Hello all, I need some opinions on what program you think is better for photography? Aperture or Lightroom? I have a macbook pro with Retina Display and I know only Aperture is updated for it, when is Lightroom expected to get it?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Aperture or Lightroom?
- Thread starter Smiller4128
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They are both excellent apps, but I personally like Lightroom better. Why not download the demo to try it out to see if you like it?
The rather tiny controls is one thing that bothers me a bit about it though. It can be made a bit better by resizing the panels. Not sure if they will fix that anytime soon really. It's been a requested feature for way longer than the retina macbook has been around.
But you do get used to it. At first it was a major issue for me, now it's only a minor.
I'm in the same boat as well. I've been using LR3 for the past year and am happy with it. However, with my new rMBP, I'm not sure if I should switch to Aperture or LR4. I've tried both in the past, but went with LR3 because I got it for Christmas. Now that I will have to buy, I can't decide between the two.
Yeah I downloaded and tried LightRoom 4 and it was good, but a little overwhelming at first...I played with it for a couple of hours. Any chance I'll get more use to it or would Aperture be a better setup for me?
From my experience with LR3, you'll get used to LR4 in no time. However, to really unlock the full potential of LR4, you may have to refer to other forums or read up on some tutorials/examples. LR3 was very powerful and I can imagine LR4 being even more powerful. I suspect that Aperture would be the same as well.
For me, Lightroom is the much better editor, while Aperture is the much easier to sort through, as far as libraries are concerned. I like them both, for different reasons.
Like cmdrmac said, it's well worth looking into tutorial videos and such to get to know all the little features. It's not all obvious from the start, but it's very easy to use once you get into the workflow.
Yeah I keep playing around with LR but it just seems to be a little confusing. I'd get Aperture in a heartbeat but there's a lot of people saying they have problems getting it to work. Is that true? Anyone have problems with just getting into Aperture and getting it started up at all?
Well, after getting somewhat frustrated with LR, hearing stories how it's best not to get it in the app store, and having to pay out extra $$$ for each of its upgrades, and having a $100 iTunes giftcard given to me...I decided to go with Aperture instead....and I'm INSTANTLY way more happy with it. Much Easier menus, integration with iPhoto..I've been on it for 5 minutes and just love its simple design and interface. I don't mean to start a war between the two...just telling about my experience. Thank you to all of your advice guys!
Are you finding it easier to adjust curves and view histograms on Aperture as well? How about applying effects?
The difference between LR4 and Aperture is the difference between Canon and Nikon which pretty much comes down to personal preference. I have used both and both have their advantages. I personally use Aperture and really enjoy it's flow when going through lots of RAW files from an event such as a wedding or shoot and when only minor modifications are needed. It has it's quirks but all software does. They are both equally good, but I do prefer Aperture and it's integration into OSX.
Adjust curves? No idea what that is so it doesnt matter to me. Histograms are very easy to view. And applying effects is very simple. I'm very happy with my purchase with Aperture
Adjust curves? No idea what that is so it doesnt matter to me. Histograms are very easy to view. And applying effects is very simple. I'm very happy with my purchase with Aperture
Curves would be for like adjusting shadows and highlights (RGB changes). I guess Apple answered my own question: Working with Curves in Aperture.
I guess the 'frustrating' part is that Adobe will most likely not update LR4 for rMBP until several weeks (maybe even months) from now. I have hundreds of photos that I have taken for several events, but still haven't had the chance to process any of them since I can't really decide between Aperture or LR4.
Personally... I think that comment is nuts (not in a mean way). Do yourself a favor, flip a coin and move on. Both are great programs. They will likely leapfrog each other indefinitely. It just doesn't matter. The decision is inconsequential.
/Jim
Respectfully, I disagree. Apple has shown with Final Cut that they intent towards serious professional software is less than clear. They need to either set up and seriously upgrade Aperture or drop it for the consumer app iPhoto. But one or the other.
What we need to see is Aperture 4 so we can compare it to LR 4. Which begs the huge question.....where is Aperture 4?
What we need to see is Aperture 4 so we can compare it to LR 4. Which begs the huge question.....where is Aperture 4?
I'm in the Lightroom camp. For me it was decided with noise reduction in Lr 3. With respect to those posters who like one or the other because of the interface - I think that's the wrong criteria. You should choose the application that makes your difficult images look the best. For me and my camera, Lr4 opens up the shadows and smooths out the noise better than Ap3. The interface I can learn to use.... but only one application made my images look "best".
For the record I also keep Ap3 around for the card and book building abilities.
For the record I also keep Ap3 around for the card and book building abilities.
We can then both respectfully disagree. When A3 was released, the sentiment went toward A3 with new features such as the brushes, exceptional dodging, burning, etc. When LR4 was released... the focus came onto lens correction, noise reduction, etc.
It is like trying to continually choose your seat in a tennis match based on where the ball is at that moment.
Most people that I know who prefer A3, like it because of its superior workflow... not because of its UI. It is very non-modal and allows flexible workflow based on the job at hand. It is perhaps the best piece of such software ever written. By contrast LR4 follows the same rigid (and some consider clumsy) workflow of its predecessors. Workflow will be with a photographer for decades... while the feature set will ping-pong back and forth every year or so.
I think if you you question Apples commitment... then choose LR. If you need to work in both PCs and Macs... then for sure use LR. Personally, I believe that A3 has such an incredible workflow, that it is enough reason on its own to switch from a PC to a Mac... at least for serious photographers.
As far as image enhancement... both have limitations. Most good photographers have a suite plug-ins that greatly enhance both A3 or LR4. I personally use Nik Software Suite which also seems to be a favorite of the professionals that I know. These tools add control that IMHO leave both A3 and LR far behind... further making the back-and-forth feature game less relevant... and highlighting the importance of a good workflow.
Bottom line: My suggestion is to understand that workflow will be with you forever... while feature list changes every time you blink your eyes.
/Jim
From a cost perspective, you can't go wrong with Aperture if you download it from the store. And indeed if you hookup the Nik Suite of plugging you have a powerful package. I run LR 4 with Nik Suite and use Elements 10 for any pixel editing.
You won't go far wrong with either path.....as long as you shoot raw files.
You won't go far wrong with either path.....as long as you shoot raw files.
My experience is, of course, different. And I don't think there is any point in debating this - and I don't mean that in a snarky or bad way. Just that we photographers are very lucky to have two very full featured suites to choose from. As long as Apple keeps supporting Ap3 then both packages can only benefit (The only reason I mention Apple is simply because Adobe has the Windows market as well, so they have an easier time making their numbers work.)
My point was not that Lr has a better workflow, or better image optimization. Just that for anyone who is serious about their images, then image optimization should be their primary reason for choosing one or the other (though of course GUI and workflow may also play a part). I see little point in making sub-par images using a workflow that allows you to make those images quickly and easily. Regardless of which workflow one prefers.
----
For the record, despite being a very Mac centric community, the serious photographers here tend to use Lightroom.
I have both, but if I could only keep one of them, it would be Lightroom. I am a fan of the way it integrates with Photoshop. I was at a small gathering with a pro showing his Lightroom workflow and I can't believe it can be any quicker with Aperture. I am not a pro, so I don't need to edit hundreds of event photos at one time, so either program works for me. I still prefer Photoshop to both of them for retouching.
The one thing I like about Aperture is the fact that it integrates with my iPhone Photostream. Like I said, I like both programs.
The one thing I like about Aperture is the fact that it integrates with my iPhone Photostream. Like I said, I like both programs.
I don't agree with you on that one. How easy an application is to work with often affects the quality of your work as well.
A good GUI might actually allow your creativity to flow better and make you experiment more. If an app is hard to work with you often just do what needs to be done and barely that. It might have a good output from a technical standpoint, but it's not always about technical quality, especially not when it comes to artistic work.
In my opinion, they are actually equally important.
I refused to work with Nikon Capture for example even though the output quality for Nikon RAW probably was the best one. But the GUI just made me frustrated and I hated working with it, and nothing good can come out of that.
I will agree that at some point a balky GUI/workflow becomes the primary factor. But in the case of Aperture and Lightroom we aren't - with only very personal exceptions - talking about a GUI/workflow that is too difficult to work with. imho, at least. If each application created equally good images for everbody's images then GUI/workflow would likely be the primary factor. But since Apple and Adobe approach the RAW conversion with different philosophies - and because each application is pretty easy to use, I'm just saying that in this case people should choose between these two applications based primarily on the way it optimizes their own images.
Which suite you use is up to you, but I think the choice should be based on image quality (in this case) primarily.