I need some help to choose between Aperture and iPhoto. I know iPhoto is not a professional app but Aperture seems a little too much. The reason I ask this is because i bought a canon xsi which supports Raw and was wondering which app is easier to sort and organize the photos that have both Raw and Jpegs. Also is the engine on Aperture and iPhoto the same when it converts Raw images to Jpeg.
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 vs. iPhoto
- Thread starter mosesaro
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If you shoot only or mainly RAW, then I think you'll quickly come to prefer Aperture (or Lightroom) over iPhoto.
You already have iPhoto. Download the free trial of Aperture and give it a spin to see how you like it. Then compare the two and see which one suits your needs better. It won't cost you a dime, unless you decide to purchase Aperture.
You already have iPhoto. Download the free trial of Aperture and give it a spin to see how you like it. Then compare the two and see which one suits your needs better. It won't cost you a dime, unless you decide to purchase Aperture.
I think it really depends on how much photography you'll be doing and how serious about it you are. I used iPhoto for years and the only reason I stopped was because I "outgrew" it. I found that what I needed iPhoto to do it couldn't.
As for Lightroom, it's a great application but it lacks many of the little touches like good geotagging support which made me choose Aperture.
But I'd download the demos and see if you need something as complex as Aperture or lightroom.
As for Lightroom, it's a great application but it lacks many of the little touches like good geotagging support which made me choose Aperture.
But I'd download the demos and see if you need something as complex as Aperture or lightroom.
I think the question Aperture vs. Lightroom in most cases boils down to a matter of taste. Personally, I can't stand Lightroom's UI. Nevertheless, I recommend that people try both. Ever since getting my new MacBook Pro with 8 GB RAM, Aperture 3 is just a breeze.
@OP
If you want to use RAW, then you have little choice but to abandon iPhoto. iPhoto can deal with RAW files, but you wouldn't be able to use the additional leeway that RAW files give you. So either stick to jpg + iPhoto or switch to RAW + Aperture.
I'm thinking of trying out Aperture too. I'm extremely pleased with Lightroom 3 (and 2) but I've seen what Aperture can do in full screen. I love how the whole image fills the screen and you have fully functional 'floating' pet pallets or tool boxes to edit whilst all the clutter is not seen.
The main reason I don't like Aperture is for it's organizing capabilities. I know that in LR each folder in the library represents a physical folder on the HDD, however I belive this is not the case in Aperture. I also like Apertures black UI, but again Aperture's Full screen edit mode is brilliant!
Like iPhoto, Aperture can manage the library or just use the hierarchy you've set up.
So doesn't aperture make the image library as a disk image (or something like that)? I was under the impression that you can only import a master folder and have to organise images internally meaning that to view folders you have to open aperture as they aren't visible in the Finder.
There is probably a lot of debate on this already but does Aperture have a better or worse rendering/colour engine than Lightroom? Can I expect Aperture to have better colour reproduction or is their a standard across all photo editing programs?
What about when you go from Aperture to Photoshop? Do the colours alter as you are using different program manufactuers, I guess that is more to do with colour space though really.
First, Aperture can make either a managed library (like iPhoto) where it does all of the organisation OR a referenced library where you do all of the organisation.
The colour rendering should be standard as long as you use the same colour profile.
And I haven't noticed any colour shift when sending photos to Photoshop from Aperture.
In Lightroom I have a file system that has an overall keyword i.e Macro, then inside that I have Flora. In Aperture, would this be group under Project then project and Albums? Is the project view like the main folder which I can use for 'Macro' ?
Fairly vague question but what downside does Aperture have over LR i.e does Aperture have as good tool as lightroom does? (The 'Develop' module in LR is excellent!)
Thank You
Aperture has two kinds of project organisation that exist at the same time. First it has a spot where all project reside side-by-side. Next there is the side bar Library view which can have nested projects.
So you could have a folder for Macro and inside that Flora.
Let me show you what I mean: http://cl.ly/1LfR
So every project (which is different from albums and folders) resides in the Library tab but is also viewable in the Projects section.
Personally the only downside I've seen to Aperture is that is is a resource hog whereas Lightroom doesn't require the same raw power.
The folder system look easier to read. In LR everything is in blocks which can take up quite a bit of space and you have to look for things more.
What is the search functionality like in Aperture? I normally assign a 'flag' or 'pick' to my best images and then I can very easily press a button and all my flagged images are displayed. There are also star ratings and color for organizing photos.
I haven't seen much in Aperture for output options. In LR you have 'Web' (don't use), 'Print' which is quite good and 'slideshow' (don't use). How do you print from Aperture? Is there a way to layout your page or is it just a typical 'Print Page' option?
You also say that Aperture is a resource hog, does this mean it's slower at all? (I will look for benchmarks if they exist)
Also, are there any tools in LR that aperture does not have?
PS Have you used Lightroom before? It makes it easier for me to explain things knowing if you have or have not.
Thank You
Sorry to the OP for hijacking your thread!
Aperture was recently updated and hardly surpassed LightRoom 2. Now that LightRoom 3 is out I strongly recommend going the Adobe route. I'm an avid Aperture user and have been for the past two years, but once I get my act together I plan on switching to LightRoom. Aperture simply does not have any compelling features that LightRoom doesn't have, except some minor geotagging and face recognition things, neither of which are really important. They're just gimmicks.
I'm leaning towards Adobe too. I've been watching some Aperture 3 videos on youtube and the best feature for me is full screen editing and the was Aperture organises folders. I also like how Aperture only has one side for all panels, whereas LR has 2 which takes up a lot of space. I guess LR has more 'clutter' than Aperture, but that has somewhat changed in LR3 with the edit panes open individually, so that you don't have 4 boxes open at any one time.
I really wish LR has the full screen editing though. Sure you can hide the side panels but it's not the same. I also don't think Aperture has good printing capabilities.I'm purchasing a 24" monitor sometime in the next 2 weeks so maybe that will change things.
The search functionality is great. You can search for everything. Aperture also has flagging as well as ratings and colour labels.
You can export the images in a million different formats. Printing is the same as other programmes, you click print and it brings up the options.
Overall it's not slow but it takes time to load everything and is uses a lot of RAM for it's general operating.
I think Lightroom actually has more tools than Aperture.
And yes, I have used Lightroom.
Really what it boils down to is how you like organising your photos. Aperture has better geotagging (as well as faces, which is cool but not that cool) whereas Lightroom is a bit more powerful editor.
TuffLuffJimmy, I actually went the opposite way for exactly the reasons you stated. I love geotagging and LR has almost no support for it outside of just being able to read the metadata. I think Aperture is better for organising photos but it doesn't have as advanced noise reduction or lens correction features.
So, here is what I would boil it down to:
Aperture > wins at organising photos
Lightroom > wins at raw editing power
Lightroom > wins at raw editing power
That's the way I'm looking at it too. I also like how aperture has one panel for all of the changes/reviewing you can make i.e medatada, library and edit but LR one on each side, making clutter.
I really like the lens correction added in LR3, it saves you from going into Photoshop.
LightRoom is better at organizing folders than Aperture. To get your own folder hierarchy in Aperture you have to jump through some awkward hoops, in LightRoom it's very straightforward.
LightRoom is better at organizing folders than Aperture. To get your own folder hierarchy in Aperture you have to jump through some awkward hoops, in LightRoom it's very straightforward.
Yes but in Aperture, the folders are much better displayed because they have their own tab (although in LR you can minimize things)
Heres a screenshot of LR 3 with the non-required panels minimized. I think that if you minimize panels, you can get a very good work space similar to Aperture 3.The second screenshot shows what the library module looks like with the ' quick develop' panel closed (on the right, which is mainly used for keywords)
Note: Image if from a youtube video, not my own.
Attachments
LightRoom is better at organizing folders than Aperture. To get your own folder hierarchy in Aperture you have to jump through some awkward hoops, in LightRoom it's very straightforward.
I haven't tried using Aperture with a referenced library, but when I set up my library when I first got Aperture it seemed easy, there was an option to make a managed library or referenced.
But really what I'm referring to is mostly how Aperture deals with metadata. I think that it gives you better ways of narrowing down photos based on metadata.
Also the fact that Aperture can have a managed library is a good option, Lightroom won't allow you to do anything but your own folder structure.
But, let's not let this spiral into a nitpicking war about which is better.
Aperture is extremely flexible: you have three choices -- and you can change your mind at any point!
(1) You let Aperture manage the library. Pictures you import get copied into your Aperture library which is just a bundle. You have full access to all of your files in the Finder: right-click the bundle and select Show Content.
(2) Aperture can deal with `referenced' images: upon import, it only links to wherever you've decided to put the images. This means, you're in charge and responsible for managing your original image files. Just like Lightroom, the Aperture library only contains metadata, versions and previews.
(3) You can mix and match the two modes, managed and referenced, on a per-photo basis. You can, for instance, reference whole projects. That's useful if you want to move finished, old projects onto an external harddrive.
There's no real answer to that: what is a `better' RAW converter depends on individual taste. Many people would claim that your camera's manufacturer's RAW converter yields the best result. Unfortunately, these don't integrate with Aperture or Lightroom. And they are usually a pain to use. That's why some people use Aperture or Lightroom to sort their pics and their picks get individual therapy in the RAW converter of choice.
No, the colors don't alter as Aperture renders the file into a tiff or psd (depending on your preferences). Hence, they are rendered exactly as they are in Aperture.
I beg to differ with the "raw editing power" where LR wins. I have both applications and there is give and take on both ends.. but the painting on curves etc. in Aperture is unsurpassed...
I have not found this feature in LR, but please if someone could point me into that direction? I don't mean gradient applying like in LR2, but actual brushing with adjustable brushes and edge detection etc.
If you don't know what I mean, I wrote about it here with samples:
http://go-dslr.com/tutorials/postprocessingtutorials/aperture-3-awesomeness-brushing-curves-upon-curves-look-mom-no-photoshop
This is the one feature keeping me on A3 (aside the organizing) because it works absolutely awesome...And being able to brush these curves or other adjustments on top of each other is just mind boggling..
My 2c, but I can be wrong..
I have not found this feature in LR, but please if someone could point me into that direction? I don't mean gradient applying like in LR2, but actual brushing with adjustable brushes and edge detection etc.
If you don't know what I mean, I wrote about it here with samples:
http://go-dslr.com/tutorials/postprocessingtutorials/aperture-3-awesomeness-brushing-curves-upon-curves-look-mom-no-photoshop
This is the one feature keeping me on A3 (aside the organizing) because it works absolutely awesome...And being able to brush these curves or other adjustments on top of each other is just mind boggling..
My 2c, but I can be wrong..
On the flipside, Aperture continues to serve me well. I've tried every version of LR and the UI makes me want to punch babies (for reference, I also hate Firefox on the Mac).
Arguments about this are a bit silly. Prospective users should use the trials of each and read the good how-to blogs.
Here you go: http://help.adobe.com/en_US/Lightroom/3.0/Using/WS76ADBBEE-5B0D-458f-AB8A-DC49C0338292.html
Check out the Targeted Adjustment tool.
All that says to me is that you like software to look like Apple designed it. You don't care about how much more extensive or how much more efficient other applications may be if they weren't made by Apple.
Again, that's just what your statement suggests to me. If you'd like to clarify I would love to know what you meant.
I don't think that's what flosseR meant; yes you can use curves in Lightroom, and yes you can use brushes, but you can't brush on a curve adjustment in Lightroom. So, I guess that's a point in favour of Aperture.
On the other hand, I seem to remember (correct me if I'm wrong about this) that you can't brush multiple adjustments in a single brush stroke in Aperture. So, for example, here's a brush setting that decreases exposure and saturation while increasing sharpness and clarity over the affected area. (And Aperture's "Detect Edges" = Lightroom's "Auto Mask.") Also, you can "stack" multiple brush adjustments in Lightroom too.
Which of these is more important to the OP? Who knows. Since both have a free trial, the best option is for the OP to download trials of each and then choose.
As many other threads serve to show, the Aperture vs Lightroom debate isn't likely to be settled here.
