Aperture or Lightroom

[mrk_webber]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I know that there have been several discussions on the Aperture vs Lightroom matter.

 

But that said, I am still a little uncertain as many of these discussion were about Aperture 3.0 or 3.01.

 

Now that the M9 is fully supported in Aperture, which program do you prefer to use? - I am a avid Mac user, use Final Cut Pro, so Aperture fits right in there. Also familiar with Photoshop and InDesign, so I guess that using Lightroom isn't that much of a big change.

 

This will be the first time that I am actually using pro-photo software, so I prefer to get working with the one that works the best immediately.

 

Looking forward to reading your comments. Many thanks!

 

Very best,

 

Mark

[Walt Calahan]

I think the jury is still out on both programs, which is probably the same way as saying they both do the same job.

 

I have both, but find both frustrating at times. Either is a great cataloging program so you can find images quickly when the meta-data is set up properly. In the end, I tend to rely on Bridge and Photoshop to do all the heavy lifting with image correction.

 

Many photographers start with one of these programs and never look at the other simply to keep their workflow simple. Why learn both?

 

For me, I sit on the fence. I believe each photographer needs to test both packages to find what works for them best.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[rosuna]

I think the jury is still out on both programs, which is probably the same way as saying they both do the same job.

 

Aperture and Lightroom are very different.

 

LR is a part of the Photoshop-centric suite of applications. It is a Camera RAW + cataloguing utility. It is fast, it is very simple to use, but it also is very limited. It doesn't have, and will not have, many complex features that Adobe places in Photoshop. The entire suite is a "pro" set of tools, but LR considered as a separate application is not.

 

Aperture is a stand-alone application. It is like the Final Cut Pro of photography, a real "pro" application. Very powerful, very complex, with many features, many options, many possibilities. It is a competitor (or pretends to be) of the entire Photoshop-suite (an alternative). It is not the same, but depending on the type of processing you do, Aperture may be "enough" for professional work. Plug-ins expand the possibilities of Aperture.

 

I have used LR, just because until version 2 LR was faster and more complete in some key areas. But the starting point was the same, and the two applications have evolved very similarly, until this point. Version 3 of the two applications will show the basic difference in approach of Adobe and Apple. LR will not evolve in some directions. It will continue to be a fast, simple and efficient RAW developer for the Photoshop suite, with cataloguing abilities, and not a (even partial) replacement for Photoshop itself.

[jonoslack]

.

 

This will be the first time that I am actually using pro-photo software, so I prefer to get working with the one that works the best immediately.

 

Looking forward to reading your comments. Many thanks!

 

Very best,

 

Mark

 

Hi Mark

I think you would be well advised to download the trial versions of Lightroom and Aperture and see which you like besr

[d2mini]

Aperture and Lightroom are very different.

 

LR is a part of the Photoshop-centric suite of applications. It is a Camera RAW + cataloguing utility. It is fast, it is very simple to use, but it also is very limited. It doesn't have, and will not have, many complex features that Adobe places in Photoshop. The entire suite is a "pro" set of tools, but LR considered as a separate application is not.

 

Aperture is a stand-alone application. It is like the Final Cut Pro of photography, a real "pro" application. Very powerful, very complex, with many features, many options, many possibilities. It is a competitor (or pretends to be) of the entire Photoshop-suite (an alternative). It is not the same, but depending on the type of processing you do, Aperture may be "enough" for professional work. Plug-ins expand the possibilities of Aperture.

 

I have used LR, just because until version 2 LR was faster and more complete in some key areas. But the starting point was the same, and the two applications have evolved very similarly, until this point. Version 3 of the two applications will show the basic difference in approach of Adobe and Apple. LR will not evolve in some directions. It will continue to be a fast, simple and efficient RAW developer for the Photoshop suite, with cataloguing abilities, and not a (even partial) replacement for Photoshop itself.

 

I disagree with most of that.

As a 15 year pro user of photoshop, neither aperture or lightroom are even close to being a photoshop replacement. Yet at the same time, bother aperture and lightroom are "pro" photographic tools. As of right now, both essentially do the same thing, but they do it in different ways. It's up to the end user to decide which they like best. Both use plug-ins to expand their capabilities, and either can be the only app the photographer needs, depending on their individual needs/workflow practices. For me, I'll probably always use photoshop alongside either lightroom or aperture.

[alun]

I'm a recent adopter of Aperture (although I use it for film scans not digital files). I love its ease of use and its design. To me, knowing that it's non-destructive (i.e. you're always working on automatically generated copies not originals) has given me greater confidence in testing its capabilities.

 

I d/loaded the thirty day trial and in that time became convinced that I neither wanted or needed anything else -- and I paid my money....

[vanhulsenbeek]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

.....To me, knowing that it's non-destructive (i.e. you're always working on automatically generated copies not originals) ....

 

Same with LR! No news here

[mn4367]

I disagree with most of that.

As a 15 year pro user of photoshop, neither aperture or lightroom are even close to being a photoshop replacement. Yet at the same time, bother aperture and lightroom are "pro" photographic tools. As of right now, both essentially do the same thing, but they do it in different ways. It's up to the end user to decide which they like best. Both use plug-ins to expand their capabilities, and either can be the only app the photographer needs, depending on their individual needs/workflow practices. For me, I'll probably always use photoshop alongside either lightroom or aperture.

 

I also disagree. Both LR and Aperture targeted at doing the things photographers normally do with their images. And they do it very well, fast and in many cases much easier than PS does. And LR was never meant to be a teaser to buy PS later because of a limited feature set. It's a tool made for photographers. The feature set definitely isn't limited, it's just different. PS is a giant general purpose image manipulating program with an almost unlimited feature set. I f you want to cut out a person from an image or if you have to do a montage you need PS or a similar software. But administering and adjusting a bunch of photos fast and easy without the need of deep image processing knowledge you'll be better off with Aperture or LR. That's what they've been made for and that's what they're doing better than solutions like PS. And always non-destructive and at any point reversible.

Apart from that PS or other tools easily integrate with both, if a specific feature is missing. My personal favourite is LR, I couldn't live without it or something similar but that's more a matter of taste. Both a quite on par regarding their features and quality. Just get the trials and decide which one fits your workflow better; maybe consider also CaptureOne.

Edited April 26, 2010 by mn4367

[KevinA]

I think the jury is still out on both programs, which is probably the same way as saying they both do the same job.

 

I have both, but find both frustrating at times. Either is a great cataloging program so you can find images quickly when the meta-data is set up properly. In the end, I tend to rely on Bridge and Photoshop to do all the heavy lifting with image correction.

 

Many photographers start with one of these programs and never look at the other simply to keep their workflow simple. Why learn both?

 

For me, I sit on the fence. I believe each photographer needs to test both packages to find what works for them best.

 

No they do not do the same job.

Aperture is the best DAM software I have ever used, there is nothing like it for organising images, clients, jobs etc You will only ever see comparison tests of LR and Aperture comparing output, which they are both capable of producing in top quality. What no one ever appears to grasp is Apertures DAM ability and how it can streamline the way you work. It takes a long time to get your head around Apertures possibilities and how to adapt them best to your way of working. Aperture is not just about sliders to alter the look of the image, it goes much much further. LR gives a nod in the DAM direction but is nowhere near as slick or comprehensive as Aperture.

 

Kevin:D

[d2mini]

No they do not do the same job.

Aperture is the best DAM software I have ever used, there is nothing like it for organising images, clients, jobs etc You will only ever see comparison tests of LR and Aperture comparing output, which they are both capable of producing in top quality. What no one ever appears to grasp is Apertures DAM ability and how it can streamline the way you work. It takes a long time to get your head around Apertures possibilities and how to adapt them best to your way of working. Aperture is not just about sliders to alter the look of the image, it goes much much further. LR gives a nod in the DAM direction but is nowhere near as slick or comprehensive as Aperture.

 

Kevin:D

 

Kevin, can you please explain (or point to somewhere for further reading) how Aperture is so much better at DAM? I own both, but I must be missing something. What does Aperture do that Lightroom does not in this respect?

TIA!

[ChristopherGrant]

I disagree with most of that.

As a 15 year pro user of photoshop, neither aperture or lightroom are even close to being a photoshop replacement. Yet at the same time, bother aperture and lightroom are "pro" photographic tools. As of right now, both essentially do the same thing, but they do it in different ways. It's up to the end user to decide which they like best. Both use plug-ins to expand their capabilities, and either can be the only app the photographer needs, depending on their individual needs/workflow practices. For me, I'll probably always use photoshop alongside either lightroom or aperture.

 

+1, I disagree as well. Been using LR as a stand-alone for 2+ years now. Only once in those past two years did I need to crack open photoshop.

[rosuna]

I also disagree. Both LR and Aperture targeted at doing the things photographers normally do with their images.

 

LR pales in comparison when you look at the tools. Aperture is much better (or is capable of) handling CMYK files, make books, manipulate separate curves for R, G & B channels, add a levels tool, accurate noise reduction tool, file handling and cataloguing, etc. The image quality of the RAW interpreter better in Aperture as well (LR 3 will improve).

 

LR and Aperture are very different. The different feature set is eloquent.

[Dave Robertson]

Jonas, Thanks for the Aperture hints. I've been using APerture since Version 1.5 but probably wold not have tumbled to the good and easy improvements with the M9 using your suggestions of 50% boost and 10% increase in magenta. I've been using both and am well pleased.

[mn4367]

LR pales in comparison when you look at the tools. Aperture is much better (or is capable of) handling CMYK files, make books, manipulate separate curves for R, G & B channels, add a levels tool, accurate noise reduction tool, file handling and cataloguing, etc. The image quality of the RAW interpreter better in Aperture as well (LR 3 will improve).

 

LR and Aperture are very different. The different feature set is eloquent.

 

Different, yes, but LR surely doesn't pale. CMYK handling is needed for printing magazines, flyers, books etc. RAW files (and that's what LR really was build for) are always RGB, CMYK simply isn't needed here, this is a task for Photoshop or InDesign. LR can adjust hue, luminance and saturation for 7 different colors channels; the noise reduction in the beta is outstanding. Aperture may have more features regarding file handling and cataloguing, but in the past it was much more important for me that I could apply corrections to arbitrary areas. Can you create web galleries with Aperture and what if somebody needs that on a regular basis?

 

Can you measure the 'image quality' of a RAW engine? What means 'better' here? My personal findings are, that all big players convert RAW files just different. C1 for example delivers very crisp files with the default settings, but *for my personal taste* it is a little bit overdone, I found the results of LR just more neutral. Others may prefer the color rendering of C1. The quality of a RAW conversion cannot be measured easily as it is always a balance between different aspects.

 

A neutral decision or recommendation for RAW converters simply isn't possible. The choice largely depends on personal needs, not on the 'Editors choice', 5 stars, the longest feature list or other rankings (I know you didn't do that, but your post somehow implied, that Aperture is simply better).

[d2mini]

Different, yes, but LR surely doesn't pale. CMYK handling is needed for printing magazines, flyers, books etc. RAW files (and that's what LR really was build for) are always RGB, CMYK simply isn't needed here, this is a task for Photoshop or InDesign. LR can adjust hue, luminance and saturation for 7 different colors channels; the noise reduction in the beta is outstanding. Aperture may have more features regarding file handling and cataloguing, but in the past it was much more important for me that I could apply corrections to arbitrary areas. Can you create web galleries with Aperture and what if somebody needs that on a regular basis?

 

Actually, LR lets you adjust 8 color channels for saturation, hue and luminance where Aperture lets you adjust 6 colors but also adds in Color Range on top of the other 3 adjustments.

I use noise plugins so can't comment on either software there.

Yes, you can do web galleries in Aperture. Web gallery, web journal, post your images straight to flickr/facebook/MobileMe... all from within Aperture.

 

I own both but the above comments intrigued me so i picked up the Aperture 3 Pro Training Series book/dvd. AMAZING.

[rosuna]

d2mini,

 

I have and use LR. I find Aperture too complex for my needs, but:

 

1) Aperture has much more powerful retouch tools. For instance, curves adjustment for the three color channels, much better sharpening and noise control, and now (Aperture 3), even better local adjustment tools.

 

2) Aperture has much better file handling. The separation between physical and logical sets of pictures has been developed further, and you can export, import, etc. separate projects including pictures with modifications, books, light tables, etc. The best thing: you can easily work on location and then translate your work (separate projects) to other computer with Aperture. All simple, elegant and fast.

 

3) The interface of LR is logical and it allows you a fast and intuitive workflow, but it looks cheap compared to the interface of Aperture, which is gorgeous.

 

4) The demosaic algorithms of LR leave a lot to be desired. Adobe has recognized this implicitly, and LR 3 will improve on this. Noise interpretation in shadows is a clear example of this problem.

 

5) Aperture have tons of features, some of them very practical for cataloguing, selecting, printing, etc. like "places", the books feature (great), and even "faces".

 

I am not selling Aperture to you. I find it too difficult to handle for me. I prefer the simpler and more direct LR. My point is that these applications are very different from a conceptual point of view. Aperture is a complete center for working with your RAWs, and LR a much more limited app and a mere ACR+Bridge tool in the Photoshop "suite".