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.
Lightroom vs Aperture (yeah, again)
- Thread starter swiftaw
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I bought aperture since it was the only finished product of its time at the time. I didn't know if I would like LR since the beta was a bit buggy. Once it came out I gave it a shot it is no where near as buggy as the beta of course but it still wasn't as fluid and easy to use as LR. With LR you have to learn how the app wants to work.... with Aperture you make the app work for you.
Aperture handles files better in my opinion whether you work with the files in the combined folder or through your finder. With LR you only have one choice and that is through the finder. Aperture organizes files, folders, projects, and so forth worlds better than LR and LR couldn't utilize my screen space efficiently... it wasted a lot of space making my images and thumbnails smaller. LR didn't have the ability to make books, light tables, and the loop which I use constantly, and LR doesn't allow me sync my entire photo library with the rest of my Mac apps like iWork, iLife and Final Cut Pro 2.
Image editing on both apps was negligible so I stayed with the big guy. LR was good and it great for people that don't have a machine that can run Aperture but when it came down to what both did and what advantages each had over the other Aperture just has more in the bag... it has everything LR has and more... and does it better without hindering my workflow... since my WF changes depending on my shooting environment and how I feel.
As for my own opinions... I feel that LR's UI is rigid and boxy with the filmstrip at the bottom never being able to move. In Aperture I can look at it in grid view with large icons or filmstrip or hide it entirely. Full screen with two monitors is beautiful while LR can only use one. Aperture allows me to save every single thing, change, action, caption, export option, adjustment, preference you name it as something that I can recall and easily find when I need it. LR did have a wonderful way of organizing with flagged images and labels, but I found a way to do that with keywords in Aperture.
I did think about making a switch to LR once I got my hands on both but after I used them both for a few weeks I found myself getting things done in Aperture... while in LR I found myself trying very hard to remember where and how I do things in the different modules and how to do things like Aperture.
I have my library of 10,000+ images on drive on my G5 and link both my MacBook Pro library and G5 library to that drive. When I need to sync projects I export from one computer and import into another. Now that I have my workflow down and not locked into the program... I am going to stick with Aperture for a good while. I still keep LR around to show fellow colleagues and college students the benefits, pluses and minuses of both. I leave my bias aside because I'd rather have someone buy Aperture because they like it and not because I told them to.
When I need to look at images quickly and without loading a massive amount of preview from LR or Aperture I use Bridge CS3 which is the best image browser I have ever used... better than the $$$$ PhotoMechanic. With Bridge CS3, Aperture, and Photoshop CS3 (possible NX in the near future) there was just no room and now where to stick LR.
Aperture handles files better in my opinion whether you work with the files in the combined folder or through your finder. With LR you only have one choice and that is through the finder. Aperture organizes files, folders, projects, and so forth worlds better than LR and LR couldn't utilize my screen space efficiently... it wasted a lot of space making my images and thumbnails smaller. LR didn't have the ability to make books, light tables, and the loop which I use constantly, and LR doesn't allow me sync my entire photo library with the rest of my Mac apps like iWork, iLife and Final Cut Pro 2.
Image editing on both apps was negligible so I stayed with the big guy. LR was good and it great for people that don't have a machine that can run Aperture but when it came down to what both did and what advantages each had over the other Aperture just has more in the bag... it has everything LR has and more... and does it better without hindering my workflow... since my WF changes depending on my shooting environment and how I feel.
As for my own opinions... I feel that LR's UI is rigid and boxy with the filmstrip at the bottom never being able to move. In Aperture I can look at it in grid view with large icons or filmstrip or hide it entirely. Full screen with two monitors is beautiful while LR can only use one. Aperture allows me to save every single thing, change, action, caption, export option, adjustment, preference you name it as something that I can recall and easily find when I need it. LR did have a wonderful way of organizing with flagged images and labels, but I found a way to do that with keywords in Aperture.
I did think about making a switch to LR once I got my hands on both but after I used them both for a few weeks I found myself getting things done in Aperture... while in LR I found myself trying very hard to remember where and how I do things in the different modules and how to do things like Aperture.
I have my library of 10,000+ images on drive on my G5 and link both my MacBook Pro library and G5 library to that drive. When I need to sync projects I export from one computer and import into another. Now that I have my workflow down and not locked into the program... I am going to stick with Aperture for a good while. I still keep LR around to show fellow colleagues and college students the benefits, pluses and minuses of both. I leave my bias aside because I'd rather have someone buy Aperture because they like it and not because I told them to.
When I need to look at images quickly and without loading a massive amount of preview from LR or Aperture I use Bridge CS3 which is the best image browser I have ever used... better than the $$$$ PhotoMechanic. With Bridge CS3, Aperture, and Photoshop CS3 (possible NX in the near future) there was just no room and now where to stick LR.
I use Lightroom. When I first tried Aperture, I was using a Pentax K100D, which was unsupported at the time. I sold that last night and am purchasing a Canon 1D later this week. When Lightroom 2 comes out, I'll choose between it and Aperture 2 (assuming it's available by then). I have a feeling LR will to continue to be faster and fit more seamlessly with the rest of my workflow than Aperture.
Tried both, use Aperture, largely for the same reasons as other Aperture-lovers: more freeform interface, better stacks, and in particular multi-monitor support and a better multiple computer workflow (since I'm often handling images on both laptop and desktop). There are, of course, things LR does better (love the B&W conversion and the indexing by lens, camera, etc.).
I can't believe the latest update didn't provide even rudimentary multi-monitor support. Would like to hear what LR's new multi-computer workflow options are like and how people find them....
I can't believe the latest update didn't provide even rudimentary multi-monitor support. Would like to hear what LR's new multi-computer workflow options are like and how people find them....
When I did use LR between my desktop and laptop it worked much the same way I have it setup now. The problem that I found was in exporting projects and syncing the machines together so the libraries could be the same. I just couldn't find out how to export entire projects/collections and import them back into another computer and keep the metadata and other info along the way.
Have you had a look at the Lightroom 1.1 release? They have a new catalogue feature that might make that easier for you.
I'm an Aperture guy, I love the app, it has the best UI feel to it and has made an impact similar to iTunes (well, with a lot more options). It gets out of my way if I want to, two, three keystrokes and I have the interface I want (to save screen estate for instance). I could never get used to Lightroom's different modes and the way they limit you. Plus, the UI isn't as `pretty' (which is also subjective).
It has some drawbacks, in particular when editing books (no copying and pasting between non-opposing pages, etc.). But other than that, that's why I like Apple
It has some drawbacks, in particular when editing books (no copying and pasting between non-opposing pages, etc.). But other than that, that's why I like Apple
I have recently switched to Aperture from Lightroom.
Two things Aperture does sinificantly better (IMO) are actual photo storage management, and "lights out" viewing and editing. I like to have all my raw files stored in a central location (Aperture library), and I like not caring about what the software does with the files. When I was using Lightroom, my Pictures folder was a mess - and I had to do my backups to the external drive with Chronosync. Not anymore. Aperture's Vault feature is amazing.
With version 1.5 you can also store files in your own folders, just like with Lightroom... I just don't know why would you want to.
I like the Aperture raw converter resulst to better than Lightroom's (I use an Oly E1).
The thing that Aperture does dramatically worse than Lightroom is dust patching. By default the tool just blurs the area (not very helpful). You can switch the tool into Lightroom-like "stamp" mode. However, unlike Lightroom's implementation, the tool does not always find a good place to stamp from. If your dust spack is on the edge of the photo, the "rubber stamp" may be placed outside the frame. What is worse, patching is excruciatingly slow. If you patch 10-15 spots on an image, the Loupe tool becomdes almost unusable due to lag.
Two things Aperture does sinificantly better (IMO) are actual photo storage management, and "lights out" viewing and editing. I like to have all my raw files stored in a central location (Aperture library), and I like not caring about what the software does with the files. When I was using Lightroom, my Pictures folder was a mess - and I had to do my backups to the external drive with Chronosync. Not anymore. Aperture's Vault feature is amazing.
With version 1.5 you can also store files in your own folders, just like with Lightroom... I just don't know why would you want to.
I like the Aperture raw converter resulst to better than Lightroom's (I use an Oly E1).
The thing that Aperture does dramatically worse than Lightroom is dust patching. By default the tool just blurs the area (not very helpful). You can switch the tool into Lightroom-like "stamp" mode. However, unlike Lightroom's implementation, the tool does not always find a good place to stamp from. If your dust spack is on the edge of the photo, the "rubber stamp" may be placed outside the frame. What is worse, patching is excruciatingly slow. If you patch 10-15 spots on an image, the Loupe tool becomdes almost unusable due to lag.
I use referenced file because I have to sync my library with two computers. Up until a LR update you couldn't do that easily. I have also found that having less files in your Aperture library give you better performance.
p.s. If you have to patch 10-15 spots on a photo you really should look into cleaning your sensor and/or lenses.
Out of curiosity, how did you manage migration of your library? I'm about to do the same... partly for speed, partly because I really like the develop module, and partly because I may switch back to windows *gasp* At least until Apple releases a mid range monitorless mac.
It's pretty straight forward if you already have your pictures in a folder structure. If they're in the Aperture library it's harder because you need to export everything and then organise it, then import into Lightroom.
Of course you'll lose your edits and your tags(although I believe there's a way to save them) but the rest should be pretty straight-forward.
I went against my better judgment and let Aperture handle it all. I used to be picky as hell about that too... I was hoping to hear you had some magic script, heh.
RAW files I'm not too worried about, sidecar works fine for keywords and IPTC info. JPEGs do not, so I'm in a bind there. I thought aperture wrote the keywords to the IPTC data field. I have to export the jpegs for that to happen I think.
And of course edits.. I'm contemplating making a duplicate of the image edited... but this will take a loooong time to shift over, and I need to do it w/in a week (library is fairly small.. only ~5k images).