Just bought Aperture 2, should I still use iPhoto?

nickane

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Feb 24, 2005
345
0
I have a ton of RAW files from my wedding and so I bought Aperture 2 off ebay so that I could edit them. I am wondering if it is worth migrating my iPhoto library over to aperture, or only use aperture for RAW files and then maybe output them to iPhoto. It is hard to know what to make of the dynamic between the two apps, since Aperture doesn't so obviously replace iPhoto, the way FCP does iMovie or Logic does Garageband etc.

Since buying Aperture 2, I've learnt that the new Aperture makes it a lot easier to migrate from one to the other, but Aperture 2 was a third of the price of Aperture 3 on ebay, so I couldn't justify the extra expense. If I can upgrade to 4 from 2, I may do that when it comes out.

I basically wanna know, workflow-wise, whether:

a) you still use iPhoto for non-RAW files?
b) you output files from Aperture into iPhoto once processed?
c) if your answer to either of the above two questions has changed with the advent of Aperture 3?

I don't sync my iPhoto albums with flickr or facebook but I do use facetagging within iPhoto and I am a fan of geotagging, if that makes any difference.

Many thanks.
 

flosseR

macrumors 6502a
Jan 1, 2009
746
0
the cold dark north
I have a ton of RAW files from my wedding and so I bought Aperture 2 off ebay so that I could edit them. I am wondering if it is worth migrating my iPhoto library over to aperture, or only use aperture for RAW files and then maybe output them to iPhoto. It is hard to know what to make of the dynamic between the two apps, since Aperture doesn't so obviously replace iPhoto, the way FCP does iMovie or Logic does Garageband etc.

Since buying Aperture 2, I've learnt that the new Aperture makes it a lot easier to migrate from one to the other, but Aperture 2 was a third of the price of Aperture 3 on ebay, so I couldn't justify the extra expense. If I can upgrade to 4 from 2, I may do that when it comes out.

I basically wanna know, workflow-wise, whether:

a) you still use iPhoto for non-RAW files?
b) you output files from Aperture into iPhoto once processed?
c) if your answer to either of the above two questions has changed with the advent of Aperture 3?

I don't sync my iPhoto albums with flickr or facebook but I do use facetagging within iPhoto and I am a fan of geotagging, if that makes any difference.

Many thanks.
a) NO
b) definitely NO.

With Aperture 3 even less. There are some really awesome features under the hood in A3 and I use it nowadays for everything, excluding photoshopping :)

A2 does not support faceing i think nor does it support GPS mapping so you might want to stick with iphoto there.. for everything else.. Aperture.. hands down..
 

nickane

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Feb 24, 2005
345
0
Many thanks. I guess I'll try and see what it offers for jpgs and decide whether or not to use it for my iPhone photos before I upgrade.
 

CrackedButter

macrumors 68040
Jan 15, 2003
3,221
0
51st State of America
I still use iPhoto even though I have Aperture3. I make jpeg version and use iPhoto manage a separate library where I upload everything to mobileme. I don't like the way Aperture handles files and its nice to have the separation because I can delete whatever I want when I want from the iPhoto library.
 

Similar threads

Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.