Comments on: Poll: Which is better, Aperture or Lightroom?

With Aperture 2.0, Apple made up ground it had lost to Adobe Lightroom. What software for processing and cataloging raw images should a new customer buy?

[fjglynn]

Aperture!

Actually, my vote is more in the category of popularity contest.
I've been an Aperture user since June of last year and have not
used Lightroom. I'm an enthusiastic amateur, and snapped 25k
photos last year. I use Aperture to organize and access my
photos to I can enjoy them more. I produce photo books with it,
and love how I can easily select albums for syncing to my iPhone
and AppleTV. "Five Stars" automatically land on my iphone, and
its still delightfully surprising to have recent photos (last 30 days
category) automatically appear on my AppleTV. Couple that
with a fun playlist of music from iTunes, and we get on the fly
photo shows to enjoy with a beer.

[Fil0403]

Typical!

This is a typical idiotic Apple fanboy opinion: "I haven't tried any other, but the Apple one is the best".

[aman210]

What Why pay. Picasa from google is free

and does 90% of the same things. That is what I use. I play with my RAW files from nikon all the time. Also from inside Picasa I can open the files in Photoshop or Photomatix or whatever I need. It makes the organization a snap and guess what it is free.

[blsith]

I do the same

I've been using Picasa for most of my RAW image viewing and cataloging, but I've found the actual processing options inside of picasa to be weak so far.

I've been trying out the demo of Lightroom, and it's okay overall, but without some major plugins for photo correction - the image I typically use for testing has a lot of noise to it because of low light shooting - to me it's like Picasa with the import function on Photoshop for RAW development instead of the simplistic Picasa interface.

[baivab]

90% is not enough!

Picasa is great, 'cause it's free. But, if someone really is *into* photography, it just doesn't cut the cake, period.
Let's not compare Picasa with Aperture or Lightroom. They are leagues apart! In fact, for the most serious photographer, neither Aperture or Lightroom, *cuts" the cake ... it's ALWAYS Adobe Photoshop... now, please, please don't tell me Picasa does 90% of Photoshop!!

[Shankland]

Picasa is more limited

I use Picasa too--in fact I'm working on a blog post about it right now--but it doesn't match the feature set of Lightroom or Aperture, not only for editing but also for cataloging and some other work. So I don't think it's fair to say it covers 90 percent of the same things. But certainly enough to be useful, and the price is right.

[codx999]

Because it's PC only.

[verucabong]

Lightroom

The one thing that I really love about Lightroom (granted I haven't given Aperture a shake on 2.0) is that it feels like the rest of Adobe's products - things are where I expect them to be because I've been using Adobe stuff for, well, ever.

I've found that Apple's products, while most of the time look consistent across the range, with the higher end products, there's a bit of a mish-mosh. If it's a high end product, treat it as such - don't put iLife-ish things in. It seems like Apple is shooting for pro-sumer, not professional. Adobe knows its audience and designs the software as such.

[lrdntwnd]

On Apple Pro Apps

The one thing that sets Apple apart from pretty much every
other company in the software industry is their attention to the
interface. Adobe has only recently spent some time making the
interface a little more user-friendly. Pro apps do not need to be
difficult to use. Apple has consistently designed their pro apps
(with the exception of Shake and Color which weren't entirely
designed by Apple in the first place) to be easily picked up and
used. They are, however, extremely powerful applications and to
truly take full advantage of their power will take some learning.
So, they are all (even Aperture) very much pro apps despite their
"pro-sumer"/"iLife-ish" look (which they all have with the
exceptions of Shake and Color). Even professionals want tools
that are easy to work with. Having features like photobooks and
iTunes/iWork integration doesn't cheapen the product. It makes
it more useful for more people. No one ever said "pro apps"
need to be exclusively for professionals. It's not like Apple
watered-down Aperture so it would appeal to more people.
They packed it full of useful features and made those features
easy to find and take advantage of. I find it to be a very
professional application and I also find it a lot easier to use that
Lightroom.

[mistermann]

A REAL Professional...

would not use Lightroom. Talk about prosumer applications,
Lightroom pretty much decides what kind of workflow you will be
using rather than allow you to create your own workflow.

[johnklijnen]

I have my thoughts about both

My biggest concern with Aperture and Lightroom is that if you work on different computers, like a laptop for the road and a desktop for the main editing, you have a problem using the database. They are not made to use on different computers. With iView media Pro you can make different databases of images you take on the road and drag the images and the databases over the network to your desktop computer. There you can work directly with the images, open the databases and if necessary merge these with any other iView databases. So this means that you import images on the labtop, import them into an iView database, rename them, edit the EXIF info and make selections. You work on the images in Photoshop and when you return at the office none of this work gets lost. Try this with Aperture or Lightroom!! Read my article here:
http://blog.photographythoughts.com/2007/09/20/photo-database/

[jcorkrum]

Lightroom and 3 computers

You are incorrect about using Lightroom on more than one computer. I have three computers and can use Lightroom on all three with only one database. The trick is to use a portable drive like WD Passport and put your images on it. Then, also put your Lightroom database on the same portable drive. Then, tell Lightroom on each computer, to access the database on the Portable Drive (Remember that Lightroom is installed on each computer's C: Drive).

I back up the database daily on a large 500GB in my studio, as well as all the photos on the portable drive. After I have finished with a particular set of images, I back them up to a DVD and erase them off off the portable drive. Then, I tell Lightoom to look for the "missing pictures" on the 500 GB backup drive.

Works like a charm!

[mknopp]

Aperture

I am a prosumer, I guess, at least an enthusiastic amateur. I have used Adobe products for years. Since the days when Adobe was primarily a Mac product and truly focused on their core; Photoshop, Illustrator, and PageMaker.

I have to say that I have continually become disenfranchised with Adobe's products. I feel that Adobe has reached the point where Microsoft was with IE6 in the early days. So monopolistic that they have no real desire to fix what is wrong with their products.

Their software has become increasingly bloated, unstable, and obtrusive. I first noticed this with Acrobat Reader. I don't want to download half a dozen trial versions of software, or have to continually tell the program that I don't want the trials just to look at a PDF. However, the more that I continue to find alternatives, the more that I see first hand how poorly programed many Adobe products are.

There are increasingly very good alternatives to Adobe products which are leaner and more stable, and usually less expensive to boot.

So, I will continue to use Aperture and spend my $100 on other things.

Now if I could only find a suitable alternative to Illustrator. I could finally be completely Adobe free. ;)

[chilstrom]

For $100 Less than Lightroom, Aperture is a steal

Given the aggressive pricing of Aperture 2, I'd give it the nod, as these two products each have their own unique virtues. Mainly though, it seems to come down to your workflow, and I prefer the Aperture philosophy of permitting one to use any tool at all times, rather than working in a mode where some tools are available and others not. In 2.0, Apple has made the transition for iPhoto users much easier, which is a plus for me also.

As for free and cheap tools like Picassa and iPhoto, these are a terrific value if they do the job for you. My reason for upgrading is the desire for better photo correction tools optimized for handling many images quickly.

[lambe.david]

Here's Why I Use Aperture

I switched to the Mac from the PC about 2 years ago, and find the Mac much less frustrating for imaging / printing / etc.

Like some, I used Picasa on the PC and it was very good for basic photo cataloguing and manipulation. But I've got about 30,000 shots in my collection, and Picasa just can't cut it.

Aperture and Lightroom are both great products. I use Aperture, but could be very satisfied with Lightroom, too. Doesn't much matter. Just pick a product, learn it thoroughly, and don't worry so much about the other one.

One wish: that I could use plug-ins like Nik or Tiffen filters in Aperture. Then I wouldn't have to export photos, fire up Elements and use Nik filters.

Let's hope both products allow us to use these plug-ins soon.

Actually, it's a good thing that Aperture and Lightroom compete so strongly with each other. A competitive market will give us better products at amazing prices.

There's a whole lotta functionality in these two amazing products for only a few hundred dollars.

[pfletcher]

hmm which is best?

let's see - I use a Windows system - no contest Aperture won't run - you also forgot MS Expressions Media - very nice when used with PS3

[l.angier]

aperture vs. lightroom--neither!

I'm tired of equipment churning new software upgrade always
have us doing, requiring us to have to buy faster, bigger, newer
machines just to use it. I'm happy with my 4 year gold PB G4 and
G5. I'd rather be spending my time and money shooting...

Aperture requires too much cutting-edge tech for me and my
antiquated systems and although I use Lightroom and have
since beta for proof sheets and web catalogs, I don't want to
deal with my entire image collection of 250,000 images in one
pile that they almost require of you.

Instead, I use Photo Mechanic. It works on both sides of the
aisle, quick, works with the group of images at hand, doesn't
stop to render color, retouch, catalog or anything.

It is simply fast and does the job of ingesting all the images on
my cards easily to the folder of my choice for initial screening,
keywording, captioning, renumbering and organization so that I
can spend less time at my computer and more out there
shooting.

Photo Mechanic allows me to quickly go through my shoot and
select my best which I can then further process at my leisure;
not when I'm trying to download, keyword and caption.

If you spend all your time piddling with your image collection
with all the bells and whistles it leaves little time for shooting
great images and that's what this all boils down to.

[mistermann]

Great Images

What if your images stink?

[Philscbx]

Aperture on the G4 Powerbook 10.4.11, 1.67GHz

I you could, please email me [e-mail].
I'm struggling with Aperture just to make simple adjustments.
It must be the workflow that I assume logical, but perhaps not.
The process (RAW) of just removing sensor dust from the sky, I
threw in the towel, and cropped out the perfect sky. Then
turned in my 30D to be cleaned.
Any action attempted just grinds the processor to submission
with 2 GB ram. If upgrading to V2 makes this easier, I will in a
heart beat.

[rpphoto555]

For a Mac person it's obviously Aperture

You can't lose with either one; I use both, and if you're end result is
a great looking file and getting things done in a reasonable time:
use either one and you'll be happy. Obviously, if you're stuck with
Windoze, you only have one option. But Aperture's beautiful UI,
simplified arrangement, exciting new plugin architecture, and cool
export options make it the obvious choice for Apple fans.

[pfletcher]

typical apple fanboy

the use of the term 'windoze' is probably as offensive as calling you a 'Mac Cultist'

I find it hilarious that magazines still believe that Apple is the only platform used by 'creative' people. I have used both and have settled on Windows, largely because it is less restrictive and less expansive than the 'cult' option. I deal daily with other professional photographers and the vast majority easily 10:1 use windows..... go figure!!!

[ThomasTukker]

Aperture 2.0 wins hands down...

Hi,

As a working photographer I use all software but prefer
Aperture above all.
The RAW conversions are great and the software is incredibly
fast now with version 2.
Added tethering support works flawlessly and faster than any
other solution with the Nikon D3, including Nikons own
software.
Dual monitor support is another Aperture exclusive and book
making has been a tremendous help, something LR lacks...
The whole integration with the other Apple software is good too,
and the new plug in option should bring us a bunch of
interesting add-ons. I understand anything is possible with
Aperture in the future, its just a matter of time.
At the moment there are some interesting export plug ins I use
a lot, like the Flash gallery plug in and Aperture-to-FTP among
others.
I cant be happier with the direction Apple is heading and my
library is about 350GB of RAW files, around 30.000 at the
moment.
Aperture lets me work as fast as humanly possible with my files
and gives me excellent export options and includes automated
backup. What else do we need? :)

Best,

Thomas
www.thomastukker.com

[Shankland]

As fast as humanly possible?

Aperture fixed some performance problems, but the day that image-editing software responds instantly--especially when handling raw files--is one I eagerly await.

I'm glad the tethered options for Aperture are working for you, but it doesn't work with all cameras, so check first if want this feature. There's lots of proprietary technology in the tethered domain that makes tethered shooting a complicated proposition.

[eponymous anon]

Aperture - if you have a recent Mac

I *would* like to use Aperture, and recently downloaded the 2.0
30-day demo, excited by the prospect of something less
sluggish and intuitive than Lightroom, and more-featured than
iPhoto. But, even though I have a 1.33ghz iBook G4 with lots
of RAM, the video card just doesn't cut it. For now, Lightroom
has been my choice, but it's annoying how slow it is in some
respects, even though it's pretty to look at, and
comprehensively customizable. The biggest annoyance,
however, is how it handles metadata and EXIF... that is one very
un-intuitive part of Lightroom. I will buy Aperture the instant I
can get my hands on a new Macbook pro.

[tslusk]

aperture 2 - no question

the reason i argue that way is due to the focus apple puts into
their product.

although adobe has "monopoly" on the design market and
aperture will never match all the photoshop filters, because of
this, adobe tends to be like microsoft with what they produce.
untimely deadlines result in products that tend to crash and
have functions that work well with the initial use, but then have
a glitch the next time around due to lack of details within the
programming.

i have never had aperture crash on me and that is one reason i
favor it... and now that it supports the d300, whoo hoo!

[lazo T]

I use both - Aperture for the book feature

Actually, I'm going to use both! I'm getting Aperture 2.0 just for the
Album/Book feature. I do the work in Lightroom then use Aperture
to create a book.

[schatzie15]

Is the book feature for Aperture more advanced than iphoto? In the Aperture demo it looks like Aperture gives you much more flexibility to the preset templates (such as moving and expanding text boxes; expanding photo holders).

Finally, are you happy with the quality of the printed book (paper, print etc). Are you familiar with booksmart? or MyPublisher? How does the Aperture photo book compare to these?

Schatzie15

[derek.olson]

Sorry Apple, You Lost Me

I was an Aperture 1 user, just figured it was the best because it was by Apple. Then I bought a Nikon D300, and since Aperture 1 doesn't support its RAW, I got Lightroom. Apple screwed up by taking so long to release an update. Sorry Apple, you lose my vote. I am staying in Lightroom and not bothering with opening Aperture.

[jedivie]

Lightroom...100%

I've used lightroom for a year now and have used aperture a bit since 2.0 was released. I have over 20,000 raw photos in my Lightroom library. I find lightroom to be more intuitive and the editing capabilities much more efficient. I wish lightroom had the book printing that Aperture has, but that's an easy fix...I just export from Lightroom and right into iPhoto...build my book...done. Lightroom wins, hands down.

[ckpermar]

still deciding but leaning towards......

As a Mac user w/a new D300 that my Ap1.56 could not handle
RAW. I just downloaded a 30 day trial with Lightroom after playing
briefly in the Apple store with the new 2.0. Friends (also Macheads)
suggested trying Adobe out first. Will make a decision soon. But I
am leaning towards the new 2.0.....

[hflaxman001]

Aperture For Sure.

I like aperture much more than Lightroom. The ability to find photos very easily is valuable to me as is the post-processing power of the software.

[ibmharry]

Not a proffesional But I use ACDSEE Pro 2.0

I am not a proffesional and I only have 10,000 photo's - but I really like ACDSEE Pro 2.0. It's cheap (100 with a ecoupon) and it is intutive enough for my wife to jump on the network and find pictures fast. Oh - it's also really fast at accessing files from NAS in the basement. Overall a great product that not many people have heard about. I almost bought Lighroom until I found this. BTW ... if I really want to edit I use my Capture NX.

Great for my workflow!

[stevicus]

ACDSucks

Having seen what they did to the formerly awesome Canvas, I will
avoid anything by ACD

[freeflyfranz]

Lightroom wins

Without going into a longwinded technical comparison , I simply feel that lightroom has a more intuitive interface.Every time I try and use aperture I get frustrated with the lack of flow I encounter. It may well be that there is simply a steeper learning curve to aperture which pays of in the end. I find myself unwilling to spend the time to find out when lightroom was so very easy to start using. I do however lament the lack of integration with my mac world. It would be really nice to be able to dump my latest portfolio straight from lightroom onto my iphone, or as another reader commented, upload images for publishing. I could see a time when I would be tempted by aperture because of the level of integration with the rest of my technology. So my message to Adobe would be, please stick to the uncluttered, intuitive approach taken so far, but somehow integrating other export conduits would be good.