Photos, LR Performance, vs the New Photos and Old Aperture

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by rhyzome, Apr 9, 2015.

  1. rhyzome macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2012
    #1
    I was never ecstatic about Aperture's performance, but after trying Photos I've come to appreciate it. (CPU usage routinely over 200% on the latest 15" rMBP, also _very_ high energy usage).

    Because Photos doesn't seem able to batch-edit/batch-paste adjustments, and I can't even view a world map with the locations of _all_ of the photos (like the old "places" feature), and because there is no list view that allows sorting by various image properties, I feel forced to find an alternative.

    (Though, if these features are somehow hidden in Photos, please let me know!)

    How does LR compare in terms of performance and CPU/energy usage when managing a large-ish library? (~77GB, 17000 photos)

    Are there other alternatives? (I'm in education so pricing is a...feature to be considered...) In terms of "pure" photography, I'm not a big editor and mainly want something to organize a large library, a chunk of which consists of RAWs. My only "edits", most of the time, happen through a real change of aperture or shutter speed, framing, etc. I really like Aperture's filing/organizing system, and the Places map and Faces were really fun features for me since I could map out my travels and quickly locate photos of individuals without having to manually tag them. I do, however, do a lot of batch editing as I digitize books for academic purposes with photographs I take of them (I batch adjust them from plain photos of pages to black text on a white background by fiddling with white balance/color monochrome, brightness/exposure, and contrast, etc.)

    I'd appreciate something that feels (and is) "robust" and can efficiently work with/handle a large and growing library without unnecessarily straining computing resources (battery/cpu). It would help if, beyond actually being robust, it didn't feel windows-choppy in terms of its UI. Is LR6 expected to meet these criteria?

    I feel like we should make a petition for Apple to bring back Aperture...
     
  2. phrehdd macrumors 68040

    phrehdd

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2008
    #2
    I played with Apple's new offering yesterday for a couple of hours. Just an opinion, its great for those with iPhones and iPads for storing their images but is no where near the same league as Aperture or Lightroom.

    As for me, I put my iphone "snapshots" in it and old jpegs and use Capture One Pro for my important files. (If I had to make a generic suggestion to people, it would be much to my chagrin, to point them at Lightroom.)
     
  3. shaunp macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2010
    #3
    Agreed. Photo's is good for managing snapshots from iPhones and iPads, but I will use LR for anything created with my DSLR. Photo's is aimed at the casual photographer who wants easy editing and to be able to share photos will others.
     

Share This Page