Aperture 2 vs Lightroom

Hmmm, I did the trail of Lightroom and I'm not overly impressed. It's good, but I keep tripping over weird areas of it. Being a Mac guy, I'm going to try Aperture to see if it doesn't feel better. Seems like they've improved it a lot and now it supports the newer cameras.

I was wondering if anyone has worked with both and how they compare them; good points vs bad?

Jack

I wrote a long post about this on my website. Might be worth a read:

http://echeng.com/journal/2009/10/31/why-i...rom-aperture-2/

What did you trip over in LR?

The interface, the auto develop "feature", too many palettes. I did not like having to switch back and forth between modes to get at most of the develop features. Overall I found it slow to use.

Eric, thanks, I'll check it out.

Jack

I echo Eric's comments, though I have not had the database problems he had with my much smaller library. If I were starting from scratch, I'd probably go with Lightroom, it's the transfer of files out of Aperture to Lightroom that has kept me from doing it until now. I'm giving Apple 3 months to see if they actually do bring out a rumored Aperture 3 that may interface with an iPad, if not, I will bite the bullet.

I echo Eric's comments, though I have not had the database problems he had with my much smaller library. If I were starting from scratch, I'd probably go with Lightroom, it's the transfer of files out of Aperture to Lightroom that has kept me from doing it until now. I'm giving Apple 3 months to see if they actually do bring out a rumored Aperture 3 that may interface with an iPad, if not, I will bite the bullet.

Can it (aperture) export DNGs?

If you haven't, you should try the LR 3 beta.

Significantly improved over LR 2.x ...

>>> New and improved demosaicing algorithm ... subtle, but very much improved - handles fine detail better, noticeably so

>>> New noise reduction ... the luminance NR is still under wraps, but the color NR is much improved and I expect the luminance NR will make a big leap forward when released

>>> New capture sharpening

>>> While not in the beta, the full release is widely rumored to have Soft Proofing capabilities ... with that, Photoshop would become a real specialty tool ...

>>> Better database architecture for big libraries

>>> Grain simulator

>>> Watermarking

>>> Even better printing ... printing from Lightroom is a DREAM ... saved templates and automated output sharpening make it a real breeze

I'm using the beta full-time now.

Hi Everyone,

I read Eric's article and share some of his pain. My library is also a LOT smaller but I experienced some corruption, preview issues, etc. Biggest pain is plugins overwriting originals, that destroys the whole idea of non-destructive editing. The only reason I sleep well is my regular time capsule backup.

The question is does Lightroom do any of this better? While I appreciate a good rant, I'm curious how Adobe compares. Where are the lightroom users?

Eric, since you switched how is it?

Cheers,

Simon

Can it (aperture) export DNGs?

No I don't believe so. Exporting the master file is not the issue, it's exporting all the variations. I would have to export them as tiffs which of course means going through the whole library, selecting the versions I want to keep, then exporting etc unless I want to triple the size of my Lightroom library.

Just opened aperture for a little bit. But it's missing some RAW tools; Clarity for one? Or is that somewhere else. No history of changes that you can undo? Corrupted catalog files are enough to scare me, I don't have a huge amount of images yet, but I want a system that's stable and that I can grow.

I dl'd the LR3 demo, but it won't open LR2 catalogs, unless I'm missing something. I did some work on my images in LR2 trial and would like to pickup on them. Now I'm really confused as I hate to buy LR2 and then have to buy an upgrade to LR3 in a couple of months. Adobe sucks (all your money...)!

If not for the desire to catalog the images I actually preferred my kludgy Bridge/Camera RAW/Photoshop workflow. Just was simple.

Jack

Ive been using LR ever since the first betas, and ive never had something damage my library, originals, or anything else important. I always just sync all metadata back to XMP files, and everything is contained in those files. I could re-import the whole filestructure into a new database, sync back from XMP files, and id have everything back.

Watch out for LR3 though, it's got some strange problems. I recently submitted a bugreport where LR3 introduces a lot of noise when you bring an image into photoshop and use a selective color filter, save it back into LR3 and export.

I am on Lightroom full time now (2.6 -- haven't made the jump to 3 beta because I don't trust it). I don't even think about the program. It just works. I don't have to try to "trick" it like I had to do with Aperture (to avoid the bugs Apple will never fix).

Jack, just write alll metadata to file (Metadata -> Save Metadata to file, while selecting all your images). Then in LR3b import all files, and Metadata -> Read Metadata from file.

I have been using LR since it was released and am looking forward to LR3.

I am a long time Mac user and still have my old 512K 'Fat Mac' that I bought new as a student in 1985 (the 128K Mac did not cut it from what I saw with friends' units). I have lost count of how many models I have gone through, which includes 5 laptops (includes two black and white only models). My feeling, based on this long experience, is that Apple should not do SW outside of the OS. There is a long trail of abandoned SW going back to my 512K. Once they no longer profit by it the SW may no longer be supported and one will be SOL. OTOH Adobe has a history of long-term product support for professional photographers - Photoshop is how old?

However, what really put me off Aperture was the video that came out promoting it at release. The video featured a desktop with two 30" monitors which was quite different from my set-up consisting of a laptop that could not drive a 30" monitor (my current one can and does). This was effectively an anti-advertisement for me! The good thing was it got Adobe to release LR!

Sorry to read of Eric's issues. LR is not perfect either in terms of organizing a large library of pix. I only have 175,000 pix in my LR library. Most are 10+ MB D2X NEF files and reside on one ext. 2TB drive. I recently moved the files over from two ext. 1.5TB files so I had ALL my files with me on one disk to work on while on 'vacation' 4000 miles away from home. It was time consuming using FW800 and my three-year old MBP! I did it while inside LR. I had to go and copy the files back to the 1.5 drives afterwards as BU copies. There is a third set on a pile of smaller drives (250MB to 750MB).

I hope this helps!

Yeah, after reading and playing with them both, I bought LR2. I actually found it on EBay for $165 which helped my decision. I just really couldn't justify $300 for special purpose S/W and I've decided to skip the Creative Suite 3 Upgrade to CS4 and wait for the next version.

I almost think Adobe has shot itself in the foot as far as upgrades, everyone knows their cycle and waits it out. I spend thousands each year on s/w as a designer and businessman already.

Jack

A year and a half ago I was using Aperture but then I switched to Lightroom. No catastrophic failures, Lightroom just has more features and once you get used to it is much faster in workflow. Plus, I use the Slideshow Pro plugin to generate Flash slideshows and it's really nice.

Jack, at first you'll be switching back and forth from Library to Develop mode a lot, but eventually you'll figure out your own flow and it's really quick then. Just think of the workflow in terms of the old days of doing slides: Library mode is like using a lightbox and loupe to separate your "keepers" from your "discards", then Develop mode is in the darkroom, spotting, dodging, cropping and altering. Then go to either Print mode or Webpage develop mode. I can take a day's worth of photos now and go through my entire workflow in about 30 minutes.

The integration with CS4 is really nice too.

take care,

John

To add to this thread here's a summary of features and comparisons of Aperture (now 3) with Lightroom. Not being that familiar with Lightroom, I'd like to hear the other side, particularly those familiar with Lightroom 3 beta.

http://aperture.maccreate.com/2010/02/09/a...ure-3-overview/

I'd like to hear the other side, particularly those familiar with Lightroom 3 beta.

Here is one guys opinion, granted he is an avowed LR guru so grain of salt is appropriate but he makes some points and he's used both. I wouldn't base my choice on Aperture's teething problems. LR had a bunch of issues when it came out too.

http://lightroomkillertips.com/2010/5-reas...ch-to-aperture/

Steve

To add to this thread here's a summary of features and comparisons of Aperture (now 3) with Lightroom. Not being that familiar with Lightroom, I'd like to hear the other side, particularly those familiar with Lightroom 3 beta.

http://aperture.maccreate.com/2010/02/09/a...ure-3-overview/

You should call me and we can talk about it ... I'm really loving the new LR3 Beta and have been using LR since the first beta ...

I think at this point this becomes a Nikon vs Canon type argument. I was previously considering switching to LR just because Apple were so tardy on the upgrade and some really needed improvements.

Right now they have come through with an upgrade that fills pretty much every item on my wish list, and a whole bunch more. Now with 3.01 the program appears stable on both my laptop and desktop; downloads with simultaneous backup is essentially as fast initially as Photomechanic, great split project functionality and merging of projects for back and forth transferring from laptop to desktop and visa versa.

Of course curves was missing, now it's there, and expanded non-destructive editing brushes which work as advertised, stackable presets (very cool) Incorporation of video and sound and places are useful features that I never knew I needed, now will become indispensable. Faces I have no use for at present so it's turned off. Exporting for external editing with any color space (Prophoto was needed)

xmp export functionality now available, but I no longer need as I no longer feel a need to switch. (Can do full xmp with a script if needed).

So, it's fast, seems stable, and does everything I want and more.

I'm sure LR folks feel the same, I think the important thing is that just as in the Nikon vs Canon argument, there are probably no longer any major reasons to switch either way. For someone starting out and trying to choose, I'd say try both and see which one you prefer to use before committing. I originally chose Aperture because I preferred the interface. Unless of course one wants to keep video clips in their program. Funny I have heard that as a reason to switch to Canon.

As an aside, I've read that Apple quickly removed some options in their iPad / iPod developer pack regarding camera functionality, which indicates to me there may be some future camera / downloading / iPad / Aperture integation coming down the pike for the iPad. Always want something more.

Check out Places - pretty cool, you can find images by clicking on a place etc