iPhoto vs Aperture

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by sk3pt1c, Sep 4, 2007.

  1. sk3pt1c macrumors 6502a

    sk3pt1c

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2005
    Location:
    a simulacrum
    #1
    I know that Aperture is a resource and memory hog, but i'd like to know if there are enough advantages it has over the new iPhoto to make me actually use it...
    i mean, is there a point having my whole library in Aperture?
    i gather there are a few more things you can do with Aperture, but if i need more editing on any photos, i can just fire up Fireworks or Photoshop...
    persuasion to keep Aperture needed...
    :)
     
  2. grovertdog macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    #2
    Aperture's utility is focused directly at workflow, with professionals in mind. As you indicated, the resource cost of the program (particularly if you allow the default settings for previews, which slows things down bigtime), coupled with its relatively limited editing functionality make it less than satisfactory as a PS competitor (which it certainly isn't intended to be)...

    Much as I would like to help you love Aperture, if you don't have the workflow/volume or presentation requirements that Aperture as a tool is designed for, you'll likely be quite happy (and financially better off) using iPhoto for organization and the editing software of your choice (PS, Gimp, Fireworks, Elements, whatever...).
     
  3. redrabbit macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2006
    #3
    I'm tempted to say that if you're not sure whether the choice is between a program like aperture or iphoto, then you should be safe sticking with iphoto. If there are some adjustments you cant do in iphoto that you absolutley must do, check out GIMP, it's free.
     
  4. valiar macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #4
    If you want a RAW processing program with nice workflow, and actually want to pay for it, do yourself a favor and get Lightroom.

    Unlike Aperture, it Just Works (TM). It is not slow and clunky, it does not use 200% of yur CPU when indexing images or patching dust spots, and it sports the best RAW processor on the market. Oh, and adustments you can make to your files are simply unmatched.

    Now, if you don't shoot RAW files, you don't need to get Aperture or Lightroom - iPhoto will suffice, and will likely be better for that purpose.
     
  5. Grimace macrumors 68040

    Grimace

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2003
    Location:
    with Hamburglar.
    #5
    Aperture is for extreme fine tuning of photos. iPhoto does a good job with the basics (red eye, brightness, etc.) If you have 10s of thousands of photos, Aperture is better at organizing them.
     
  6. ChrisA macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    Location:
    Redondo Beach, California
    #6
    Your sig line reads "Powerbook G4". If that is what you have you don't want Aperture. You need a lot more "horse power".

    How many images to you shoot per week? If it's just a few then you don't really need on of these "work flow" programs but if you shot 500 RAW format images at some event and then need to get results done same or next day then yes. buy the Mac Pro and put Aperture on it.

    You can download and use Aperture free for 30 days. try it. Then if you like it pay for it. If you are shooting enough to need Aperture $299 is nothing when you think of "cost per image" it's only 1/10th the price of printer ink.

    Lightroom has a free 30 day download trial too. Try them both. LR has a defined workflow that you may or may not like. Aperture is more "freeform"
     
  7. GoCubsGo macrumors Nehalem

    GoCubsGo

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2005
    #7
    Bull. I run a PB G4 1.67 with the 128 vid card 2 gb ram and Aperture runs just fine. Sorry, but it's a fact.
     
  8. valiar macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #8
    I doubt it.
    Well, I don't doubt it starts up...
    But I want you to try and patch some dust spots, do some noise reduction and WB correction etc, and try to use it THEN.

    :)

    I know for sure that Aperture was all but unusable for me on a 2.4GHz SR MBP with 4GB RAM. It was faster to just use Photoshop CS and Bridge... And that tells you something.
     
  9. redrabbit macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2006
    #9
    of course, if you say its a fact, its a fact.

    Bull. I had Aperture with a library of 1000 RAWs with a MBP with 1 gig of ram and it was unusable. You must never use the straighten tool, either. Sorry, but it's a fact.
     
  10. 66217 Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2006
    #10
    I don't have yet a library with 1000 RAWs, but I already have almost 200-300 RAW photos and I can run Aperture in my MacBook with 2GB of RAM just fine.

    It is not super fast, but it works in an acceptable speed.
     
  11. sk3pt1c thread starter macrumors 6502a

    sk3pt1c

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2005
    Location:
    a simulacrum
    #11
    i already have Aperture as well as Fireworks and Photoshop CS3...
    i don't really take RAW pics (well, not yet anyway), but when i start
    i will most definitely get a Mac Pro because i will also be doing heavy duty
    video editing as well...
    so i guess i'll stick with iPhoto and FW-PS for now and keep Aperture for later use...
    thanks to everyone for the valuable advice :)

    ps. can you give me an example of a workflow in Aperture?
     

Share This Page