JHAG Posted August 24, 2006 Share #1 Posted August 24, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) Apart the RAW/TIFF issue, I tried Lightroom Beta 3. Quite elegant and nicely put, but painfully slow with my G5 2 x 2.5 Ghz !!! What about Aperture ? Is it also sluggish ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 24, 2006 Posted August 24, 2006 Hi JHAG, Take a look here Aperture or Lightroom ?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
john_j Posted August 24, 2006 Share #2 Posted August 24, 2006 Hi- I cannot comment on Aperture or the Apple OS as I am currently a PC user but.. I recently downloaded LightRoom for PC and really like what I see. I too find it to be slow but feel this is due to it being a beta version. With the spring up coming of a new Apple OS, the Mac Pro platform, Adobe bringing its Creative Suite to run native (in 64 bit as well?) and a release version of Light Room, I may switch over to MAC. Combined with the digital M, there will be a time I'll able put down my M6 with Provia. Can putting down my other M6 with Tri X be that far behind? Best, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradreiman Posted August 24, 2006 Share #3 Posted August 24, 2006 aperture is really quick on my macbook pro. very smooth sailing Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted August 24, 2006 Share #4 Posted August 24, 2006 Aperture runs fine on this 2.0GHz dual Intel iMac with 1.5 Gig RAM. It needs a minimum of 1 gig RAM before it will even install. It was sluggish to say the least on my old 1.5 GHz Powerbook. But, it most certainly has a steep learning curve... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted August 24, 2006 Share #5 Posted August 24, 2006 Apple follows a different approach. If the computer meets the requirements, Aperture can be installed and it runs fast. On the contrary, if the machine is not supported and you installs it anyway, the software runs very slow (not much slower than Lightroom Beta 3 though). The reason is this: the graphic card runs many operations that in unsupported machines are run by the processor. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacksparrow Posted August 24, 2006 Share #6 Posted August 24, 2006 I guess it's a matter of taste but I've used both and I like Lightroom much more than Aperture. I'm sorry to say this, but Aperture feels more like a Microsoft app, loads of options, millions of different settings... and hard to learn and to work with. Lightroom is more simple and natural, good workflow and very efficient. I've used both on G4 and G5 computers, and both are generally slow, although Lightroom seems to me more demanding of system resources and might be slower than Aperture. Just a comment, don't know about Lightroom, but Aperture does not support alpha channel masks made with Photoshop, not relevant if you don't make heavy photo editing, but a big drawback if you use them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrc Posted August 25, 2006 Share #7 Posted August 25, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) I agree with the comments from jacksparrow, and would add that both on the Adobe Lightroom forums and on places like Luminous Landscape (which has a Lightroom forum) that we have been essentially promised that the commercial, non-beta version will run much faster than the beta version. I find the program marvelously intuitive; as is not the case with Photoshop, you need to know almost nothing about software to run it reasonably well. I think (hope) it is the beginning of a split in Adobe offerings, with Photoshop being pushed more and more to Photo-based visual art, while Lightroom serves the needs of straight photographers. JC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
davephoto Posted August 25, 2006 Share #8 Posted August 25, 2006 i also feel that lightroom in its current state is too slow for practical everyday use, especially for those with significant size portfolios. certain features such as the the sharpening tool need further refinement. i found myself needing to revert back to photoshop to use the unsharp mask which affords greater control. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gtmerideth Posted August 25, 2006 Share #9 Posted August 25, 2006 Come on guys, Lightroom is BETA. It has not been optimized and will run significantly faster when finished. Comparing Aperture to Lightroom is impossible. One is a finished product and the other is in it's test form. gary merideth Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted August 25, 2006 Share #10 Posted August 25, 2006 Come on guys, Lightroom is BETA. It has not been optimized and will run significantly faster when finished. Comparing Aperture to Lightroom is impossible. One is a finished product and the other is in it's test form. gary merideth Beta or not, it is 'klunky' IMHO. I have have often used Beta software before and found it quite satisfactory with no serious drawbacks, at least for me. I am keen for it to improve, substantially, but at present I am more than happy with the Rawshooter Elements to do the same things, only better. I regret not being fast enough to buy the RS Premium version while it was available. So far I am finding RSE much more intuitive and better processing than Lightroom. YMMV. Just some thoughts for the mix. I will await the final issue of Lightroom with interest, but so far not impressed enough. Cheers, Erl Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
spylaw4 Posted August 25, 2006 Share #11 Posted August 25, 2006 Apple follows a different approach. If the computer meets the requirements, Aperture can be installed and it runs fast. On the contrary, if the machine is not supported and you installs it anyway, the software runs very slow (not much slower than Lightroom Beta 3 though).The reason is this: the graphic card runs many operations that in unsupported machines are run by the processor. Aperture runs a small programme to check system ability to run, and won't install if the system is not up to the task, so..... I would be interested to know how one manages to install Aperture on an "unsupported" machine (Mac), as you seem to be implying it can be done. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinA Posted August 25, 2006 Share #12 Posted August 25, 2006 Depends on your requirments, if it's storing and finding images, keeping track of who's had which and general organising, I've tried both and many others, Aperture is easily the best for keeping track of my library. I also email a lot of low res, Aperture is just a click away from resizing watermarking etc and because of the version system Aperture uses, if I need a high res that's just a click away as well, same crop and adjustments and I don't have many "real" versions clogging up the drives as Aperture works from the raw file. The quality of the Raw conversions is excellant also. I run it on a iMac 20inch with an additional 20inch cinema display, Apertures ability to use dual screens is unique and very welcome. Aperture is great at sorting a shoot, sifting through the good and bad is easy, there are many ways you can do this. Aperture is nothing like a Windows product, not even close, if you want an awful Windoze like experiance try Fotostation, better still buy my copy of it, that realy stinks and costs a lot more as well. For organising a library of Raw files Aperture is top dog. Kevin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted August 25, 2006 Share #13 Posted August 25, 2006 Aperture runs a small programme to check system ability to run, and won't install if the system is not up to the task, so..... I would be interested to know how one manages to install Aperture on an "unsupported" machine (Mac), as you seem to be implying it can be done. It can be done. Obviously, the program has been hacked. A file inside the "package" that contains the application includes parameters (minimum requirements), and those parameters can be altered. You can do a search on the Internet. I played a bit with Aperture, but my machines are unsupported, and Aperture runs slow. Apple has announced a presentation the 25 of September, one day before of the Photokina. That announcement is related with Aperture (I suppose). I would like to buy Aperture (version 2) when I have a new Mac. http://www.macobserver.com/article/2006/08/22.5.shtml I don't like the curve adjustment control of Lightroom. I much prefer the Levels adjustment control of Aperture. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted August 25, 2006 Share #14 Posted August 25, 2006 Aperture with its with a classy raw convertor is great if you are or need to be organised, I used to run a 'version" and I mean version of Aperture on my ibook,had some wonderfull gitters and quirks it was fun until I got bored. My life and setup is too feral for Aperture so I use Lightroom as I can do stupid things with it and hop in and out of other stuff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zelito Posted August 25, 2006 Share #15 Posted August 25, 2006 If you have a powerful mac, Aperture. If not, Bibble Pro. Miles away from Lightroom, although not visually appealing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted August 25, 2006 Share #16 Posted August 25, 2006 It was sluggish to say the least on my old 1.5 GHz Powerbook. It's fine (not great) on my 1.67ghz PowerBook. I think the graphics card is the key component (plus plenty of RAM). Should be great on the new Mac Pro desktops. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ggetzin Posted August 26, 2006 Share #17 Posted August 26, 2006 Is Aperture still incompatible with the D-Lux 2? If so, can I download to iPod and then Aperture (with a Macbook Pro)? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted August 26, 2006 Share #18 Posted August 26, 2006 No amount of downloading will change the file architecture unless yo apply a application that does. The ipod is a external hard drive not a convertor Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ggetzin Posted August 26, 2006 Share #19 Posted August 26, 2006 Yes, I should have known that. Aperture looks good in many ways and I wonder if it is worth getting. My raw could be converted by Photoshop Elements, like I use now, and then organize and adjust in Aperture. The levels looks particularly good to me. I just wish I could use its thumbnail review before converting from raw. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted August 26, 2006 Share #20 Posted August 26, 2006 Aperture is made for the thousand shots a day carpet bombers ie sports,courts and paparazzis etc etc. Eventually as it attains credability another version may surface. Then again if you take a couple of thousand a month it could be worth it and some just like to have a organised high end application and don't quibble about the price Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.