Aperture 2 & Lightroom...again

[lepremier]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Having tried most of the digital software over the last year or so I finally decided that for me Lightroom was the better option. The only thing that I don't like so much about it is the uploading of photos to my .Mac account and the photo gallery.

I decided to have a look again at Aperture and the latest version and found it somewhat improved on the previous version. Technically I wouldn't try to compare them, only from a "user friendly" standpoint. What I miss in Aperture is the Develop/HSL/ Color /Grayscale slider control that you can drag over the photo and also the "fill light" option under tone control ( tho' this is maybe the brightness control in Aperture??)

I can see good points to both programs, mostly in LR, but with Aperture it seems to be much easier to upload to the .Mac account and photo gallery, tho' the overall look of LR is for me much nicer. I can see me continuing to use both, plus iPhoto as a convenient "Album" BUT then I will end up having 3 photo libraries...is this correct?

Is there a better of not duplicating the photos and somehow having just one library? I'm fairly sure not but maybe I have missed an easier method.......

Thanks.....

[Advertisement]

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

[spylaw4]

I'm a LR user and currently using the Trial version of Aperture.

1) I find the 700-odd page manual a bit daunting!

2) Not as intuitive as LR

3) Has some features that are potentially better than LR once I get more into them.

 

Currently though I don't think I"ll be shelling out for it.

[ski542002]

Hello:

 

Just adding to the confusion! I prefer Lightroom because I feel I have more control over raw file manipulations. I shoot commercially, but also shoot a large number of weddings, averaging about 25-35 per year. I can edit, manipulate (if necessary), and process my raws to high-res jpgs from a typical wedding, in about 2 hours (500 images).

 

Recently, a plugin was made available for Lightroom that allows processing and automatic uploading (via the export window), to a Zenfolio library for immediate viewing by guests & clients on a Zenfolio site. It's super fast and a very sweet & seamless process.

 

I find both Aperture and Lightroom to be inadequate as asset management programs. I am aware that this is one of the main reasons why one would want one of these programs, but I think they're too cumbersome for this use. Still greatly prefer iView MediaPro (Expressions Media), as an asset management program.

 

Thanks.

 

CD

[rosuna]

Lightroom is faster and more intuitive.

Aperture is too slow.

[ptomsu]

I tried A2 after having used LR1.3 for the last year.

 

I will change to A2 because

 

1) the RAW engine is far better

2) the data bank is more advanced than in LR

3) A2 is lightnig fast!!!

4) A2 is far better integrated in the Apple world!

 

Finally Apple has got that right!

[Guest malland]

I agree with Peter and find Aperture 2 to be a dazzling piece of software — and it is fast. I think its rendering of RAW files and its editing tools are superior to Lightroom. Its Recovery tool for recovering highlights is much better than that of Lightroom and that of LightZone, which is what I generally use for post processing.

 

A couple of weeks ago I carefully compared four pictures that I edited in Aperture and LightZone, three B&W and one colour. Because of selective burning and dodging I like the B&W pictures edited in LightZone a little better than the ones edited in Aperture 2. On the other hand, I find it easier to edit colour pictures in Aperture 2, in which I've achieved better results than in LightZone, but I don't print many colour pictures.

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

Flickr: Photos from Mitch Alland

[JHAG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

@ptomsu

@malland

 

"Lightning fast" ? How do you do that ?

With my PPC 2x2,5 Ghz, it's not.

[rosuna]

@ptomsu

@malland

 

"Lightning fast" ? How do you do that ?

With my PPC 2x2,5 Ghz, it's not.

 

I agree. I have a MacBook Pro with a Core 2 Duo processor and 4Gb of RAM and Aperture 2 is very, very slow. The previews and the loupe are so slow to make the program useless for me. I cannot see any superiority in the RAW engine compared to ACR/Lightroom.

[ptomsu]

Then I am not sure what your system really does, it is really fast on my MacBook Pro 17" with 4G RAM

[JHAG]

If I compare (as I work with the 3 apps for now), C1 is the fastest, LR just behind, and A2 way behind.

Meaning when processing 10 pictures in the first 2, I process just 3 in the 3-d one.

[Eoin]

If I compare (as I work with the 3 apps for now), C1 is the fastest, LR just behind, and A2 way behind.

Meaning when processing 10 pictures in the first 2, I process just 3 in the 3-d one.

 

When I read your post before the one above, I get the impression it's seed issues with the PPC G5 rather than your workflow, am I correct?.

 

If so you'll possibly need to look at the amount of memory you have installed, I consider 4GB about the least amount for good speed. That being said I run it on my G5 with 2.5GB of ram but I have upgraded the standard 6600 graphics card to the faster 7800GT which made a huge difference. But it's very quick on my MBP 17" with 4GB.

 

Even with the limited ram on my G5 heavy use of full screen and zoom while making adjustments does cause some delays. Try to use the loop rather than zoom when making adjustments, it should improve things. Also I've read here some have noticed huge speed improvements while using the adobe DNG conversion prior to import rather than importing native M8 DNG's into Aperture 2. I've no idea why this would be other than perhaps the adobe conversion may decode the maker tags or the lookup table and store them differently rather than Aperture having to decode the deeper imbedded tags to render the image. I haven't played with this but it might be worth investigating. If you do don't forget to switch the default decode from 2.0 to 2.0 DNG in the raw settings brick.

[JHAG]

I'll try all this, Eoin, thanks a lot for these suggestions.

Do you really think 4 Gb RAM will speed operations.

Anyway, I should go for a Mac Pro later this year,

with a faster graphic card. Meanwhile, I could splash

150 euros in RAM if I should really expect speed increase.

 

In fact, results I'm obtaining with A2 are so nice that I wish to consider that speed

problem.

Indeed, for colours tones in general, and skin tones in particular,

Aperture 2 is way ahead.

Skin neutrality here A2 is really spot on, stunning.

To me, Lightroom is just behind, a bit flattering.

And C1 is way behind, with a lot of toggling necessary before

matching those two, and not being par anyway. In particular with vivid colour, that look

like Kodak Gold or some Fuji consumer films on testosterone.

Is it me ?

(Pity, because I really like C1's GUI : everything's handy, like a dashboard)

[xrogers]

Aperture relies on Apple's Core Image rendering framework---it is used for nearly all pixel level operations in Aperture. This pushes most of the graphics processing onto the video card. So Aperture's performance depends less on your main processor, and far more on the video card in your Mac.

 

I have a 2x2Ghz G5 tower, and Aperture is utterly, totally, unusably slow, while Lightroom runs just fine. On my MacBook Pro with core duo, Aperture is faster than Lightroom. On any new Mac, Aperture should be wonderfully fast. Your G5 is in the same boat as mine---no five year old video card is much good at Core Image.

 

I'd say that as long as you're not running too much stuff, 2Gb should be acceptable RAM (but I agree that 3-4 is better). I doubt more will make Aperture seem any better. You need Eoin's 7800GT video card, but that card isn't cheap (around $300 last I looked). Just wait for your new computer, it will make Aperture seem like a totally different program.

 

Until later,

 

--clyde

[Guest malland]

That clarifies things, Clyde. I'm running Aperture 2 on a 2.4GHz Mac Book Pro (Intel Core 2 Duo) with 4GB of RAM: no wonder I find it fast.

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

Flickr: Photos from Mitch Alland

[lepremier]

Something driving me crazy but I 'm sure is easy to clear...tho' for the life of me I can't see how. When working with Aperture if the screen is left inactive after a few seconds a metadata box pops up, camera type, date, image etc. How can I disable this?....Tks.

[Eoin]

Something driving me crazy but I 'm sure is easy to clear...tho' for the life of me I can't see how. When working with Aperture if the screen is left inactive after a few seconds a metadata box pops up, camera type, date, image etc. How can I disable this?....Tks.

 

Simple, just press the letter T on the keyboard, or if you like the long way around view....metadata....image tool tips.

[Eoin]

I'll try all this, Eoin, thanks a lot for these suggestions.

Do you really think 4 Gb RAM will speed operations.

Anyway, I should go for a Mac Pro later this year,

with a faster graphic card. Meanwhile, I could splash

150 euros in RAM if I should really expect speed increase.....

 

I don't know how much memory you have, but I have 2.5Gb and it works fine. There is some paging to disk as I use it for extended periods and it can slow down once I start to use full screen and zoomed, but by in large it's OK. More ram would eliminate this but it's not critical. The other thing to consider is if your using 2 screens as I am there is also a performance hit due to the GPU having to drive both monitors. that can put a serious strain on the graphics subsystem and something you will need to seriously consider when your thinking about your Mac Pro.

 

150 Euro seems a lot for ram, last time I looked it was €95 for 2x2GB sticks for my Dualcore 2.3 yours is older again and perhaps the memory is more expensive. Yours is also an AGP bus so my 7800GT won't work as it's PCI-e .

IIRC your system is running ATI Radeon 9600 XT with 128MB of ram and is AGP bus. This IMO is your main problem and I'm not sure what your options are for this machine type upgrades. But I'd fully explore the upgrade path for the GPU and what options are there before I'd drop big €'s on a Mac Pro System as Aperture is all about the Graphics sub system. My G5 is 95% of the speed of my 2.4Ghz Core 2 MBP.

[lepremier]

Simple, just press the letter T on the keyboard, or if you like the long way around view....metadata....image tool tips.

 

Thanks Eoin...

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[JHAG]

Precious insight, Eoin.

Meanwhile, I received this advice which concurs yours from a techie on Apple forum :

"RAM will help but if you have the stock graphics card on the G5 the GPU is a primary bottleneck to Aperture operation. Upgrade cards may be hard to find and personally IMO folks doing graphics work today with G5s should probably save for a Mac Pro rather than putting money into the defunct Powermac platform."

As we say in french, "la messe est dite".

 

BTW, how do you print several pictures (not the same one, different ones) in Aperture.

I know how to do it in LR Print Module, but in A2 ? Skin tones are so neutral and real in A2 that I really want to give it a serious try in print, now. Compared to that, C1 is really like

a colours candy shop.

[Eoin]

In Aperture 2 when you select an image to print it brings you into the print dialogue menu. In here you should create a preset for every print size and paper combination you would typically use.

 

The first thing I would do is

1. Duplicate the single image preset

2. Rename it to the paper type and image size e.g. Ilford Smooth Pearl 10x8

3. Select the profile you've just created and select your printer in the printer drop down box

4. Select printer settings, and set your settings under Quality & Media type, and then disable printer color management under colour options by setting it to none

5. The set paper size for the paper you're using e.g A4 borderless there are normally 2 options borderless or with border for each paper size

6. Set orientation to best fit

7. Set colorsync to the the ICC profile for the paper you're using e.g Ilford smooth pearl

8. Black point I leave off

9. Gamma will need to be adjusted as needed to bring your print brightness to the same level as your screen, when profiling your screen I recommend no higher than 100cdm. My print gamma would be in the region 1.05 to 1.10

10. Sharpen to your taste and use the loupe to view with the show loupe button

11. Set scale to what you want your output print size to be e.g in this example 10x8

12. Print resolution as needed or set use best DPI for cropped prints.

13. NOW click the save button to save this with all these settings.

 

You can then duplicate this and rename it to e.g Ilford smooth pearl A4 go back in and change the scale to setting to fit the entire image and click save again, now you have 2 presets one for 10x8 and one for A4. 6x4 would be the same process and so on

 

Then anytime you want to print an image it's just a matter of selecting the image in the viewer or shift clicking on a number of images and selecting File...Print Image(s) to print. When the print dialogue comes up select the preset you wish to use and hit print.