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

More Aperture vs. Lightroom

acearchie

acearchie

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Jan 15, 2006
3,264
104
I am extremely lucky and getting a new Macbook Pro soon and I wanted some help on maybe switching over to lightroom?

I currently use Aperture on my computer at home and it is good but the integration with photoshop is not that great and since using camera raw I would like to move more towards using photoshop to tweak photo's.

Basically since I have the opportunity to start from scratch I was wondering whether anyone could help me with my predicament?

I enjoy Apertures integrated apple features (faces, places, etc) and I'm familiar to the interface but something I want some more raw photoshop style power!

Would lightroom be a good swap? What are the main real world differences?

I am mainly using RAWs from Nikon at the moment and Scanned TIFF's from my 35mm and 120 film cameras.

Thanks
 
the "raw " photoshop style power is the same in both camps.. minor differences swaying here or there but at the core they are NOT photoshop replacements. They are photo organizers and photo retouchers, nothing more.

Which integration with Photoshop are you referring to? I have photoshop as an external editor which you also need to put into Lightroom AFAIK.

I mean it's up to you but I don't see the real life benefit of switching and starting from scratch with something you are not familiar with...

They do the same thing, some aspects one does better than the other but overall they are pretty equal (no flamewars please, its just the way it is).
 
My original workflow was to import using Bridge to a directory structure of RAW files organized by shoot, process with Photoshop and export as JPEGs into another directory structure organized by locations. I then imported into Aperture for management.

But I've found Aperture 3 such an improvement that I now use it instead of Photoshop, only going through Photoshop in extreme cases. I also use the Photomatix HDR plug-in for Aperture.

I use referenced mode only. I never want to rule out using other tools.
 
The only way to answer this question is to download the Lightroom trial and try it yourself. A lot of people make their decision on whether or not they like/disklike the workflow of Aperture or Lightroom. I happen to strongly dislike Lightroom's way of doing things, the user interface goes against my grain. But other people get along great and the image manipulation options are very good.

BTW, if you want optimal Photoshop integration with Lightroom, make sure that you use the same version of the RAW converter, i. e. if you're using some old version of Photoshop, switching to Lightroom will not give you better PS integration.
 
I wanted to like Aperture being the reluctant Apple fanboy that I am, but it was too slow in processing for me (and I'm on a brand new top of the line MBP). Lightroom is the industry standard and performs really well. No turning back for me.
 
Lightroom isn't much more powerful than Aperture at editing. download the trial and see how it is for yourself.

Lightroom is not the "industry standard". different markets use different software...Capture One is aimed towards studio work, and I get the impression that newspapers and such prefer Photo Mechanic as an organizer and PS as an editor.
 
toxic said:
Lightroom is not the "industry standard". different markets use different software...Capture One is aimed towards studio work, and I get the impression that newspapers and such prefer Photo Mechanic as an organizer and PS as an editor.
Click to expand...

This made me chuckle as we have two daily newspapers in Vancouver, and one of them probably uses LR or Aperture while the other relies almost exclusively on Photoshop. You can imagine which one is the reputable news source vs. the tabloid :D :p
 
acearchie said:
I am extremely lucky and getting a new Macbook Pro soon and I wanted some help on maybe switching over to lightroom?

I currently use Aperture on my computer at home and it is good but the integration with photoshop is not that great and since using camera raw I would like to move more towards using photoshop to tweak photo's.

Basically since I have the opportunity to start from scratch I was wondering whether anyone could help me with my predicament?

I enjoy Apertures integrated apple features (faces, places, etc) and I'm familiar to the interface but something I want some more raw photoshop style power!

Would lightroom be a good swap? What are the main real world differences?

I am mainly using RAWs from Nikon at the moment and Scanned TIFF's from my 35mm and 120 film cameras.

Thanks
Click to expand...

I'm a little confused at your post. No offense (I mean none seriously) but it doesn't sound like you quite know what Aperture and Lightroom are.

Lightroom and Aperture are programs for a raw processing workflow. It lets you easily take RAW files, adjust the whitebalance, color, do simple retouching, adjust contrast, batch process, etc all in a very streamlined workflow which can be automated (useful if you are shooting in a studio setting). Before these programs, RAW processing was a pain and had to be done with manufacturer provided software, or via a plugin in Photoshop which was not that great.

Photoshop is more for digital manipulation. Replacing backgrounds, skin smoothing, etc.

Aperture and Lightroom do the exact same thing. I was a Lightroom user for the longest time and recently switched to Aperture as I prefer the way it is set up. You can go with either one, its all which one you like best, both will do everything the other one will, perhaps just in a different way. In both programs, you can take a photo and import it directly into photoshop with the click of a button and edit it, then transfer it back to the raw workflow program for archiving and cataloging so neither will have "better" integration with photoshop, as they both will open up photoshop for you and put your image into it.

Basically what I am saying is when you shoot, process your raws in Aperture or Lightroom, whichever you like better its all personal preference here, and then do major touch ups in Photoshop.

Also someone above posted that "Lightroom is the industry standard". No its not. Studios most of the time have their own workflow which usually involves Lightroom, Aperture, or Capture One (there are others). The most important thing to do is go with the workflow YOU are most comfortable with. If you don't like your tools, you wont use them. Try Lightroom and see which one you like best.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for all the tips guys. Looks like a trial will have to be downloaded to figure it out completely!

chrono1081 said:
I'm a little confused at your post. No offense (I mean none seriously) but it doesn't sound like you quite know what Aperture and Lightroom are.
Click to expand...

I do, it's just I wanted some opinion on how to correct my workflow as I will now be using more and more photoshop. I just assumed that since Lightroom was Adobe that it would have a smother integration with Photoshop.

Photoshop is more for digital manipulation. Replacing backgrounds, skin smoothing, etc.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but I find Camera RAW to be incredibly powerful and it seems to be better than the adjustments made in Aperture.

Aperture and Lightroom do the exact same thing.
Click to expand...

Again agreed but there are differences between the two and I was hoping that people that had pondered what I am currently could perhaps tell me the pros and cons and perhaps real world experiences. For instance doing a certain task is faster in lightroom and much harder in aperture even though they can both can do it.
 
acearchie said:
Agreed, but I find Camera RAW to be incredibly powerful and it seems to be better than the adjustments made in Aperture.
Click to expand...

If you feel this way, then might I suggest that Lightroom 3 will be better suited to you than Aperture?

Camera RAW = Lightroom 3 develop module (they will give you identical results)
 
I process RAW from a Canon 60D on Lightroom on a 3-year-old white Macbook with some delay, but overall usable. Aperture was completely not usable. While there are different ways Lightroom is slow (switching Modules) and this is not lost upon me, the responsiveness of the interface was very important to me and Lightroom delivered vs. Aperture.
 
acearchie said:
I do, it's just I wanted some opinion on how to correct my workflow as I will now be using more and more photoshop. I just assumed that since Lightroom was Adobe that it would have a smother integration with Photoshop.
Click to expand...
There are all sorts of workflows that work for different people. There are people, for instance, who prefer the camera manufacturer's RAW converter instead of Adobe's or Apple's, but these don't really have features to organize photos. So they'd use Aperture/Lightroom for organizing photos and doing rough edits. Then, they use the RAW converter of choice for editing their picks. Some people here on this forum primarily use Lightroom for everything and Aperture to create books.

So in your case, if you're happy with Aperture's organizational features, you could use Photoshop in tandem with Aperture.
 
Edge100 said:
Camera RAW = Lightroom 3 develop module (they will give you identical results)
Click to expand...
AFAIK you need to have the latest version of Photoshop so that the two versions of Adobe's RAW converter match.
esaleris said:
I process RAW from a Canon 60D on Lightroom on a 3-year-old white Macbook with some delay, but overall usable. Aperture was completely not usable. While there are different ways Lightroom is slow (switching Modules) and this is not lost upon me, the responsiveness of the interface was very important to me and Lightroom delivered vs. Aperture.
Click to expand...
That's mostly a question of RAM: since upgrading to a Core i5 MacBook Pro with 8 GB (up from a 2.33 GHz MacBook Pro with 2 GB), Aperture flies. Also, Aperture uses the GPU to render photos.

When I tried Lightroom 3, I didn't find it faster, it was faster and slower in different areas compared to Aperture. To be honest, I tried Lightroom on my old machine and I expect it to be much, much faster on my new machine.
 
I use LR, not Aperture, so I can't compare the two..... However, I upgraded to LR v3 specifically for the sharpening/noise reduction improvement over LR v2. In your side by side testing make sure you compare as many features as possible, side by side. You may find one application has a feature that you can't do without.

Incidentally, also check out Capture One. They also have a trial version.

Check out Luminous Landscape - - they've done some reviews on LR and C1.

There are 3 good packages available because they each have their strengths. Unfortunately, there is no easy way make the decision on which to use. :)
 
acearchie said:
I do, it's just I wanted some opinion on how to correct my workflow as I will now be using more and more photoshop. I just assumed that since Lightroom was Adobe that it would have a smother integration with Photoshop.
Click to expand...

No they are both the same. Each one can open up pics in photoshop by one click. I actually think Aperture does this faster than Lightroom but its by like a split second.



Agreed, but I find Camera RAW to be incredibly powerful and it seems to be better than the adjustments made in Aperture.
Click to expand...

Aperture actually more features than Camera RAW but they are slightly different in how the adjustments are applied. You can get the same end result with either Aperture or LR but if you like Camera RAW, Lightroom is very very close to it. I'd say download LR and see if you like it.



Again agreed but there are differences between the two and I was hoping that people that had pondered what I am currently could perhaps tell me the pros and cons and perhaps real world experiences. For instance doing a certain task is faster in lightroom and much harder in aperture even though they can both can do it.
Click to expand...

Its really up to personal preference. One will do something faster than the other in certain areas but its really negligible for the most part. Really though forget about the speed aspects and make sure you really like the workflow of a certain program before buying it. If you don't like the workflow you probably will not end up using the program.
 
chrono1081 said:
Really though forget about the speed aspects and make sure you really like the workflow of a certain program before buying it. If you don't like the workflow you probably will not end up using the program.
Click to expand...

This.

I could never get my head around Aperture's workflow; LR just made more sense to me. The fact that it's faster on equivalent hardware is just a bonus for me.
 
Edge100 said:
Not the point, with respect to the OP, who said he liked Camera RAW (ergo he may prefer LR).
Click to expand...
I think it is a point if the OP doesn't just have to buy Lightroom, but a new version of Photoshop as well -- those are added costs. Since Photoshop integration is one of the main reasons he wants to upgrade, it's just something to keep in mind before buying.
Edge100 said:
I could never get my head around Aperture's workflow; LR just made more sense to me.
Click to expand...
Couldn't agree more: the most important factor is personal preference of the workflow.
 
acearchie said:
I am extremely lucky and getting a new Macbook Pro soon and I wanted some help on maybe switching over to lightroom?

I currently use Aperture on my computer at home and it is good but the integration with photoshop is not that great and since using camera raw I would like to move more towards using photoshop to tweak photo's.

Basically since I have the opportunity to start from scratch I was wondering whether anyone could help me with my predicament?

I enjoy Apertures integrated apple features (faces, places, etc) and I'm familiar to the interface but something I want some more raw photoshop style power!

Would lightroom be a good swap? What are the main real world differences?

I am mainly using RAWs from Nikon at the moment and Scanned TIFF's from my 35mm and 120 film cameras.

Thanks
Click to expand...


I've been an Aperture user since version 1.0, and always loved the application despite its bugginess, sometimes unpredictable user interface behavior and even its relative slowness when you compare it to the competition.

However, Lightroom would never be an alternative for me - I just don't like its user interface.

But since I have entered a phase where I do NOT want to be tied to the Apple platform anymore, and where I begin to believe that Aperture has lost its focus and is turning into something like "iPhoto for RAWs", I have been looking for Aperture alternatives.

And I have found one that even knows a few tricks - like lens correction - that Aperture cannot do out of the box and this program even is the fastest that I have seen: Bibble Pro.

Another big plus that Bibble Pro has is its platform independence: With the same license, you can run it on Mac OS X, Windows AND LINUX!

I have tested it on 64-Bit Windows and 64-Bit Ubuntu 10.10, and Bibble performs great on both and is ultra fast.

I still like Aperture's library functions and its support for two screens better, but for everything else, Bibble appears to be an awesome alternative. You should give it a shot.
 
Winni said:
And I have found one that even knows a few tricks - like lens correction - that Aperture cannot do out of the box and this program even is the fastest that I have seen: Bibble Pro.

Another big plus that Bibble Pro has is its platform independence: With the same license, you can run it on Mac OS X, Windows AND LINUX!

I have tested it on 64-Bit Windows and 64-Bit Ubuntu 10.10, and Bibble performs great on both and is ultra fast.

I still like Aperture's library functions and its support for two screens better, but for everything else, Bibble appears to be an awesome alternative. You should give it a shot.
Click to expand...

To that end:

http://panofish.net/aperture-vs-lightroom-vs-bibble-pro/
 
OreoCookie said:
That's mostly a question of RAM: since upgrading to a Core i5 MacBook Pro with 8 GB (up from a 2.33 GHz MacBook Pro with 2 GB), Aperture flies. Also, Aperture uses the GPU to render photos.
Click to expand...

I added 4GB of RAM to my MacBook and reformatted/reinstalled Mac OS for my tests. I think we all agree that upgrading is one way to solve our problems, but I think that for similar components, Aperture takes much longer even on things as simple as changing white balance. With the tweaks to cache and other hints I'd found for Aperture, it would take roughly 10 seconds to adjust white balance on a 18mpx picture. Lightroom takes 2 seconds to render white balance in the "Develop" module. Cropping is similar, as I can readjust crop in Lightroom with similar quickness, as opposed to Aperture.

Sure, a dedicated GPU would help, but, again, in my case, Lightroom made RAW processing possible with my slow Macbook, whereas Aperture was impossible to use.
 
I'd like to second the Bibble Pro recommendation. It's a AWESOME program! I use Aperture and Photoshop currently...and have for several years. I've also got LightRoom 2 and 3....as a couple of our employees prefer LR. I've spent plenty of time with LR2...and didn't care for it a bit. I have the same opinion as others...the GUI was just not for me.

I really like Aperture 3, but we have an intern that brought the Bibble and Gimp ideas to the table last year...several of us are hooked:) It's an awesome, powerful...and as mentioned by Winni, Extremely Fast!!! Check it out, Bibble is nice and cheap (Free) as a trial. Also, there are a couple different versions; Pro and Lite...200 or 100 bucks, your choice...which actually brings me to my point of posting.

Have you checked out Photo Shop Elements? Seriously!!! If you're NOT a PhotoShop user at this point...one of my suggestions would be to check out Adobe's site and do some reading on the features you will actually need in your editing workflow. The latest PSE 9 is very, very powerful...I have a niece, on a Mac...16 years old, and she's learning photography. She picked up PSE on her own...and I've been helping her learn a bit about editing in post. She brought it over a few weeks back...and I was BLOWN away! It's VERY powerful...Many, many of the features from the full blown version of PS have trickled down and made it in to PS Elements. It can easily be added as your "External Editor" in either LR or Aperture...whichever you choose. But for many hundreds of dollars less...do you really need to power of PhotoShop?

Don't get me wrong, PS is an incredible program...but throw $25 at lynda.com and spend a weekend watching a PhotoShop training class...then check out what the "junior" version of Elements affords you. Unless you are really, seriously into Heavy Duty photo manipulation...I think you'll find LR or Ap3 will do 95-98% of your lifting for you...and that extra 2-5% can be easily taken care of in a program like Elements (while learning all of the basics, and much...much more of the master version of PS), or even Bibble/Bibble Pro.

Granted, PhotoShop is King....it's a noun, verb...recognized in Webster's :) The whole bit....BUT, these days, there are sooooo many alternatives. Many, if not all are much easier on your wallet...and have free demos to mess around with.

Good Luck

J
 
esaleris said:
I added 4GB of RAM to my MacBook and reformatted/reinstalled Mac OS for my tests. I think we all agree that upgrading is one way to solve our problems, but I think that for similar components, Aperture takes much longer even on things as simple as changing white balance. With the tweaks to cache and other hints I'd found for Aperture, it would take roughly 10 seconds to adjust white balance on a 18mpx picture. Lightroom takes 2 seconds to render white balance in the "Develop" module. Cropping is similar, as I can readjust crop in Lightroom with similar quickness, as opposed to Aperture.
Click to expand...
During my spin with Lightroom 3, I noticed that while the screen preview is rendered more quickly, every time I wanted to use the loupe, I had to wait for a second or two until the 100 % view was rendered. I found that very frustrating and a little disappointing, given all the praise I've read about Lightroom's advantage in terms of speed. Also switching modules was kinda sluggish, something that was exacerbated by the fact that unlike Aperture, you have to change module to switch between sorting and editing. (In Aperture, I can leave a HUD open, for instance, or toggle between various views and full screen views that are optimal for editing.)

In any case, I don't consider myself very knowledgable when it comes to Lightroom and I'm sure most of these criticism are mitigated on my new machine. But personally, I didn't find Lightroom particularly faster than Aperture, both are just faster and slower than the other in different areas in my opinion.
 
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