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

Aperture vs. iPhoto

Too funny these Ap vs Lr discussions are. Both programs do the same thing and are in direct competition with each other. Each gets better than the other with each release and update, adding new features etc to try and better the other and so forth and so forth....

Download BOTH and play with BOTH and decide from there.....I've used BOTH and prefer Aperture PLUS I don't think the extra $100 is worth it for Lr but BOTH programs are great.

To answer your question, if you want more power for editing and enjoy post processing your images then definitely get either Ap or Lr over iPhoto. If you just use the auto enhance features of editing programs then you'll be fine with iPhoto.......
 
TuffLuffJimmy said:
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.
Click to expand...
The UI is probably the biggest factor in whether a software is usable to someone or not. You cannot be efficient if you don't like the paradigm of the interface as it frequently gets in your way, it's that simple.

It has nothing to do with the fact that Apple makes Aperture and Adobe makes Lightroom. People should try both before making a decision. I don't mind of people give reasons why they prefer Aperture over Lightroom or vice versa (and usually they have good reasons to stick with one or the other), but to tell others to discount whatever they're not using is myopic.
 
Maybe the OP should join in these discussions (since that's not me!)

I'm still leaning towards LR because it seems more powerful to me, but some of the features mentioned in this discussions like brushes are not the reasoning behind my choice as I don't use them that often. The thing I like A LOT in LR3 if the lens distortion panel. Although I will need to create my own profile, it's good for pulling things back into perspective (buildings if you pointed the camera towards the sky to capture the whole building for example) and things like barrel distortion. I study Architecture so I take quite a few photos of buildings and having this tool integrated in LR3 eliminates the step of opening Photoshop to achieve the same effect.

I should receive my Mac back tomorrow, at which point I will try LR3 (as I'm on LR2) and Aperture 3. I will take the same photo and see what can be done in each program and look at how the differencing interfaces help out with that.

NoNameBrand: I know how you feel; having applications to look as fluent and as nice as Apple designs them is a very good thing. LR seems a little cluttered and bulky but I know that the interface doesn't always result in a better photo (to a degree, and I know where OreoCookie is coming from too)

Thanks for all of your opinions, I will make my decision soon and let you know!
 
OreoCookie said:
The UI is probably the biggest factor in whether a software is usable to someone or not. You cannot be efficient if you don't like the paradigm of the interface as it frequently gets in your way, it's that simple.

It has nothing to do with the fact that Apple makes Aperture and Adobe makes Lightroom. People should try both before making a decision. I don't mind of people give reasons why they prefer Aperture over Lightroom or vice versa (and usually they have good reasons to stick with one or the other), but to tell others to discount whatever they're not using is myopic.
Click to expand...

How is Safari any easier to use than FireFox? That piece of your post was never explained.
 
I've just watched the print video on apple.com. The print is fairly goo IMO. It looks very similar to what LR2 offers. One of the nice things in Aperture Print is that if you know your printer tends to print darker than what's on screen, you can increase the brightness in print, but it will not affect what it looks like in Library. This is particularly good because you don't have to switch modules to change the brightness back. Again, the interface of print looks a lot simpler and just as effective, also a lot less cluttered.


Just something I've found out without using Aperture yet.

Here's a good review too. It's a trustworthy magazine that I used to read a lot. Again, Aperture hase some really nice fieature but processing power wins in LR, expecially in sharpening as shown in page 2.http://www.photoradar.com/reviews/buying-guides/lightroom-3-vs-aperture-3?page=0%2C0

PS: Do we know what the next release of Aperture would come out?
 
I've tried Aperture and I can now make my decision. I will be staying with Adobe 100% on this. Whilst Aperture has some nice features, it doesn't compare to Lightroom IMO.
 
To answer the OP's question and NOT go into an aperture vs. LR discussion:

iphoto is good especially with the new updates this year allowing a LOT of edits on raw photos... but aperture is designed to handle LARGE libraries and files which iphoto definitely can't do.

Example:
In a typical shoot I will take about 300 photos ALL in RAW. That's about 6GB. Now, I have a laptop with a 2TB photo external drive to hold all those freakin' photos (I have >20K). Because iphoto can't manage files on an external HD I need aperture. But there's more... Everytime I make an edit (crop, exposure, white balance) the amount of space is basically the same in aperture whereas in iphoto every different version is a new huge file. This becomes important when I want to make different crops of my favorite photos or play around with different effects and the like. You get the idea? Aperture is DESIGNED for large files and large libraries (as is lightroom) whereas iphoto is not.

If you shoot RAW I strongly suggest aperture or lightroom to handle your photo load. Either way, you can always upgrade later on though so don't stress too much about it.
 
NStocks said:
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.
Click to expand...

nah, when you import, just set the import location of your choosing. for example, i go finder/user/pictures then i have a few folders: events, vacations, locations, random.

so, when i hit import, i select one of those, and then hit create new folder and name it whatever i name the project. very easy to manage. plus, if you even happen to move the files in finder, aperture follows them (as in it wont say "lost file" when you go to use that shot).
 
whoseawhat said:
nah, when you import, just set the import location of your choosing. for example, i go finder/user/pictures then i have a few folders: events, vacations, locations, random.

so, when i hit import, i select one of those, and then hit create new folder and name it whatever i name the project. very easy to manage. plus, if you even happen to move the files in finder, aperture follows them (as in it wont say "lost file" when you go to use that shot).
Click to expand...

This is only for managed files right? Because how can it follow files that are on an external hard drive if you move a file from it when aperture isn't running?
 
Oh Wow, you guys were so helpful

So I am going back to the very first post (Aperture vs Iphoto). You guys have absolutely convinced me that I don't even need Aperture to manage my family photos. You saved me at a minimum $80. I'll just keep updating iPhoto. Thx
 
I used iPhoto for years, but I came disappointed when my library got very large, I have since upgraded to Aperture 3, it was a no brainer at $79.99, and LR3 cost a lot lot more.

As my skills with the camera improved, I find the controls and plugins on Aperture more useful now. But if I was not doing this, iPhoto is a great program.
 
munkees said:
I used iPhoto for years, but I came disappointed when my library got very large, I have since upgraded to Aperture 3, it was a no brainer at $79.99, and LR3 cost a lot lot more.
Click to expand...

How does Aperture give you a better experience when handling a large library? Do you see any improved performance or do you only refer to better organization tools?


I'm currently debating the switch myself...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back