Aperture 3: Is It Time To Switch?

Apple has finally released an update to its image processing software application. Aperture 3 arrived on the scene several days ago. With this release we photographer humans once again raise the question “Is it time to switch?”

Since you are reading this on a site called Lightroom Secrets you must know how this will turn out. Right? But the answer may not be as black and white (no pun intended) as it may seem. There are many factors that go into a decision about which application to choose. Either will be a major investment in time, learning, personal/professional workflow, and so on. So let’s start with a little background.

I was a long-time Windows user and switched to Mac about two years ago. I still use both platforms but do prefer Mac. Obviously, as a Abode Certified Expert in Lightroom and one of the Adobe Community Professionals for Lightroom, I am a Lightroom user. I am not, however, an Adobe employee.

I’m also comparing Aperture 3 to Lightroom 3 Beta. In the past Adobe has always included more features in the final release than they exposed in their public betas so there may be things coming that we’re unaware of right now. So there you have it. What follows is editorial in nature and, to the best of my abilities, objective. Let’s get started…

Operating System

Aperture 3 is only available on a Mac. So if you are a Windows user there is no question to be answered here. Apple does not provide an alternative for you. And therein lies the first advantage that Lightroom has. According to the Professional Photographers of America 65% of Professional Photographers use a PC, 14% use a Mac, 11% use both, and 10% don’t use a computer. The Digital Photography School has more recent numbers: 50% for PC, 40% for Mac, 7% Both, and 2% Other. Either way, that’s a large number of photographers ignored by Apple.

Ecosystem

Both Aperture and Lightroom gain strength by being loyal to and well integrated into their respective ecosystems. And this is a matter of personal preference which will inform your decision.

If you are comfortable in the Apple ecosystem of iPhoto, iMovie, Final Cut, etc. then Aperture will make you feel more at home. It will seem more intuitive and the workflow will make sense to you out of the box. Lightroom will seem like an intruder. It won’t integrate as elegantly in the Apple ecosystem.

If you are a fan of the Adobe ecosystem with Photoshop, Photoshop Elements, Premier, InDesign, etc. then Lightroom will probably make more sense to you. In this ecosystem, Aperture is the intruder.

Both applications can play nicely with your other applications. Both handle integration well and have brilliant moments and clumsy moments. Your first question to answer is which ecosystem have you grown accustomed to.

Footprint

Aperture 3 is huge! It weighs in at 585Mb versus Lightroom 3 Beta’s 68Mb (Mac) 120Mb (Windows) download size. Aperture’s library and vault seem to grow exponentially as you work on images. Lightroom catalog barely grows at all while performing equivalent tasks. Many photographers working on the go on laptops are drive space conscious and Aperture 3 seems to pay no heed to limited drive real estate.

Responsiveness

Aperture 3 wins the import contest for speed. It performed much better than Lightroom 3 Beta. On the other hand, I found Aperture 3 sluggish in many other areas. Lightroom stayed speedy overall and didn’t make me wait as much as Aperture did.

Responsiveness while working is more important to me than during import. I can let import run while attending to other tasks but I want speedy performance while I’m editing. Lightroom 3 Beta wins this one.

New Features

Many of the 200 features touted on Apple’s website are merely catch up features to Lightroom 2.6. Things like presets and non-destructive localized adjustments are features Lightroom users have enjoyed for some time now. Given that it’s taken Apple nearly two years to do this, I remain unimpressed.

Aperture 3 does have some outstanding features that the Lightroom team over at Adobe should pay attention to, however. Photo books in Aperture continue to be an amazing thing. The ease of creation along with some stellar templates make this a hands down winner for Aperture!

Another way out in front feature is Aperture’s slideshows. Lightroom made some inroads here during the version 2.x time frame but it pales by comparison to Aperture’s robust and feature rich slideshow implementation.

Photo books and Slideshow alone might tempt me to add Aperture to my tool set but it’s not enough to make me switch.

Lightroom wins the website battle without question. Its Web module is far more flexible that what Aperture has to offer. Several developers I’ve spoken with commented on how they can easily develop website engine for Lightroom but cannot get cooperation from Apple to open up web development in Aperture.

Lightroom 3 Beta introduces custom print layouts. Its Print module yields superior output than Aperture. Aperture remains more flexible on the layout side.

Geo-tagging goes to Aperture with it’s Places feature. Aperture 3 implements a very robust interface for working with GPS data. Lightroom does work with GPS data once embedded but is no where near Aperture in this regard.

Faces, while interesting, doesn’t have much of a place in a pro application. I think it’s amazing in the consumer iPhoto app but there are a limited number of situations where this technology is useful for the Pro.

User Interface and Workflow

This is an area of much debate. I think it goes back to which ecosystem you are more comfortable in. However, there are some points that should be addressed. Aperture 3 touts full screen browsing and image editing as an advantage over Lightroom. Sorry, Lightroom has had this for quite some time. Command-Shift-F (Control-Shift-F on Windows) puts Lightroom into full screen mode with all panels out of the way. That works in the Library Module as well as the Develop Module. You can set your panels to auto hide and show so they slip in and out of view quite easily.

Some Aperture users complain of having to scroll and scroll to reach tools in the side panels. Set the sections to Solo Mode and they will expand and contract as you need them. No scrolling needed.

Here is where I am biased by which ecosystem I’ve grown accustomed to. I find Aperture to be horribly disjointed and unorganized. The modular approach of Lightroom just makes so much more sense to me. I can easily jump here and there from the keyboard yet I can also concentrate on one logical task at a time when I need to. Aperture can do this but it takes some effort to get it organized and set up an efficient workflow. I’m sure devoted Aperture users will argue the other way but again, this is a personal preference item. The workflow has to work for you. If Aperture’s approach fits you better then that’s a good thing.

RAW Interpretation

Comparing Lightroom 3 Beta’s RAW engine to Aperture 3′s I found that Lightroom did a better job at processing RAW data. Adobe Camera Raw is the underlying technology for Lightroom and remains the industry leader here. Combined with flexible camera profiling and much improved noise reduction performance in the Beta, Lightroom wins on this.

Corporate Culture and Developers

I found that when I tried to use many plugins, Aperture required me to restart in 32 bit mode since the plugins weren’t 64 bit. Other plugins just weren’t compatible. While this will be addressed by developers in the coming days it raises an important difference in the corporate cultures at Adobe and Apple.

By being open and soliciting input from the user base, Adobe’s public betas have gathered useful information and helped make the product superior. Additionally, developers have a chance to see what’s coming and have adjustments made to their plugins so that on day one of the final release, compatible plugins are usually ready to download.

Apple’s obsession with secrecy means that the general user population doesn’t get any input until the product is released. Developers are kept in the dark so their plugins need to be updated after the release date for Aperture.

Adobe remains much more nimble at addressing Pro photographers needs. Lightroom has a much more lively development cycle with frequent dot updates and timely version upgrades. Apple just seems to not care. Why does it take nearly two years for a new version of Aperture to arrive? That’s just not the kind of cycle I want to get involved with.

Wrapping Up

I am going to revisit the feature for feature comparisons later on after the final release of Lightroom 3. That will be more of an (and here comes another pun) apples to apples comparison. For now I will answer the question “Is it time to switch?” with an unequivocal no. Lightroom, even at version 2.6, remains a better application than Aperture 3.

As I mentioned going in… this is my opinion and not a statement of fact. I still recommend that you download the free trials for both and see what fits you better. More to come…

No related posts.

   Print This Story Print This Story    Email This Story Email This Story

Tags: ,

This entry was posted on Sunday, February 21st, 2010 at 11:31 am and is filed under Lightroom 3, News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Line Break

About the Author: Gene McCullagh
Contact Gene


Gene is an Adobe Community Professional and and Adobe Certified Expert in Photoshop Lightroom, Photoshop, and InDesign, and an avid Lightroom fan. He belongs to the Professional Photographers of America (PPA) and the National Association of Photoshop Professionals (NAPP). Gene also the Co-Founder, Manager and a frequent blogger for the Dallas Fort Worth Adobe User Group (DFWAUG).

In addition to running Lightroom Secrets, Gene also contributes to O'Reilly's media blog, moderates on the Adobe forums, and helps out on lightroomforums.net.

  • Annie
    Aperture is a joke. I say this after using it extensively. Save yourself A LOT of misery and don't switch. I'm going back to Lightroom.
  • Dscott
    Adobe Camera Raw is the "industry leader"? Based on what? Certainly not on the quality of it's raw conversion output.

    I have extensively worked in Phase One's Capture One Pro 5, Apple's Aperture 3, Adobe's Lightroom 2 and Lightroom 3 beta applications. Capture One continually produces better resolution, better color accuracy, cleaner colors, better tonal separation, and better contrast -- local and global then Aperture or LIghtroom to date. Aperture comes in second with Lightroom brining up the rear. In our business, producing the finest quality digital image from capture to print is paramount.

    As for features: We do like Lightroom's Split Toning and Lens Correction features. Aperture may behind the curve on Adjustment Brushes, but their implementation is far superior to Lightroom's Adjustment Brushes. Lightroom is severely lacking behind both Capture One and Aperture when it comes to Curve Adjustments. Other than that, all of these application are far from perfect.

    One last comment I would like to make is that Apple is not the only one guilty of putting amateur type features into a pro level application. Adobe has been doing that for years since version 4 of Photoshop. CS5 is loaded down with amateur features with nothing really useful for the Pro. Try working with a 500mb file in Photoshop CS5 and you'll begin to understand.
  • Zaph
    Thanks Gene. The pricing comment wasn't so much about the international pricing, but more about Lr costing twice as much as Aperture, but everyone expects them to be equal. We don't expect the same out of a camera or lens costing half the price, but software somehow doesn't seem to have the same cost considerations when it comes time to compare.
  • Software is indeed a much different animal than hardware. Looking back, LR came out at $199 when Aperture was at $299. Then Apple dropped the price to $199. LR went up to $299. I believe the upgrade prices for both have been stable at $99. So who can tell where these two will eventually end up. ;-)
  • Zaph
    While I agree that Apple's IP secrecy can sometimes be a hinderance, and Aperture may be a bit less of the product than it could be with a public beta and more feedback ... I think you may be falling for the Adobe PR hook, line and sinker. It's primarily not about the feedback, it's about getting you to use it in your workflow, and depending on it, and getting large libraries in it, so when it comes time for the release, you are invested. You are already using the product, and buying it is a almost inevitable. They are a corporation, not a charity. Feedback is a handy by-product, but it's not why they do it.

    Also, why does no-one ever mention that Lr is double the cost of Aperture? (More than double in Australia)
  • Thanks for the comment Zaph!

    Adobe's interest in getting users committed to their products is no different than any other corporation's interest, Apple included. That's just how the world works. Obviously, the more you dedicate yourself to an application and its workflow (whether LR or Aperture) the more invested you are in staying in that application.

    I prefer LR. Others prefer Aperture. And that's fine. Whatever works for you is what you should use.

    I don't have any insight into Adobe's pricing practices but I will agree with you that their international vs US pricing does seemed rather skewed. It would be best if they could shed some light on why there is such a discrepancy.
  • Len
    The URL for the review is http://www.photo-topics.info
  • Len
    I edited five images in Lightroom and then I edited the same images in Aperture 3. It took 12 minutes in Lightroom and 15 minutes in Aperture 3. I videoed the tests and you can see the videos by going to my website http://photo-topics.

    I also updated my Aperture 3 review. Aperture's performance is its biggest problem. Having to wait for the screen to catch up to your changes is just frustrating. Lightroom, for the most part, keeps pace with my brush strokes and slider changes. Aperture's PROCESSING spinning wheel is on way to much to allow me to be productive. As I mentioned before, I will be using Aperture 3 for my personal photographs and videos. It has some great features that Lightroom doesn't have.
  • rockaway
    Ap seems to have different RAW processing depending on camera model. May or may not be similar to Lr's camera profiles. Overall, all the competing tools are doing a good job these days -- especially when one considers that the final output is a print. In the printed output, it's fair to call it a draw.

    Full screen = no other interface visible. Lr always has at least a quarter inch of interface visible around the edge of the "full" screen and a half inch stripe at the bottom. Very nice, but not quite full.

    Condescending? Pros have been asking Adobe for these Aperture features for years: Soft Proofing, Tethered Shooting...

    Glad to see the state of the art continuing to evolve.
  • I'll agree to a RAW draw. LOL There are so many variables.

    LR full screen has no other interface visible. No edges and half inch stripe at the bottom. LR has true full screen capabilities.

    Yes, as much as I enjoy their products, Apple is a generally condescending company. "We know what you need and that's what we'll give you." They are a very secretive organization and don't reach out to their users for input. Case in point, a closed 2 year development cycle for Ap with no public beta or general user input.

    The best thing that comes out of all of this is the competition. Ap pushes LR, LR responds, Ap goes one better, LR... and so on. Whether you are an Ap user or LR user, everyone benefits from the "features fight".
  • davidjschloss
    "Yes, as much as I enjoy their products, Apple is a generally condescending company. "We know what you need and that's what we'll give you." They are a very secretive organization and don't reach out to their users for input. Case in point, a closed 2 year development cycle for Ap with no public beta or general user input."

    This one drives me nuts. Both Apple and Adobe are secretive. Adobe's goals in delivering a beta aren't purely feedback driven. If their product managers haven't understood after a few years of LR 2 being on the market what their customers want, they're not going to get it from a beta.

    Apple ran a A3 program with their Aperture Advisory Board and they attended countless workshops, seminars and photo events to get feedback on the program They read every bit of email that came in from the feedback tools on the web, just like Adobe does.

    Adobe released a beta in October. It's March. They haven't announced any new features, didn't drop an update the LR 3 that gives people the ability to test newer cameras, haven't said when the ship date for LR 3 is, what the pricing will be, what features it will have—all customers have is a beta that's edging on six months old.

    Where is the huge customer interaction and feedback there?
  • Patience is a virtue. Adobe continues to gather input from its users. That input will be incorporated into possibly a second beta. There's a give and take here that Apple just doesn't engage in.

    Don't get me wrong, I really like Apple's products and the quality and sense of style they bring to the table. I just don't like the "we know what's good for you" attitude. I'm not the only one to observe this. Many people have the same opinion of Apple's secretive ways.

    I'm also not saying that Adobe is an angel in this regard. However, head to head, Adobe is much more up front and open about what's going on. Every company has some things they keep under wraps but Apple is overboard in this area.
  • rockaway
    Glad to see the comparo, Gene. Just a few notes from my end:

    I hope you tested using the recently released Ap3.0.1 update. It fixed the performance issues that you reported.

    I switched from Ap1 to Lr1 (then Lr2, now 3beta) when Lr was released, but Ap3 has changed my mind. I don't consider full screen mode a relevant reason to tip scales in favor of one or the other, but it's not fair to call Lr's implementation really "full screen". It's not.

    In most of these comparisons that have popped up online, it's common to see disparaging comments about Apple's monolithic Library structure and how elegantly Lr handles this issue. This couldn't be further from the truth. BOTH APPS have given users a choice of a monolithic managed library or referenced files in OS folders for a long time. But Ap has a clear lead in this area with its ability to consolidate and/or relocate masters that are referenced in projects. With one menu command, Ap lets you pull together all of the files that you might have distributed across four different hard drives, and then relocate all of those files to a different or remote drive. Can't do that with Lr. I'm also not aware of a Lr equivalent to Ap's Vault feature, which maintains live backups across any number of remote servers. Yes, Lr can backup it's catalog, but not the master files. Ap makes this a set and forget feature.

    But when push comes to shove, the most important feature for photographers is image quality. It's not correct to state that Adobe is clearly the leader in this area. I recently spent some time reprocessing a number of RAW files from several of my cameras in Ap3.0.1, Lr2.6, Lr3.0b, Canon DPP, and C1Pro5.1. I even tried to evaluate Bibble, but you can't get them to send an eval serial number, so they're out. The results of the test surprised me. Ap3's raw engine is clearly better than Adobe's RAW engine, and also better than C1Pro and DPP. Most of my testing was on high ISO files from Canon 7D, but I also tested with older 20D and 1DMk3 files. Ap renders files with less noise, and more detail. End of story.

    Sorry about the cranky Windows users complaints, but Apple's just not interested in making pro apps for customers who don't buy into the Apple ecosystem. iTunes for Windows sells iPods and iPhones. Ap and Final Cut have proven to be compelling reasons for pros to switch to Mac. That's why you'll never see their pro apps on Windows. Your note about usage trends correctly states that pros are abandoning Windows in increasing numbers -- I don't blame them. Of course Adobe makes identical versions for both, but the OS integration of Ap with MacOS X is hard to dislike.

    All in all, I think your comparo was fair, given that you don't write an "Aperture Secrets" blog. Keep up the great work!
  • Thanks Rockaway!

    No. I didn't have the 3.0.1 update available when I took my initial look. These are first impressions until the final version of LR3 ships. I'm glad that the sluggishness has been addressed.

    I will disagree with you on the full screen issue. LR operates in full screen mode very easily. When you go to full screen mode there's nothing else there but what you are concentrating on (image or library, etc.). It is fair to call it full screen because... it is.

    Yes, Ap does allow for a referenced library similar to LR. Even so, Ap's reference implementation still grows at a quicker pace than LR. LR does provide easy tools to consolidate and move files distributed across multiple drives to one drive or one drive to many. LR will act on the source files and not just on the catalog references. Now, to be fair, I am intrigued by the vault concept and can see a value there when you have drive space to spare. With the plummeting costs of drives this gets to be less of an issue. It really only remains on space conscious laptop environments. I think LR can learn from this feature.

    I am really going to have to disagree with you on image quality. LR3 is well beyond any of its competitors in this area. I've also run images that range from well exposed through extreme noise and every time LR3 yielded the best results. That's at least what I have seen and, with few exceptions, "better results" is mostly a subjective assessment. ;-)

    I can sympathize with our windows cousins. I was a windows user for many years (and still am during the workday). Not being on windows for a pro app limits the professional who locks themselves into Ap. LR pros can more easily interact since LR is on both platforms. While I really like Apple's hardware and most of their ecosystem, I do find them to be a little condescending to the community at large.

    Thanks for reading! I'll be taking another look later on. In the end, both Ap and LR are tools and the end user needs to pick the tool that fits them best.
  • davidjschloss
    "I am really going to have to disagree with you on image quality. LR3 is well beyond any of its competitors in this area. I've also run images that range from well exposed through extreme noise and every time LR3 yielded the best results. That's at least what I have seen and, with few exceptions, "better results" is mostly a subjective assessment. ;-)"

    Maybe that's part of the issue here. Better results aren't subjective. If you shoot test images in controlled ways then you can easily check for the color accuracy of your images, the artifacting resolved or not resolved by the RAW conversion engine and most specifically noise handling.
  • There are two ways to approach this David; Art and Science. What may be technically "better" may not be artistically better. I still maintain that better results are subjective. I personally like the results from LR better in this regard. That is not to say that someone else can have a different result.
  • albertomaria
    Most interesting and revealing Gene, although my greatest worry is to keep all the plugin-suit 5 for aperture into lightroom. I also found LR slower with large catalogs, but found a tip to optimise the catalog and files (a night job so don't attempt to do it during the day). The next obstacle is the interfacing with apple's ecosystem. iPhoto experience made slide shows a piece of cake and stunning for friends or customers. Nothing like that in LR. While web publishing is certainly much a pro in LR than in Apple's baby. I didn't quite understand the easyness of shifting between LR and Aperture with the splitted libraries could you explain? Moreover I saw that LR3 does not read LR2 catalog easily such as A2 with A3. Am I correct or missleaded? In any case I will read your final review and appreciate your professional and clear view. Thank you.
  • Thanks albertomaria!

    LR2 handles large catalogs much better than LR1 did. LR3 promises to handle them even better. We'll have to see. I have seen quite a few reports of Aperture's overall sluggishness.

    Don't dismiss LR's slideshow. There's quite a lot there. And you aren't limited to whatever Apple decides you should have. As for seamless workflow, I've found that FotoMagico does a marvelous job with slideshows and it reads LR catalogs just as easily as iPhoto libraries. It's worth a look if you do a lot of slideshow work.

    LR3 will have no problems reading LR2 catalogs. That functionality is not currently active in the beta but will be in the final release. (The same issue arose during the LR1 to LR2 phase.) Adobe doesn't want you converting your catalogs wholesale to a Beta version. You should work in LR2 but test a few things in LR3 Beta. Once the final release drops you can go ahead and open then old catalogs in LR3.
    I'm not sure what you mean by "splitted libraries". The transition between these two programs is not a simple task. Especially if you have a large collection of heavily edited work. But once you get to LR You'll be happy.
  • Andy
    I do not think that Adobe should just focus on Apple Aperture. I have made the decision between Ligthroom and Aperture, years ago and I do not regret it or even would think about changing.
    But for color, aperture, contrast or saturation I still prefer to use Phase One, especially for Digital Back RAW files. I personally believe for tip quality RAW converter Phase One is the benchmark not Aperture or Lightroom.
    So perhaps you should do a review on Lightroom versus Phase One 5.1?
  • Thanks Andy!

    I haven't looked at that application for a while. I'll have to try it out again to see if it has gotten better since I first encountered it.
  • Great article, Gene - thank you. I can't agree or disagree because I don't have a Mac or access to Aperture, but this helps me to understand the differences better.
  • Thanks, Laura! These are just initial impressions. Once the final version of Lightroom 3 ships I'll take another look.
  • paulstorer
    I tried that twice via Email and on the phone. I even tried the license key in the Lightroom Beta but no joy. I bought the whole set even though I only wanted Silver FX it was only a fraction more for the whole set of tools. I do like their noise reduction tool as well
  • Sorry to hear that. I guess the OS switch is easier than the LR/Aperture switch. Yes, they have excellent plugins and I'm glad to see them finally bundling to bring down the prices.
  • paulstorer
    I am / was a confirmed Aperture 2 user until I tried the Lightroom 3 Beta. At the moment I find I am using Lightroom 3 for most of my editing. I have set up and installed from other people lots of presets to simplify.

    For me this is the one area where I think Lightroom wins - It's not something that many people pickup on but to have a set of presets you can apply to one or more photographs improves workflow speed. As a social photographer workflow speed is important and I don't want to drop in and out of photoshop to get the effect I want.

    However - when I have done this editing I will pull the images into Aperture as I think the DAM facilities are better. I know the library gets big but a tip I got from an Aperture trainer (he has to remain nameless or he will be drummed off of Apples training team) was to split libraries and I find this works quite well. If I work on a laptop I will export a project to the laptop and re-import it when i've finished.

    The big question for me is what will I do when Abobe release Lightroom 3 as an official version; do I buy?

    The answer is probably no! I have invested in plug in tools for Aperture (NIK software) and to buy Lightroom means I have to buy these tools again or do without. One of the tools is Silver FX Pro - probably the best black and white processor on the market - It's not cheap so this will make me move to Aperture 3 rather than Lightroom. To me in someways it's reminiscent of the Canon vs Nikon arguement

    Sorry for the ramble guys


    Regards

    Paul Storer
    www.paulstorerphotography.com
  • davidjschloss
    Aperture 3 has presets Paul. And in Aperture they're stackable, while in LR they are not. In other words if you apply a vignetting and toning preset in LR and then apply a film simulation preset, you end up with just the film simulation preset. In Aperture, if you do the same thing, you can choose if you want the later preset to replace the former, or add them both together.
  • That's a big presumption David. Lightroom Preset stackability depends on how they were saved initially. If someone makes a preset that has all the settings included then, yes it will overwrite anything that precedes it. But if it only stores things it affects directly, e.g. Tone Curve settings, then presets can be cumulative. I've posted before that a good working practice is to only include the settings that the preset actually requires.
  • davidjschloss
    If a preset has to be saved without saving "all the settings included", it's not a preset. It's a partial preset. Aperture saves in the presets all the things being applied, and they're all able to be applied cumulatively.

    It's just like Apple used to say that Aperture 2 presets were fine only saving the set for each Brick, because you could apply a few changes to one image and then lift and stamp. But since you couldn't save that combination, it wasn't an adjustment preset.

    LR's presets are great, the point here is that Paul felt that only LR has presets, and that's not the case with AP3, and ALL of the presets in AP3 are cumulative and can contain all the settings you want.
  • Lift and Stamp is hardly a comparison to LR Presets David, and I know you know that. Because the normal mechanism to create presets includes the ability to be selective about what they contain, that makes a preset that only contains a single setting change as much a preset as one that changes everything.

    Now, I'm not saying that LR Presets are some magical thing, because while they are incredible time savers, I'd still like to see relative, stackable and fadeable presets. Asking a lot? Probably. I'm playing with onOne Suite 5 currently and I'm quite likely the ability to stack and fade.
  • davidjschloss
    Right, what I was just saying was that Aperture didn't have true presets in 2, does in 3.

    But if you'd like relative, stackable and fadeable presets, come to one of my Aperture workshops. :)
  • Thanks, but I'm really preferring the tools in LR3Beta for my work :) Not to mention my heavy investment in SDK learning.
  • davidjschloss
    Sorry, I didn't see your comment earlier about the multiple libraries— the trainer would not have been drummed out for telling you to split libraries. Lots of people do. So many in fact that Aperture 3's library management tools now include exporting any project or folder or album as a library, and the ability to seamlessly merge or import that into your library.
  • Thanks Paul!

    You may want to check with Nik. I know when I switched from Windows to Mac I didn't have to repurchase any plugins. Perhaps they will do something similar if you switch from Aperture to Lightroom. All of Nik's filters have Lightroom plugins.
  • Your review touches on the Aperture Library vs. the Lightroom Catalog while ignoring the differences. They are not the same.
    If you choose to use a managed workflow in Aperture then all your images and the information used in finishing (retouching, adjustments, etc.) are contained in the Library. Lightroom's catalog does not contain the images and that is why the disparate sizes. Should you choose to use reference files (my preferred method and similar to Lightroom's catalog) then the file size does not become unmanageable.
  • Thanks Ian! That is a good point. However, even when running with referenced files Aperture still expands the Library at a quicker pace than Lightroom does it's catalog.

    This goes back to the ecosystem you're used to. I've never been a fan of how Apple piles everything into a package rather than folders. I understand that packages are useful for many things but users I talk with continually get confused by them when they are used for data. Packages for apps doesn't seem to be as much of an issue.
  • davidjschloss
    Confusion about the issue doesn't mean the issue exists. Set your preview images small and you'll get a smaller increase in size on the Library. I'd like to see what tests you peformed to tell that "Aperture still expands the Library at a quicker pace than Lightroom..."

    This is certainly true if you're making books, as the template for a book would take up space, but then you're not talking about comparative things. LR would be taking up less space while doing less.

    And the 500+mb installer space for Aperture, that's because it contains the resources for the features LR doesn't have. All the book templates slideshows, etc, all have graphics, and they all live in that.
  • But again this is a simple misunderstanding of what a package is. Right-click and choose show contents and you have access to the folder (since that is what a package is anyway).
    I agree that it can be a difference in what you know and how you work. That is why I hate comparisons like this.
    Both programs offer rich features that are considered "better" by one person or another. It is simply a matter of what you find works for you, so any article that goes through point by point will miss the mark. Your last sentence covers exactly what should be said. Download the trials and see what works for you
    I as an educator have to stay concurrent with both applications. In class I will never recommend one app over the other. I show features and suggest people try them to see which works for them.
  • I agree Ian. I am always an advocate for choosing the tool that works best for you. Still, I think comparisons are useful in the decision making process. Aperture users who do the comparisons will miss nuances of Lightroom and vice versa. Taken as a whole, though, these comparisons add value to the discussion.
  • Gene,
    I think you're really under playing some of Lightroom's Slideshow features that Apple simply doesn't have. While I think a timeline and video additions are terrific, how about trying to add text, change colors, add metadata. If the template is not to your liking, guess what? Sucks to be you. It's either the Apple way or no way.
    I'm in the same boat as you, while I covet some of the new Aperture features, it's simply not enough to make me switch.
  • davidjschloss
    Actually you can add text to any of the slideshows in Aperture 3. Additionally there are seven different Slideshow templates to choose from, and even the stock one can be customized in terms of background color, transition times, effects, ken burns, type, border, crop and more.
  • Oh I agree Seán! But I'm going to revisit the feature for feature issue after the final release of Lightroom 3 drops. These are just my initial impressions. Don't worry, there's more to come! ;-)
blog comments powered by Disqus
Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes