how to get the Sony Alpha 700's RAWs to read? Iphoto and Aperture dont like them. Is there an app I can download to make this work?

    Sorry to interrupt.

    Edit: Besides photoshop.
     
  14. robbieduncan Moderator emeritus

    robbieduncan

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    Location:
    London
    #14
    You need to wait for Apple to add support to the OS as Aperture and iPhoto both use the OS level support for RAW.
     
  15. BigJohno macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2007
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #15
    Dam. How long you think?
     
  16. robbieduncan Moderator emeritus

    robbieduncan

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    Location:
    London
    #16
    10.5.2 at the earliest. So probably January.
     
  17. Digital Skunk macrumors 604

    Digital Skunk

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2006
    Location:
    In my imagination
    #17
    I think iLife 08's iPhoto app is a much needed improvement in the application and after using it for a while I think it has features that I would love to see in Aperture 2. If you have an extensive iPhoto library (toward the OP) then I would say go for Aperture if you have the money and the RAM to run it. Reference your files by moving them to a new location, Aperture will do it faster and with the least amount of effort. If your iPhoto library is small or you don't mind putting in the work to organize your library a second time then try them both out and see which one works for you.

    On a personal note... I think Lightroom is a great choice for those not looking for too much features in their photo applications. Aperture is going to give you SO many options for how you work and how you manage your workflow, and all of those features WILL slow your machine down if you don't have the RAM (at least 2GB) to run it.
     
  18. ChrisA macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    Location:
    Redondo Beach, California
    #18
    Neither of these is what you'd call an "image editor" both allow gross level adjustments, like cropping and color balance but you can't get inside and say, remove a utility pole from a background. Or maybe you want to chang the ezposure of just some part of the image, say to lighten a shadow on some one's face or to darken a background. For this you need a real image editor. I'd go with Adobe Photoshop Elements. It normally sels for about $89 but you can find it bundled with scanners or Wacom graphic tablets.

    Also you can use Gimp. It is free and a bit more powerfull then "Elements". See www.gimp.org

    If what you want is a streamlined workflow, photo organization and simple adjustments only then look at Aperture. But notice that Aperture is meant to work with Photoshop. and has a mostly transparent interface with it.
     
  19. Westside guy macrumors 601

    Westside guy

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2003
    Location:
    The soggy side of the Pacific NW
    #19
    Having used both (I used a Linux desktop for a few years before converting to Mac) I disagree with the second sentence. I do agree that both are decent options - Elements is easier to learn, in any case. You certainly can't beat the Gimp's price.
     
  20. Digital Skunk macrumors 604

    Digital Skunk

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2006
    Location:
    In my imagination
    #20
    YES INDEED. I realized that Aperture and Lightroom don't handle RAWs as good as Photoshop and Capture NX do. I would love to have NX but I am waiting for the right time to test drive it and see how well I can incorporated it into my workflow. I haven't shot RAW in a while so I keep most of my workflow in Aperture or Photoshop.

    If you don't have a workflow... Lightroom will be your best friend. It restrict you from moving too far from a set grouping of tools, which makes it very easy to learn and base your workflow off of. Aperture is very open, and puts every tool and feature at your finger tips when you need or don't need it.
     
  21. BigJohno macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2007
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #21
    When did we start talking about beating gimp's. :)
     
  22. Lovesong macrumors 65816

    Lovesong

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2006
    Location:
    Stuck beween a rock and a hard place
    #22
    FYI- PS and LR use the exact same RAW converter. ;)
     
  23. Digital Skunk macrumors 604

    Digital Skunk

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2006
    Location:
    In my imagination
    #23
    Yeah... but I can't edit as freely with LR as I can with Photoshop. The curves in LR are good, but can't replace the ones in PS.
     

Share This Page