View Full Version : Aperture vs. Lightroom
urban_alchemist
03-10-2009, 23:11
I got burned a few years ago with the original 1.0 release of Aperture, and instead tied my horse to Lightroom. Last week, on buying a new computer I decided to give Aperture (now at version 2) another chance.
The migration was relatively painless (all keywords, though not adjustments or ratings, made it over in one piece). So, after a few days of mucking about...
... it's amazing. The whole program just seems to be far freer than Lightroom. The file structure is not rigid like Adobe's app - I can arrange as I want and easily manage between numerous HDs, backups and computers. The adjustments aren't as comprehensive, but the way they work seems to be far more logical - and you don't need to constantly shift between those damned 'panes'. RAW export seems much more natural-looking than Lightroom (no sign of those pinky-reds). I look forward to trying various plug-ins, but feel I should get to know the ropes first...
Overall, the UI seems to be less instantly 'obvious', but once you learn what is what, it opens up a level of flexibility that Lightroom doesn't at all allow.
Anyone had similar migration experiences?
I switched to Aperture when I bought an iMac last summer. It's great. I too was hosed by Aperture in the beginning. At first it was wonderful. Then it got crappy. Bad vault files and images that were uneditable. Then I discovered it was because my Hard Drive was faulty and on the verge of death. Got it replaced and it works wonderfully again. Especially for image sorting. And it has all the editing features I need. As for plug ins. I have Nik Colour effects and silver effects. And they work great.
urban_alchemist
03-10-2009, 23:47
One quick question: I've noticed that certain scanned negatives in Aperture are noticeably more grainy than in Lightroom. As they come from the same files and are JPEGs, I don't understand why this should be?
Fuji Pro400H scans especially have gone from smooth and creamy to grainy and (dare I say it?) nasty...
Any ideas?
Aperture kills lightroom in file organization and workflow, also lightroom nukes and smoothens any fine texture detail from my 5ds raw files compared to aperture.
Aperture is a way better program imo.
I just had a look for Aperture and found that it's Apple only. What would be the best alternative for a Windows user? (No, i'm not switching to Apple: it's just too hard at this stage).
I normally avoid digital stuff, but there are times when it's unavoidable.
I just had a look for Aperture and found that it's Apple only. What would be the best alternative for a Windows user?
Well, Lightroom...
mabelsound
03-11-2009, 03:50
I love Lightroom and think the workflow is great. But one thing I envy is the availability of plugins for Aperture. Lightroom added plugin support for v2, but so far nobody has bothered. I would really like to be able to use Alien Skin Exposure.
urban_alchemist
03-11-2009, 05:38
(No, i'm not switching to Apple: it's just too hard at this stage).
I think you'd be surprised. Girlfriend, dad and mum all switched in the last 12 months, and all very happy they did (I've been a mac man for 20 years - never owned a PC - so I can't comment about the process).
Ken Shipman
03-11-2009, 06:59
I've been a PC guy for 20 years. On a whim I picked up a MacBook and Aperture a couple of years ago. Super easy transition. Now I use both for different purposes, but the Apple is by far the more intuitive, integrated, and effortless. Aperture v2 is a pleasure to use.
I think going the reverse direction - from Apple to PC - would not be an easy transition for most who grew up on the Apple. Windows is just so messy by comparison.
I love Lightroom and think the workflow is great. But one thing I envy is the availability of plugins for Aperture. Lightroom added plugin support for v2, but so far nobody has bothered. I would really like to be able to use Alien Skin Exposure.
http://www.niksoftware.com/viveza/en/entry.php?view=intro/viveza_announcement.shtml
If I understood correctly, NIK is adding LR2 support for their other softwares too. IMO Viveza is the ultimate thing for color pictures and silver efex THE software for converting to B&W.
I love Lightroom and think the workflow is great. But one thing I envy is the availability of plugins for Aperture. Lightroom added plugin support for v2, but so far nobody has bothered. I would really like to be able to use Alien Skin Exposure.
I have had an E-mail from Alien Skin stating that they are working on a LR plugin.
I too look very much forward to it, noise ninja would be nice too.
//J
I have been debating the apple/pc question for some time now. I managed to get Mac OS X working on my PC, just to test it. Though not perfect, the OS is so much better than XP and Vista in my opinion. I am going to be buying a Mac Pro tower sometime next month. As for aperture and Lightroom, I've only tried Lightroom thus far. I think lightroom 2.2 is pretty great as it is farely easy to edit the photos. It saves all my Raw files, unedited, by dated folders. It has one file that contains all the edits to the raw files, and I export images as jpg that I want to post. If I need a plugin, I load photoshop. I do plan to test aperature though with the trial version, as it seems many people here like it.
mabelsound
03-11-2009, 10:05
Yes, I'm aware Alien Skin is working on a LR version, and I'm glad Nik is as well! Maybe by the time I have some more dough, there will be some great options to choose from...
Overconfidence
03-11-2009, 10:17
Aperture kills lightroom in file organization and workflow, also lightroom nukes and smoothens any fine texture detail from my 5ds raw files compared to aperture.
Aperture is a way better program imo.
Uhhhm, you're doing something wrong then. You probably had some settings set to default (noise removal or something) on Lightroom causing this.
buzzardkid
03-11-2009, 11:23
Well, I've made my choice, I use the 13.3" Macbook and Aperture was too heavy for that when I bought it, so I turned to LR on the Macbook. And loving it.
Question: anyone aware of a thorough Film-and-Digital Workflow Thread on the forum? I'd like to get to a methodic approach to both scanned and digital shots in one workflow process, but cannot get my act together.
Windows would be my choice if I was designing a self-check out system for Lowes, but not for photography.
and then you would use Linux, not windows. :D
Um...this isn't even close to an LR vs. Aperture discussion. It's an ad for Aperture, almost.
mabelsound
03-11-2009, 11:45
Question: anyone aware of a thorough Film-and-Digital Workflow Thread on the forum?
Start one!
buzzardkid
03-11-2009, 11:48
I'm so glad to see this ad from Apple on RFF. sigh. It's not even a LR vs. Aperture discussion.
Oops, sorry about that:D:D:D
mabelsound
03-11-2009, 11:52
FWIW, I have all PC's, one for recording, one for photography and web stuff, one laptop for writing and work. The first two run XP flawlessly, the last runs Ubuntu flawlessly. The whole PC/Mac debate is idiotic. They all work fine. Everyone here could function fine, even in a Vista-only world.
urban_alchemist
03-11-2009, 11:57
I'm so glad to see this ad from Apple on RFF. sigh. It's not even a LR vs. Aperture discussion.
Actually, it was my experiences as a former Lightroom user on migrating to Aperture.
If you didn't like the thread, you didn't have to read.
Or post.
You are absoultely right - I don't have to read it and I certainly don't have to post. However, I was interested in reading it because I thought there might be some interesting commentary about LR vs. Aperture, film>digital workflow, etc. I was disappointed that it was "I tried LR, I tried Aperture again, and Aperture is great." Not a lot of meat there.
Let's go a bit deeper, then - in what way did you find LR to have a rigid file structure? Was it that when you moved files around in your library they also moved physically? When did you run into problems with various locations for your stored files? I have files on a drobo, on a server, and locally. Not everything is connected at all times. I can even make changes on the ones not currently connected, though it's harder if I didn't generate and still have 1:1 previews.
The preference for panes is just a preference, and I completely respect that, of course. With dual display support now in LR I don't switch around very much. I presume you mean modules, btw. If I am wrong then I apologize and please let me know what you mean.
I run Vista 64 bit so LR is my only option, but I have used both Aperture 1 (wow, did they release that too early) and 2. I am frustrated by Aperture's tools as I don't find them as powerful as LR's. LR had a major RAW conversion issue in terms of color that has recently been addressed with camera profiles, thankfully. Both are highly effective as workflow management tools.
As for a film>digital workflow method, I'd certainly be willing to contribute my method but it's nothing special. Scan, import to LR, edit there, perhaps edit some more in PS. But I get the same tonal controls in LR as I did before in just PS, and it's cataloged with keywords.
buzzardkid
03-11-2009, 12:26
I was looking for a thread like this article (http://photo.net/learn/digital-photography-workflow/overview/fashion-photography/) on P.net.
Could not remember where I read it but an hour with googles extended search tools has turned it up again.
Enjoy the read, I found it very valuable and will once again start to organise my workflow.
urban_alchemist
03-11-2009, 12:43
See below in red (there's more in the third and fourth paragraph, but for some reason the HTML's not working):
You are absoultely right - I don't have to read it and I certainly don't have to post. However, I was interested in reading it because I thought there might be some interesting commentary about LR vs. Aperture, film>digital workflow, etc. I was disappointed that it was "I tried LR, I tried Aperture again, and Aperture is great." Not a lot of meat there.
Let's go a bit deeper, then - in what way did you find LR to have a rigid file structure? Was it that when you moved files around in your library they also moved physically? It was very difficult to organise my files post-import in Lightroom. Once in their location (which, as you said, is as easily organisable though not as instantly intuitive as "Aperture Library", there was very little flexibility for in-app organisation apart from 'quick collections' (themselves without drag-and-drop) and colour-marking.When did you run into problems with various locations for your stored files? I have files on a drobo, on a server, and locally. Not everything is connected at all times. I can even make changes on the ones not currently connected, though it's harder if I didn't generate and still have 1:1 previews.
The preference for panes is just a preference, and I completely respect that, of course. With dual display support now in LR I don't switch around very much. I presume you mean modules, btw. If I am wrong then I apologize and please let me know what you mean. I did indeed mean 'modules' and my appologies if I wasn't clear on the lingo. They drove me up the wall. I was using two monitors, but that didn't really change anything: I constantly found that I wanted to add/change a keyword or metadata, only to discover I was in the DEVELOP pane instead of LIBRARY, necessitating a break in work to get it done...
I run Vista 64 bit so LR is my only option, but I have used both Aperture 1 (wow, did they release that too early my god was it a dog. Took me two years to give it another chance... ) and 2. I am frustrated by Aperture's tools as I don't find them as powerful as LR's True - the lack of targeted adjustments is the one I miss most - hoping it'll be covered by plug-ins; another pro in Aperture's corner.. LR had a major RAW conversion issue in terms of color that has recently been addressed with camera profiles, thankfully. I guess I missed that update, because the RAW conversion was a complete disaster - especially the reds. Both are highly effective as workflow management tools.
As for a film>digital workflow method, I'd certainly be willing to contribute my method but it's nothing special. Scan, import to LR, edit there, perhaps edit some more in PS. But I get the same tonal controls in LR as I did before in just PS, and it's cataloged with keywords. I just bought a Coolscan 9000 so I'm going to be scanning myself (previously imported from lab scans). Interested to see how it changes my workflow.
tom.w.bn
03-11-2009, 13:07
I always wonder how people manage their backup when all of their files are in an Aperture Library. I don't have so many files (7.500, 60 GB size). Now they are organized in a lightroom library that is 102 MB. Backup of that is easy. I make delta backups where all new images and the library file is backed up. If I had Aperture the Aperture Library would be approx. 80-100 GB large. That's one file, isnt' it?. Backup means moving the whole library to my backup drive every time. Ok, I could use the option that aperture does not import the files in the library. But then it's just like Lightroom with a more static file structure.
How do you aperture users manage your backup?
mabelsound
03-11-2009, 13:09
Well, for Lightroom, I have two identical 500GB firewire drives that came with backup software...I leave the software running with the drives unplugged, and once a week or so I plug them in and the software just copies over all changes to my documents folder. Piece of cake!
I think the backup software's slowing my computer down, though, and I may switch to doing this manually...
mabelsound
03-11-2009, 13:13
Because I value being independent from any OS or application, I don't use LR (and wouldn't use any application) to catalog my photos into some kind of library for me. I keep my photos directly on a hard drive in a folder. This way I can manage my own files and backups.
So do I--Lightroom doesn't rearrange anything at all, at least not the way I use it. I decide where stuff goes, then I tell LR where to find it. That is, I take any new scans or digital photos, put them into a new folder, name the folder (like, "March 10 09 Canon 7s 50mm TriX downtown" or something), put the folder in the My Photos folder (inside another folder marked with the year), then go into LR, hit import, and set it to leave photos in their original location. LR just keeps track of the changes, cross-references them, etc., but the physical files stay where I put them. I assume most people work this way.
BTW, I also like the web galleries in LR! I actually bought a great one from Sean McCormack and use it on my website below.
Urban - the smart collections in LR might solve the issue you've had with file handling. I am _not_ at all saying that you should switch back to LR, just saying that they did, IMHO, address the issue. I have several smart collections set up so that I can work on everything I imported that day, the day before, etc. Rather than going through each individual photo or folder.
I also do a file-by-file backup to a server located off-site, plus my drobo has built-in redundancy. The catalog is what is critical, though. That contains all your changes. I just moved all my files to my new machine, gave the drobo the same drive letter, then let LR2 upgrade my LR1.4 catalog and voila, everything was there. Took a long time to rebuild all the thumbs to match the changes but they were all there.
The plug-in issue bugs me but third-party developers have made some interesting items. But the lack of plugging in Noise Ninja or something specific like that annoys me.
I'm a contact print guy myself. Finding images can be tough, true.
nextreme
03-11-2009, 17:38
I always wonder how people manage their backup when all of their files are in an Aperture Library. I don't have so many files (7.500, 60 GB size). Now they are organized in a lightroom library that is 102 MB. Backup of that is easy. I make delta backups where all new images and the library file is backed up. If I had Aperture the Aperture Library would be approx. 80-100 GB large. That's one file, isnt' it?. Backup means moving the whole library to my backup drive every time. Ok, I could use the option that aperture does not import the files in the library. But then it's just like Lightroom with a more static file structure.
How do you aperture users manage your backup?
Aperture has a built in backup facility called Vaults. I actually have 2 vaults setup, one that resides on an external HD, the other on my Linux server (which has multiple HD's in an LVM, but I still have to rebuild it as a RAID), and there's also the local library copy on my Mac and my Time machine disk has a backup, so my aperture library exists in four places at all times.
Even though the library looks like one file in the finder, it's actually a directory.
Cheers.
Uhhhm, you're doing something wrong then. You probably had some settings set to default (noise removal or something) on Lightroom causing this.
No, I'm not. I've been using lightroom for the last couple of years. My default settings are with all noise reduction off, all sharpening off (standard lightroom sharpening is pretty bad).
Download a trial for Capture One 4 and run some raw files through it, export them at the same size as those files exported out of lightroom and compare them. You'll see what I mean. Capture one is ultimate for fine texture and detail - it retains SO much more than lightroom it isn't funny. Aperture is slightly better than lightroom with it but not as good as capture one - but it's so very good in workflow that I can forgive it.
ACR is horrible for converting raws - everything goes weird - fine textures, skin tones, colors etc. All you have to do is compare it to capture one to see that.
You are absoultely right - I don't have to read it and I certainly don't have to post. However, I was interested in reading it because I thought there might be some interesting commentary about LR vs. Aperture, film>digital workflow, etc. I was disappointed that it was "I tried LR, I tried Aperture again, and Aperture is great." Not a lot of meat there.
Let's go a bit deeper, then - in what way did you find LR to have a rigid file structure? Was it that when you moved files around in your library they also moved physically? When did you run into problems with various locations for your stored files? I have files on a drobo, on a server, and locally. Not everything is connected at all times. I can even make changes on the ones not currently connected, though it's harder if I didn't generate and still have 1:1 previews.
The preference for panes is just a preference, and I completely respect that, of course. With dual display support now in LR I don't switch around very much. I presume you mean modules, btw. If I am wrong then I apologize and please let me know what you mean.
I run Vista 64 bit so LR is my only option, but I have used both Aperture 1 (wow, did they release that too early) and 2. I am frustrated by Aperture's tools as I don't find them as powerful as LR's. LR had a major RAW conversion issue in terms of color that has recently been addressed with camera profiles, thankfully. Both are highly effective as workflow management tools.
As for a film>digital workflow method, I'd certainly be willing to contribute my method but it's nothing special. Scan, import to LR, edit there, perhaps edit some more in PS. But I get the same tonal controls in LR as I did before in just PS, and it's cataloged with keywords.
http://www.apple.com/aperture/tutorials/
Go there and watch some of those videos, especially the ones with the folder structuring/importing explanations. The whole structuring of content as certain types of folders, albums, light tables, smart albums etc etc is much much more useful that lightrooms setup. To me anyway. Then there's lots of little things. I can't choose what I want imported in lightroom, and that bugs me. With aperture I can choose what I want off the memory card and only import those things. Metadata modification works a lot better because it's constantly just in front of you, rather than in a different module like lightroom. While editing photos I like them to be full screen on my 20" imac, with the editing tab still in the window. Can't do that in lightroom, can in aperture.
The recovery slider in lightroom destroys tones and colors. In aperture, it's a lot less detrimental to the tones and colors - especially midtones.
Light tables in aperture are very cool for seeing how groups of photos, or projects will look together. Can't do that in lightroom.
Smart albums are brilliant for immediately finding your best pictures, or pictures with a specific keyword or metadata entry and saving that as an "on demand" album. Can't do that in lightroom.
etc.
I've never really gotten on with Lightroom. I've tried it a few times, and I do find that a lot of its tools are more powerful than in Aperture. The levels tool in particular seems very weird to me in Aperture and I much prefer the LR version.
However, the Aperture workflow works much better for me. I like being able to seamlessly move from editing a photo, to creating a new smart album with a number of photos and automatically create a web gallery from there. The module concept in LR doesn't mesh with my way of thinking.
I can't comment too much on file structure and that. I appreciate having Aperture manage my files in one library. That way I don't have to worry about it, and I can concentrate on thinking about the images themselves, rather than what I did with that roll I scanned six months ago.
I think it really depends upon how one likes to work. I consistently find Apple's apps to work exactly as I would expect them to. I also use Logic for audio recording and I appreciate the fact that they each follow similar ideologies.
I also agree with all of fdigital's points. Opening a photo full screen with a small HUD with all of my tools is a great way to work.
well, perhaps it's time I gave aperture yet another try. if things go...kinda okay this year, I'll be able to upgrade to a mac pro for next fiscal. I'm not sure I need it, but I'm waiting for I guess CS5 which will actually work on OS X in 64 bit mode. it's all about what tool works best for someone. right now LR does what I need. and it does it quite well.
what is truly great is that both apple and adobe have thought about workflow, rather than just photo editing.
I just went shopping for Aperture and found that it wants fancier hardware than I've got. My Mac is a 1.8GHz dual-G5 tower but they say Aperture needs at least 2GHz. And a better graphics card than I've got too. More picky about memory and OS version than LR as well, which seems to be less demanding of hardware performance all-round.
I just went shopping for Aperture and found that it wants fancier hardware than I've got. My Mac is a 1.8GHz dual-G5 tower but they say Aperture needs at least 2GHz. And a better graphics card than I've got too. More picky about memory and OS version than LR as well, which seems to be less demanding of hardware performance all-round.
Doug.
Ive got the same machine as you (4.5GB RAM) and have both LR 2.0 and Aperture 2.0 installed. As much as I just don't like Aperture and run everything in LR, Aperture will run on your machine
I just went shopping for Aperture and found that it wants fancier hardware than I've got. My Mac is a 1.8GHz dual-G5 tower but they say Aperture needs at least 2GHz. And a better graphics card than I've got too. More picky about memory and OS version than LR as well, which seems to be less demanding of hardware performance all-round.
As I recall, there's a 30-day trial version of Aperture. You could see for yourself if it runs...
I picked up the first Lightroom beta on day one and loved it. By the time v1.0 was released (what, nine months later) I relied on the software and not buying it was no option. I've tried Aperture a few times (and I've tried others too... CaptureOne, Bibble...) and never been compelled to change. In my experience, the Lightroom workflow makes more sense to me, and the Lightroom Develop module has more tools and better tools than the competition. An internal Noise Ninja plugin is just about all I could ask for at this point, though now that I've got the D700, that's less of a concern.
Adobe occasionally frustrate me for one reason or another, but Lightroom is my favorite piece of software, without question. I enjoy working in it, and can lose hours there. Enjoyable hours, as one might have had in a darkroom.
Thanks Craig and Wiyum for your encouraging info! I should try the free sample versions and see what's what. I should give Capture One a fair try as well, and in brief experience I've been impressed at the processing results of Pentax Photo Library too, at least as a start, then save as TIFF and finish cropping, skewing, and a bit of selective lightening/darkening, resizing and Save as jpeg for upload in GraphicConverter.
willie_901
03-28-2009, 07:44
This photographer ranks Aperture lowest in IQ when compared to PS CS4, LR (tied for second) and Capture One.
http://www.smaku.com/blog/2009/03/27/photoshop-cs4-vs-lightroom-2-vs-aperture-2-vs-capture-one/
This photographer ranks Aperture lowest in IQ when compared to PS CS4, LR (tied for second) and Capture One.
http://www.smaku.com/blog/2009/03/27/photoshop-cs4-vs-lightroom-2-vs-aperture-2-vs-capture-one/
It should be made clear that the result by each raw converter is different for every camera file. For instance my Olympus DSLRs are horribile with ACR (adobe camera raw), okay with aperture, and brilliant with capture one. My Canon 5d files are very similar in aperture and lightroom, but better in capture one.
The reason I like aperture so much is because of it's library and image structuring - I think it's brilliant.
Aperture 2 is $249 AU and Lightroom 2 is AU$499 if one was to go on the ol adage that you get what you pay for then Lightroom 2 should have more to it/better. although i may be able to get Lightroom 2 with the education discount, which brings it down to $199AU. no edu discount available for Aperture
i have finaly got my Mac Pro machine although i have not set it up to use yet, I still need some extra drives and ram, new screen, software etc
but reading about aperture v lightroom is leaving me even more confused and i need to pick one!
is it possible for someone to outline in breif unbiased pro's con's of each application-remembering that i have not yet used either of them but want to make a choice, i saw some demo somewhere on the net for lightroom with two guys raving about it and it was qute convincing about meta tags and fining your photos' etc.....
but, does it appear that that the majority of people here are prefering Aperture 2 ? perhaps because it is a apple software and maybe this works better than lightroom on macs
Aperture 2 is $249 AU and Lightroom 2 is AU$499 if one was to go on the ol adage that you get what you pay for then Lightroom 2 should have more to it/better. although i may be able to get Lightroom 2 with the education discount, which brings it down to $199AU. no edu discount available for Aperture
i have finaly got my Mac Pro machine although i have not set it up to use yet, I still need some extra drives and ram, new screen, software etc
but reading about aperture v lightroom is leaving me even more confused and i need to pick one!
is it possible for someone to outline in breif unbiased pro's con's of each application-remembering that i have not yet used either of them but want to make a choice, i saw some demo somewhere on the net for lightroom with two guys raving about it and it was qute convincing about meta tags and fining your photos' etc.....
but, does it appear that that the majority of people here are prefering Aperture 2 ? perhaps because it is a apple software and maybe this works better than lightroom on macs
They both work equally well on a well set up mac. Neither have any major problems.
My advice would be to download the 30day trials each of them has on their own websites and see which one you like more.
willie_901
03-30-2009, 13:41
I agree... run the trials.
As fdigital points out, both are good. One reason I prefer LR because there are more LR users, so there are lots of third party plug-ins and templates.
fixed point
03-30-2009, 13:55
I much prefer the "free form" interface of Aperture over Lightroom. I also prefer Aperture in the areas of performance, organization, and keywording. That said, I use Lightroom for two reasons: non-destructive dodge and burn and the DNG 1.2 camera profiles. If Aperture were to allow non-destructive selective editing I would switch back in a heartbeat. As it is, if you need to create a TIFF to dodge and burn with their built-in plugin, then you might as well open in Photoshop and do it there.
I really like Aperture for everything except the image processing pipeline, in which I think Lightroom's is superior. In my opinion, Lightroom seems to combine (concatenate) operations together from the different sections of the Develop pane, whereas Aperture would appear not to.
This is not a big deal if you are doing small tweaks around an image. However, if you are really shifting contrast, colour balance, etc., you will find that Aperture clips more readily, more often. Moreover, the interpolation between the "curves" (Histogram points), would seem to behave like a cardinal-spline - meaning the closer you move the points, it just compresses the curve - so you may go from a smooth curve, to something quite sharp (the curve is compressed in space by being pushed up and down, with the limits of the curves going beyond the values of the set points). Cardinal-splines are easy to program however, because there is not need to calculate the tangents, which may explain something. To the people who don't understand what the hell I am talking about, when you move your histogram points close together, it will result in the visual equivalent of clipping, or worse, unintended solarisation.
So, with Aperture, I found I couldn't “overwork” the dials as much as you can in Lightroom. Aperture seems to have very safe limits, even when you ignore the sliders and type numbers up to their highest value. I do think Aperture has a more “pure” approach to image processing… and the new RAW 2.0 conversions are very nice. But I think Lightroom handles shadows more delicately (it won’t crunch them as suddenly); plus it has curves controls, which I find handy and intuitive.
The other thing that bugs me both in Aperture and Lightroom is that you cannot reorder the modules, so that the processing happens in a different sequence. However, in Lightroom, this limitation seems to be somehow less apparent, or maybe I need to get used to the tools… In Aperture, if I wanted to go the full monty in Highlights & Shadows, for example, I would prefer that it did this as part of the Levels adjustment (which is pretty much your last chance to change the overall shadows and highlights, contrast, etc). As it stands, the highlight/shadow controls come after Levels, and inherit whatever you may have done to the image (clipping highlights, for example), but the highlight control cannot regain what has been clipped -- even though it was there before. (I know you can do Highlight Recovery earlier, in the Exposure module, but I am talking about manipulating the shoulder and toe of the curves [aka Histogram] here more than "recovery"). In Lightroom the Curves and Shadow/Highlight controls are combined into the one module. In this way, Aperture is odd, but it doesn't have to be, as Apple do it "correctly" in other apps.
I have read online that Aperture works in float (generally defined as 32bit or higher), although the user manual seems to have no reference to this. If true, a float pipeline would mean you couldn’t end up clipping an image in the whites or blacks – information would be preserved module to module, so if you did two contradictory adjustments (say, brighten in one module and darken in the next), the detail in the image would not be adversely affected - it would be passed on to the next module (even if you can't see it visually). In most Apple products, this means 32-bit float, and they have it implemented (and documented) in Core Image, Motion, and Shake.
You don’t get far into the processing chain to see that Aperture is not working in float, at least module to module. If you crank the contrast up in the Enhance module, but try to pull the highlights down using the quarter tone controls in the Levels module, you will see that your image has been clipped. In fact, I would say that one would be best off not to touch a lot of the controls in the Exposure and Enhance modules, and try and get it all done in Levels, so that you are not losing too much detail in your image.
I'm not suggesting that Lightroom is any better in the image-bit-depth respect, it just seems to hide it all better.
Of course, Aperture does a lot of other stuff quite well. I much prefer the interface, and the organisation side of Aperture. It is more intuitive, integrated, and I find it much faster when it comes to finding what I want.
The difference between Lightroom and Aperture (or C1, Bibble, et al.) is becoming the modern equivalent of shooting Kodak or Fuji. Perhaps the best way to look at it is settle on the one that works best for you. Horses for courses.
I'm sorry to take up so much space in this discussion - I've been thinking about this a bit!
I agree... run the trials.
As fdigital points out, both are good. One reason I prefer LR because there are more LR users, so there are lots of third party plug-ins and templates.
yeah, fdigital advice on running the trials makes sence, at least it would give me a starting point or feel. however, not having used this type of thing before (comming from wet darkroom), i am worried that i simply wont know what i am looking at within a short trial period time (given there must be considerable learning curve, heck even though i am not using the Mac per say yet i have been playing around with it, they say its intuitive but they say that about women too, so far i end up with a mess of windows open in safari and cant find my way from one to the other LOL, no back button on the mouse either! thats frustrating! cant press the center button to open a new window/tab either haha--hopefully it will get better)
so to make an informed decision, so to some extent i try to understand the points made by you folk that have more experiance with actually having used either for some time. at this point i hardy know what plugins are, and how often, or, how one makes use of them from day to day
I much prefer the "free form" interface of Aperture over Lightroom. I also prefer Aperture in the areas of performance, organization, and keywording.
i dont know what free form means but it sounds good hehe, and as for the rest thats sounds good as well, although the demo by the blokes on the LR2 web page seemed to indicate organisation and keywording was a strong feature of LR2
That said, I use Lightroom for two reasons: non-destructive dodge and burn and the DNG 1.2 camera profiles. If Aperture were to allow non-destructive selective editing I would switch back in a heartbeat. As it is, if you need to create a TIFF to dodge and burn with their built-in plugin, then you might as well open in Photoshop and do it there.
now this is a term i understand-dodge and burn, combined with non distructive sounds like a real benifit--which no doubt means it doesnt stuff up the original and can be reversed easy
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.