Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

M@lew

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Nov 18, 2006
1,582
0
Melbourne, Australia
Lately to organise photo's I've been using Aperture to organise/adjust all my photo's. (Before that was iPhoto) But I've found it to be a little slow on my Macbook. So I had a try of Lightroom and found it to be faster. I was wondering, should I export my library and move over to Lightroom because it'll work better on my Macbook?

The reasons why I haven't used Lightroom in the past is because I really like the iLife integration and FlickrExport in Aperture. So would the move to Lightroom justify the loss of these features?
 
I've tried both and like Aperture much better, both for its integration in the OS and other reasons. The only reason to pick Lightroom would be if you do a lot of heavy edits on your photos. Aperture applies filters and edits in real-time on your graphic hardware, and the Macbook can't handle the serious stuff too well.
 
I also tried both and liked Lightroom better (actually good enough to purchase it :)), it just felt better on my CD@2.0 MacBook, than Aperture did, doesn't require nowhere near what Aperture to run smoothly and it didn't need to be hacked into working, because of screen resolution and GPU.
 
I found Aperture and Lightroom to work at the same speed. When you "tried" lightroom did you actually have it loaded with a whole library like your Aperture had? Either way after trying lightroom I was right back to Aperture in the same week. I stick with Aperture now and on the rare occasion use CS2 if I nee to do some graphic work with the photo.

Kevin
 
I import from my camera and touch up using Adobe Elements (accepts my raw files from the Leica), and I store everything in iPhoto.

What are the advantages in terms of warehousing photos using Aperture or Lightroom over iPhoto?
 
Aperture doesn't need to be hacked to work anymore, does it?
Not for the GPU, the GMA 950 has been added... but I'm not sure how well it likes only 800 lines on the screen (used to require 852, IIRC), but I'm guessing it will install and run... as long as you don't add any images that is... ;)
 
I've tried both and like Aperture much better, both for its integration in the OS and other reasons.

Was this before or after Lightroom version 1.0 was released?

Lightroom saves me so much time in editing that its drawbacks in sorting and cataloguing are more than made up for. And since v1.0 is quite a bit improved over Beta 4, it has caught up to Aperture 1.5 in its ability to catalogue and sort photos easily and quickly, while Aperture hasn't made much ground in the ease of editing that Lightroom offers.

And besides, Lightroom is much, much more MacBook friendly. Aperture taxes the video card too much.......the video card that the MacBook doesn't have. MacBooks also don't have enough screen resolution for it to run Aperture really well, while Lightroom seems to make more efficient use of screen space for my photos.

Of course, this is a moot point for those with external LCDs (like my 20" Dell with S-IPS lcd panel), but I'm guessing that if I had Aperture, it would be using my integrated graphics quite a bit, and would make running external LCDs a bit choppier.
 
I have tried both on my Macbook C2D and found Lightroom to be, as you said, "more Macbook friendly". Aperture barely fits on the screen. It really was designed for a large display. When it runs, the fan kicks up and the CPU temp rises almost 20°C. Lightroom seems more...lightweight.
 
Aperture is a far superior program. Period.

After trying both Aperture 1.5 and Lightroom 1.0, I can say that there was not a noticeable difference in speed when you have a library of pictures loaded. People who complain about needing a bigger screen are the same people complaining that you can't get by with only an 8mp camera.
 
After trying both Aperture 1.5 and Lightroom 1.0, I can say that there was not a noticeable difference in speed when you have a library of pictures loaded. People who complain about needing a bigger screen are the same people complaining that you can't get by with only an 8mp camera.
Which kind of Mac did you try them on, and what's its specs...?

A MacBook, which the OP is asking about has a 13" screen, so screen size is an issue...
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.