Jeezoflip Posted December 15, 2006 Share Posted December 15, 2006 Im just curious to see what all of you prefer. But more importantly why. Pros and cons of both. Which one has an advantage over one, which one has better features. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schweppes Posted December 15, 2006 Share Posted December 15, 2006 Both are orientated to different uses. You have compare Apeture vs. Adobe Lightroom (not with Photoshop). Aperture and Lightroom have the same target and uses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phi Posted December 18, 2006 Share Posted December 18, 2006 Lightroom will be build into Photoshop. So Photoshop is/will be the master peace of software again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuruu Posted December 19, 2006 Share Posted December 19, 2006 Lightroom will not be 'built' into Photoshop, it will however offer tighter integration than is currently available with Aperture. This is definitely a plus. Overall however I greatly prefer Aperture as Library management it offers some great features, where is could improve is where Adobe is winning that is with fine tuning adjustments and things like noise reduction, this is largely due to plug-ins, if Aperture supported a noise ninja plug-in for example, the sky is the limit! I wish 'keywords' were implemented a little better in Aperture as well. Plus there is no easy way to make a smart album that 'does not contain', though there are some workarounds... I think of Aperture as iTunes was up until version 5.0, best option out there, but still room for improvement, but good enough that I will use it full time for the convenience it offers and ignore the faults. Aperture is like that now, but you can bet your bottom dollar it will improve. Bring on 2.0 I say! 1.0 came in December 2005 1.5 Came in Sep 2006 So 2.0 maybe June 2007? I love Aperture, I love Photoshop, I don't love Lightroom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schweppes Posted December 19, 2006 Share Posted December 19, 2006 (edited) I dont like how Aperture manage the libraries...i prefer Lightroom (dont forget that Lightroom is still beta version!). I think that the final release of Lightroom will be great! Adobe has much more experience on imaging software than Apple. Edited December 19, 2006 by Schweppes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuruu Posted December 19, 2006 Share Posted December 19, 2006 I dont like how Aperture manage the libraries...i prefer Lightroom (dont forget that Lightroom is still beta version!). I think that the final release of Lightroom will be great! Adobe has much more experience on imaging software than Apple. Do you mean, you don't like how Aperture organises your photos into packages? I think this is a fair call, as it definitely up to ones taste only and takes getting used to. I didn't like it when iPhoto did this and that was why I went for iView instead at the time, but Aperture is robust enough that I give over to it's organisational abilities. Not for everyone though, to be sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livestrong Posted December 20, 2006 Share Posted December 20, 2006 With the Photoshop beta out, it is so much faster! There is quite a lot to be said about a native Photoshop, especially considering how annoying the slow speed was becoming. Aperture is great, but I am just so much more used to Photoshop and the whole Adobe suite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
munky Posted December 21, 2006 Share Posted December 21, 2006 As of Aperture 1.5 you can choose to let Aperture manage your images in its own library, or you can reference files in another location, so thats no longer a valid point against Aperture. I love Photoshop, and I use it for any image editing I need to do from my Aperture workflow (right click -> edit in external editor). I have given Lightroom a fair trial, and IMHO its way behind Aperture as a workflow tool. Yeah, it has nice adjustments, but it doesnt beat Aperture's way of doing things. For example, in Aperture, say I take an image, change the white balance, then crop, then rotate, then change exposure. I can then switch off and on any of these adjustments (and more) completely independently. I can undo the white balance change, the very first change I did, without affecting the subsequent changes. Or I can turn it back on and switch off the crop. I can then change the rotation. Basically, I can do whatever the hell I want. Also, thanks to Versions and Masters, I can completely {censored} around with a photo so its nothing like the original, then just do 'New Version from Master' and bang - I have a fresh copy of the original to start with. I can even do 'New Version from Current Version' and selectively undo, or apply more changes on THAT version, and see what difference it would make versus any other version, or even against an unmodified version. Best of all, I can go back to a photo I shot a year ago, decide I didnt like the way I cropped it, and then just redo it. NOTHING is lost, nothing is destroyed. And nothing is linear. From what i've seen, Lightroom cannot match this. Anyway, to sum up - I use Aperture and Photoshop, each for what they're best at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schweppes Posted December 21, 2006 Share Posted December 21, 2006 Aperture is not compatible with my Fujifilm S9000 RAW format. I Adobe Lightroom you can reset changes too, and bring back your original shoot. Lightroom still in BETA fase, it will be better on the commercial final release, and it has much compatibility with a lot of digital cameras (not only professional). I think both have to evolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adm_kenshin Posted December 21, 2006 Share Posted December 21, 2006 I think that Aperture has more ingenious functions (it's Apple, after all), and perhaps a better workflow (I wouldn't know). It has one big disadvantage though: It crawls along on my Macbook. I'm only an amateur photograph, and I think that lightroom fits me better, as I don't need all the functions in Aperture, and the ones I need are too slow on my Macbook. Lightroom is much lighter on the computer. If I decide to take my photographing seriously then I would definitely invest in a MBP and Aperture (the RAW support in Ape is better than in Lightroom, I've heard). So, if you're a proffesional photographer, try Aperture/Photoshop combo. If you're an amateur photographer, then perhaps lightroom is better for you (at least if you have a macbook/other slow computer). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeezoflip Posted December 21, 2006 Author Share Posted December 21, 2006 I like Aperture for photography, and photoshop for editing images such as graphics, not so much photographs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
munky Posted December 21, 2006 Share Posted December 21, 2006 adm_kenshin: 2Gb of ram makes Aperture on a MacBook VERY usable. Even 1Gb makes it reasonable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adm_kenshin Posted December 22, 2006 Share Posted December 22, 2006 adm_kenshin: 2Gb of ram makes Aperture on a MacBook VERY usable. Even 1Gb makes it reasonable. I have 1.25 Gb. Guess that Dual-channel speed-up thingy really does matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
munky Posted December 23, 2006 Share Posted December 23, 2006 yeah, dual-channel is a must on a macbook. seriously, get yourself another 1gb... i had a macbook 1.83ghz with 2gb ram which i traded in for a refurb macbook pro 1.83ghz with 1.5gb ram, and seriously, the macbook was perceptibly faster. (given that the processors etc are identical). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
munky Posted December 23, 2006 Share Posted December 23, 2006 schweppes: yeah, in lightroom you can switch off changes too, but afaik only in the reverse sequence they were applied. in aperture they're completely independent - killer feature for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lambsporriegetta Posted December 24, 2006 Share Posted December 24, 2006 Not wanting to throw the cat amongst the pigeons but I think capture one will have something to knock the socks off those guys next year. The workflow in that app is by far the quickest i've ever come accross. It doesn't seem as popular around here as lightroom and aperture, but i believe the quality of it's processing far exceeds any other raw processing app. We use it at work and I can crop colour optimise and output for press use by clients a hundered files per hour (retouching aside). They don't do libraries though, so they don't really count for this topic, and we have to use other software for DAM. I have to say, i'm not aware of any pro photographers that use either software for managing libraries, although I might expect Lightroom to be adopted by some when it comes out of beta. For our workflow any given image goes through no less than 5 pieces of software (capture one is counted twice.... used for tethered shooting and later for processing) This seems to be the best approach we've come accross on any pro discussion sites. FYI Capture One Pro - Tethered shooting Photomechanic - Reliable and universally readable IPTC/XML annotations IView Media Pro - Web preview gallery creation and per shoot cataloging Capture One Pro - RAW file processing Photoshop - retouching/spotting and colour profile management. then archived to HD caddies (and tapes) using Retrospect's byte by byte verified duplication system and catalogued back via IView. Sorry bout this ramble, but thought you may be interested......and it's nearly on topic! To finish, i do however use lightroom at home....and especially now with the PS10 beta it is tightly integrated with adobe's image system. It does a fair job of raw processing and handles my 6000 image library well enough. Aperture will likely struggle to do battle for the pro market when PS10 and lightroom are out of beta. Re MBP vs MB for the pros comments.....i couldn't imagine ever wanting to carry any given piece of kit knowing another comparable item was available that was smaller and lighter.....so it's a macbook for me all the way. I used to have a 12" powerbook, and it looked like {censored} by the time i upgraded at the ripe old age of 2!...so no more alluminium for me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts