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

What Do You Use for Photo Management?


  • Total voters
    72
  • Poll closed .

netnothing

macrumors 68040
Mar 13, 2007
3,806
415
NH
My Library: 36,000 photos - 100+GB
Mac Pro 2010 - 16GB

iPhoto '09: ran fine, not fast but fine
iPhoto '11: runs awful. Apple really messed with iPhoto '11
Aperture 3: Picked this up for $80.....runs SUPER FAST. Really happy with it so far. Using this full time now.

-Kevin
 

Xian Zhu Xuande

macrumors 6502a
Jul 30, 2008
941
128
just a quick question: are you shooting RAW or JPEG? if you are shooting JPEG, then i would probably stick with iPhoto. faster than Aperture, good organization, and as you've said, you've got Photoshop if you need to do any more advanced editing. Plus nice integration with the rest of your mac/iLife. Aperture/Lightroom really come into play when you are dealing with a lot of RAW processing, imo.
Nah... it isn't like the only reason to use a program like Aperture or Lightroom is to get good support for RAW files. There are incredibly large differences between these programs and iPhoto, and the more a person learns about them the less reason they have to use iPhoto, or spend too much time in Photoshop.
 

mzd

macrumors 6502a
Jul 25, 2005
951
41
Wisconsin
sounds like it might be worth your while to grab the trial version of Aperture and see if it speeds things up for you. Xian Zhu Xuande is correct, Aperture has a lot of use for JPEG shooters as well and it sounds like some other posters have experienced a big performance increase over iPhoto.
I just didn't really feel the need for something beyond the iPhoto/Photoshop combination until I started shooting RAW.
 

Jony Mac

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Oct 27, 2010
389
7
Pittsburgh, PA
I have had Aperture 3 from the day it was released. I tried using it but it was much slower I thought than iPhoto '09. As I mentioned Im wondering if its due to having 2GB of RAM vs going to 4
 

Vantage Point

macrumors 65816
Mar 1, 2010
1,169
1
New Jersey
As I mentioned Im wondering if its due to having 2GB of RAM vs going to 4

There is absolutely no question about it. A3 is also a 64 bit application so it can take as much ram as you throw at it to grease the skids. I would upgrade to 8Gb if you plan to use it a lot since 8 costs only slightly more than 4gb.
 

Xian Zhu Xuande

macrumors 6502a
Jul 30, 2008
941
128
There is absolutely no question about it. A3 is also a 64 bit application so it can take as much ram as you throw at it to grease the skids. I would upgrade to 8Gb if you plan to use it a lot since 8 costs only slightly more than 4gb.
Being a 64 bit application does not mean that Aperture will 'take as much ram as you throw at it' for any particular purpose at all. 64 bit applications do tend to want a little more RAM, but the most relevant aspect of being a 64 bit application, as far as RAM is concerned, is that it can address more of it—but an application will only wish to do so when it has a reason to.* And this particular benefit is not necessarily something which will be of significant benefit to even professional photographers. (Which is not to say that other benefits of being a 64 bit app will not apply).

*Photoshop fits into your example, though. It scales behavior based on RAM available to it.

What a person needs is enough RAM on their computer to accomplish the tasks they wish to accomplish comfortably. Depending on the number of photographs on screen, in the database, and in the library, along with factors like the number of actions being performed (especially batch actions) and how memory intensive they are, 2 GBs may well be enough. The real thing which will decide this is what other programs are running at the same time and what they are doing; how much RAM they are using.

Most computer users who enjoy doing many things at once with their computers should definitely consider an upgrade to 4 GBs RAM (provided their system allows it). RAM is so incredibly cheap to upgrade these days and it offers so many great returns on the investment that it becomes a no-brainer for most folks. Generally speaking, the finest upgrade a laptop can receive is a solid state hard drive.
 

snberk103

macrumors 603
Oct 22, 2007
5,503
91
An Island in the Salish Sea
I'm not sure what to do really. When I ran Windows I just stored them in a folder structure by Year .. Month .. Date.

When I bought my Mac I went to iPhoto. I tried using Aperture 3 for a while but it seemed slow. As I mentioned, probably due to my MacBook only having 2GB of RAM. I upgraded to iPhoto 11 because it was 1.) new & 2.) looked awesome, however now it just seems slower.

I have Photoshop, but I dont even use it..so I'm not sure if it is worth going back to iLife '09...and trying to find a good way to get my photos organized.

Light Room user here. Never tried Aperture. I just really like the way LR works.

Aperture and LR are designed to do two things, imo.

1) One is to "convert" and edit RAW files. If you aren't shooting RAW, then this aspect of the SW is not really important. One of the image editing areas in LR that is unequalled, according to a review I read on Luminous Landscape (iirc) is the noise reduction, coupled with the sharpening. I trialled LR3 on an incredibly noisy, slightly soft, scan from a negative. It worked magic on the image, and I upgraded from LR2 that day.

2) Image management. If you are still "managing" your own images with folders, then you are missing out on this feature too. Take the time to learn about keywording, and then start going through your images. Something that a lot of people miss is that keywords can be nested.

Using keywords one can find the very specific "DimSum Restaurants Toronto" Or the more general "Resaurants City Ontario". No need to remember on which trip to Toronto you found the restaurant, and was that 2007 or 2006?

Collections (LR - I assume Aperture has the equivalent) can be static (drag in only the images you want there), or "smart" (dynamic - will populate depending on criteria you set).

Hope this helps...
 

Vantage Point

macrumors 65816
Mar 1, 2010
1,169
1
New Jersey
Being a 64 bit application does not mean that Aperture will 'take as much ram as you throw at it' for any particular purpose at all. 64 bit applications do tend to want a little more RAM, but the most relevant aspect of being a 64 bit application, as far as RAM is concerned, is that it can address more of it—but an application will only wish to do so when it has a reason to.* And this particular benefit is not necessarily something which will be of significant benefit to even professional photographers. (Which is not to say that other benefits of being a 64 bit app will not apply).

*Photoshop fits into your example, though. It scales behavior based on RAM available to it.

What a person needs is enough RAM on their computer to accomplish the tasks they wish to accomplish comfortably. Depending on the number of photographs on screen, in the database, and in the library, along with factors like the number of actions being performed (especially batch actions) and how memory intensive they are, 2 GBs may well be enough. The real thing which will decide this is what other programs are running at the same time and what they are doing; how much RAM they are using.

Most computer users who enjoy doing many things at once with their computers should definitely consider an upgrade to 4 GBs RAM (provided their system allows it). RAM is so incredibly cheap to upgrade these days and it offers so many great returns on the investment that it becomes a no-brainer for most folks. Generally speaking, the finest upgrade a laptop can receive is a solid state hard drive.

I don't disagree with you but I maintain that his admission/comment that A3 is slow and he only has 2Gb could be improved with more RAM. 2Gb is enough to make it functional but little more.
 

bryce600rr

macrumors newbie
Nov 4, 2010
19
0
i bought aperture 3 from the app store on day 1, i havent had a chance to use it yet though.. I am switching from iphoto 11.. what do i need to do?? import all my pics from iphoto to aperture and delete them from iphoto? should i delete iphoto or just hide it??:confused:
 

Xian Zhu Xuande

macrumors 6502a
Jul 30, 2008
941
128
File -> Import -> iPhoto Library...

Read some introductions. They're worth it. :)
 

Attachments

  • aperture.jpg
    aperture.jpg
    166.1 KB · Views: 26

MaxBeagleton

macrumors member
Aug 9, 2010
48
0
Upstate NY
LR3, here's why

When I first switched from Windows to OSX, I used iPhoto 9. I got Lightroom 2 with my first good digital camera based on a professional recommend. When Aperture 3 came out I tried the evaluation version for a few days and I didn't think developing workflow was comparible to LR2. I also didn't like having my photos hidden in a directory in which I had to take special step to see the contents.

I uninstalled Aperture. I upgraded to LR3 for the new noise reduction and was not dissapointed! WOW!

Now I also own Photoshop CS5 also and like the CS5/LR3 integration. Because it works so well, I don't use Bridge or Minibridge very often.

However, If I had to start from square one, I might go for the $79 Aperture, but then I would have missed all the Adobe features I have grown to love, like CS5 HDR Pro and LR3 catalogs.

If you can afford it, I recommend LR3. If not the $79 A3 is a good alternative.
 

Ifti

macrumors 68040
Dec 14, 2010
3,921
2,432
UK
Im still using a standard folder structure TBH.

The reason for this is that I store photos on my network drive (minimax connected to Airport Extreme), so that I can access them over my wireless throughout the house. (Dont worry, its backed up onto a seperate RAID drive as well!)
I dont want to try connecting to a large database file via iPhoto or Aperture over the wireless as I think it would be painfully slow!

I do have iPhoto 11 installed, but only really use it if I want to create a photobook. I import the images I need into a database I'll create on my firewire HDD, create my photobook, then clear everything out again!

I dont do much when it comes to editing images etc. I guess I could leave photos on my network drive, then use iPhoto or Aperture when Im at the desk via a connected HDD. But since I dont do much with them other then go down memory lane every now and then, is there much Im missing out on?
 

snberk103

macrumors 603
Oct 22, 2007
5,503
91
An Island in the Salish Sea
Im still using a standard folder structure TBH.

The reason for this is that I store photos on my network drive (minimax connected to Airport Extreme), so that I can access them over my wireless throughout the house. (Dont worry, its backed up onto a seperate RAID drive as well!)
I dont want to try connecting to a large database file via iPhoto or Aperture over the wireless as I think it would be painfully slow!

I do have iPhoto 11 installed, but only really use it if I want to create a photobook. I import the images I need into a database I'll create on my firewire HDD, create my photobook, then clear everything out again!

I dont do much when it comes to editing images etc. I guess I could leave photos on my network drive, then use iPhoto or Aperture when Im at the desk via a connected HDD. But since I dont do much with them other then go down memory lane every now and then, is there much Im missing out on?

The way that LR works may make it painless to keep the images where they are. Aperture users would have to chime in if Aperture works the same way.

LR doesn't touch your original images, it creates a 'Catalogue' to store information about the images - a data base, in other words. The Catalogue can reside anywhere, and does not need to be housed with the images.

The Catalogue stores everything you do to the images, and I believe the previews are also with the catalogue, iirc. You can work with the Catalogue even if the drive with the images is off-line. You can't do image editing (afaik) since you only have the previews to work with, but you can do all of the organizing, flagging, key-wording, rating, etc since those tasks only need access to the previews and Catalogue.

So, you could do the organizing bits on a laptop while sitting on deck with a brew, and then do the colour correction work in a proper light controlled work area on a computer with a calibrated monitor hooked up to the drive with the images.

What you miss by not using a program like LR or Aperture is the ability to organize your photos by metadata. iPhoto sort of has it with Albums and keywords, but it is a very constrained feature set. If you don't have too many images now, you may not miss these features - but as your library grows your memory will not be enough. However, with LR and Aperture you really need to keep on top of the key-wording to take advantage of them. It's not hard to do... and there is some really good articles on the web about the techniques and philosophy of key-wording.

Because LR by default wants to organize images by year/month/day (a file structure you can choose to hide or display) it's easy to browse that way. Or you can browse key-words. I like to occasionally go down the keyword list and explore words I had forgotten I had added.
 

chrismacguy

macrumors 68000
Feb 13, 2009
1,979
2
United Kingdom
I use a combination of Aperture 3 and Lightroom depending on which camera I have plugged in, which machine im using (One day I will standardize, but the effort of changing software on the 5 machines I use for photo editing means I keep putting it off) - Aperture is in my books the best (Got it on my Mac Pro and MacBook but I still have LightRoom on my iMac and G4s (v1 I think))
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.