Lightroom Vs. Aperture

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by HomeingPigeon, Apr 28, 2008.

  1. HomeingPigeon macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2007
    #1
    I have just downloaded the lightroom beta. I like the editing features. I am used to iphoto. Does Aperture 2.0 have basically all the same features that the lightroom beta has? What are the differences between the two programs? I am pretty sure that a company wouldn't release the same program with 2 different names. What are the differences and what are the similarities? I am looking at the pros and cons of both programs and might soon get one program or the other.
     
  2. Techguy172 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Location:
    Ontario Canada
    #2
    Adobe make Lightroom and Apple Makes Aperture, Let's clear that up first Now I would recommend trying out both apple provides a trial on there site so get both and decide for yourself.
     
  3. ChrisA macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    Location:
    Redondo Beach, California
    #3
    Quite a few threads with this title.

    What do you mean "a company wouldn't release the same program with 2 different names." Lightroom is from Adobe and Aperture is from Apple.

    The biggest difference between the two is that Aperture uses the idea of "smart albums" just like iPhoto and iTunes do. Aperture is also tightly intgrated with iLife and iPhoto.
     
  4. Grimace macrumors 68040

    Grimace

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2003
    Location:
    with Hamburglar.
    #4
    You just voted in this recent thread that compares the two with iPhoto in the comments section. Also, both LR and Aperture have free demos to download.
     
  5. bking1000 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2007
    #5
    Ahhhhhh! Not another "what's the diff between Ap and LR thread"??!!?!? :eek:

    Seriously, use the search feature and review the existing threads. In short, though, the primary difference is not in tools, but how they are laid out and the workflow. So, you really have to try both to figure out which you like best. One might "fit" one person but not another. (btw -- I use iPhoto and Photoshop Elements, so there's another workflow to consider. Some others use Bridge)

    My opinion, if you don't have time (and are more disciplined than me :D ) and you don't want to do a full-blown eval of both, then just go forward with one. You'll never know what you are missing in the other.

    One note, though -- retail price on Aperture is $100 less than LR. With edu discounts they are about the same. If you ever wanted to move to Windoze land, only LR is on Windoze. Ap is strictly OSx.
     
  6. valdore macrumors 65816

    valdore

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2007
    Location:
    Kansas City, Missouri. USA
    #6
    I think I like Lightroom better, as it's not a total resource hog like Aperture is. I have an 8 core Mac Pro with 8 gigs RAM, and Aperture still runs like crap.
     
  7. bking1000 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2007
    #7
    Just curious -- Ap 2.0? I tried both Ap 1.5 and 2.0, and 1.5 was worthless, but 2.0 moved pretty nice. I just stuck w/iPhoto because I like the cleaner interface.
     
  8. valdore macrumors 65816

    valdore

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2007
    Location:
    Kansas City, Missouri. USA
    #8
    Ah... I have 1.5. Good to hear it has improved with 2.0.
     
  9. Zeiss macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2006
    Location:
    Australia
    #9
    sure there are lots of similarities between both, but Aperture just runs badly [very badly] - even the 2.1 update is still rubbish on big machines with big video and ram. I have both [work in academic land] and think LR is a much more usable app. The only thing Aperture does better is printing, especially in the book area, where you can design your own pages - LR is limited in this area.

    If you want someone to tell you which one to buy, go with LR.
     
  10. bridgerboy macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2007
    #10
    geotagging

    I have used both programs, although neither one extensively. I am currently using Aperture to create a photobook and I've used Lightroom for creating/editing albums. One feature that I don't think Aperture has is geotagging capabilities while I believe that Lightroom does. Not sure if this is important to you but I think it is a rather cool feature.
    If I'm wrong, please kindly point me in the right direction to clear this up as I myself have done quite a bit of research trying to find the differences and haven't found a mention of the geotagging capability...
     
  11. OreoCookie macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2001
    Location:
    Sendai, Japan
    #11
    Aperture 1.5 was very usable on my ProBook (2 GHz, 2 GB RAM), although Aperture 2.0 and 2.1 are a significant improvement in terms of speed, I dare call them fast even. Aperture's interface has matured quite a bit with this upgrade. Pictures are exported in the background now and you can continue your work, the controls are responsive and nice on my machine. Aperture 2 gives me the feeling that it's really a work flow.

    I tried Lightroom 1 and 2 Beta, their interface doesn't compute with me ;)
    (I find it ugly and bloated, but that's obviously a matter of taste.)

    Look up the usual thread, but whether someone prefers Aperture or Lightroom is in large part determined by the way they work. If you're not working in a linear manner (import > sort > correct/develop, etc.), then you will likely prefer Aperture. Lightroom locks you in its workflow and if you happen to agree with it (or you want to go along), then it's (apparently) working great for people. If you don't, then it constantly gets in your way.

    There are very few features that distinguish one from the other. Aperture 2.1 has introduced Dodge & Burn, although it seems to me, it's a bit of an example for people who develop plugins. It works well, but (obviously) cannot compete with Photoshop or a real photo editor. Lightroom will introduce similar tools with version 2.0 which is currently in beta). The advantage of Lightroom 2's tools is that Dodge & Burn is non-destructive whereas Aperture renders the raw file into a tiff and applies Dodge & Burn to it.

    Aperture 2 allows companies to make plugins and there are many in the works (e. g. noise ninja and various filters). I'm sure whatever Apple hasn't supplied us with will be added via some plugin. AFAIK Lightroom does not offer a plugin architecture.

    People also frequently complain about the omission of curves in Aperture. I'd like to have them, but they're not an `I can't live without it' feature. Apple offers various sliders with which you can achieve similar effects.

    Aperture beats Lightroom with books. The book printing service (despite its recent server hickups) delivers astonishing quality. Brought tears to my grandmother's eyes, literally, and I've seen her cry only once before. I've made a wedding album and it's just amazing. Plus, even though I've discovered some bugs, 3 of them have been fixed in the 2.1 update! The improvements in the book editor were one of the strongest reasons for me to upgrade.

    Aperture can also handle transfer of pictures to flickr via plugins, for instance. I'm not sure whether this is possible with Lightroom.

    It seems that `smart albums' will be added in Lightroom 2, Aperture has had them from the beginning.
     
  12. jonswan macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2007
    #12
    I suggest downloading both - give one a try for a few weeks, then the other, but I'd do some delving = i.e. watch the video tutorials to see what they can both do. I chose LR, but it could've gone the other way.

    LR tutorials:

    http://www.whibalhost.com/_Tutorials/Photoshop_LR/01/

    Aperture tutorials - see the Apple website.

    Both make you want to develop as a photographer, which is what I was looking for...
     

Share This Page