Aperture vs. Lightroom

urban_alchemist · 03-10-2009

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?

swoop · 03-10-2009

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

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?

gavinlg · 03-10-2009

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.

john_s · 03-11-2009

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.

pmu · 03-11-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by john_s

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

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by john_s

(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

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.

pmu · 03-11-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by mabelsound

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...uncement.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.

snip · 03-11-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by mabelsound

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

pevelg · 03-11-2009

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

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by fdigital

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

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.

pevelg · 03-11-2009

Quote:

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.

kaiyen · 03-11-2009

Um...this isn't even close to an LR vs. Aperture discussion. It's an ad for Aperture, almost.

mabelsound · 03-11-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by CLE-RF

Question: anyone aware of a thorough Film-and-Digital Workflow Thread on the forum?

Start one!

buzzardkid · 03-11-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by kaiyen

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

mabelsound · 03-11-2009

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by kaiyen

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.

kaiyen · 03-11-2009

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

I was looking for a thread like this article 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

See below in red (there's more in the third and fourth paragraph, but for some reason the HTML's not working):

Quote:

Originally Posted by kaiyen

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 [COLOR="rgb(139, 0, 0)"] my god was it a dog. Took me two years to give it another chance...[/color] ) and 2. I am frustrated by Aperture's tools as I don't find them as powerful as LR's [COLOR="rgb(139, 0, 0)"] 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.[/color]. LR had a major RAW conversion issue in terms of color that has recently been addressed with camera profiles, thankfully. [COLOR="rgb(139, 0, 0)"] I guess I missed that update, because the RAW conversion was a complete disaster - especially the reds.[/color] 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. [COLOR="rgb(139, 0, 0)"] 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. [/color]

tom.w.bn · 03-11-2009

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?