stump4545 Posted September 11, 2012 Share #1 Posted September 11, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) i currently use aperture3 and i am happy with its ease of use. Seems around here most use at least lightroom is not ps. Do the post processing tools in lightroom work better yielding a better image quality and if not then why would lightroom be a better choice over aperture? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 11, 2012 Posted September 11, 2012 Hi stump4545, Take a look here aperture 3 vs Lightroom ps tools. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
fred2511 Posted September 11, 2012 Share #2 Posted September 11, 2012 Hi, I used Aperture 3 and I'm very please with it, the only downside is that magazine rarely publish tip or anything about Aperture. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurt Perlak Posted September 12, 2012 Share #3 Posted September 12, 2012 I'm also an aperture user. There are some great tools like multible selective tonekurves and i love the direkt iPad-sync. I used lightroom before. Also a great software but aperture fits much bettet to my workflow (b+w-film). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted September 12, 2012 Share #4 Posted September 12, 2012 Do the post processing tools in lightroom work better yielding a better image quality Not necessarily; the skill of the user mostly determines the quality. But, a program that can't be skillfully used, for whatever reason, might inhibit the user's ability to extract the full potential from that software. and if not then why would lightroom be a better choice over aperture? Personal choice; some find one program easy to use, while others find that same program interface confusing. And, some find limitations with certain programs, as each seems to excel at certain things. LR 4, for instance, now handles noise very well compared to earlier LR versions; so that's important if noise control is a key concern. This recent thread discussed adding grain using Aperture, and I commented on the ease of LR in comparison (post #1 versus post #3 in the linked thread). I'm sure there are examples that would demonstrate more ease with Aperture for certain controls. Some people use multiple software programs as needs require. PS and LR are both Adobe products and, for a long time, PS had far greater control capability for certain needs. That gap has been closed with each LR iteration, but many still prefer the interface of one versus the other. I use both programs, but now use LR 4.1 for 98% of my needs. I've never found a need to try Aperture, but clearly there are many fans around. In the end, whatever floats your boat. Only way to decide is to try. In the meantime, you can download free videos on LR here to get an idea about using various features. You might also Google 'Aperture versus Lightroom' and you'll get into the debates (much like if you searched Canon versus Nikon). Some sites will present objective comparisons, others not so much. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobitybob Posted September 13, 2012 Share #5 Posted September 13, 2012 Don't forget that LR comes free with a lot of Leica cameras so this must have an impact on the user base. Personally I prefer Aperture but use LR as it imports all of the data in the MakerNotes which Aperture doesn't so you get lens info and estimated aperture etc. Just makes it easier! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lightwrangler Posted September 13, 2012 Share #6 Posted September 13, 2012 Having seen what they did with Final Cut I do not think it worth confiding my workflow to Apple. Mike Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.