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?
Most Popular
15 sites that went kaput in 2009
Web sites launch all the time, but they also shut their doors. We highlight 15 that bit the dust this year.
Top 10 news stories of the decade
Let the debate begin: Was the iPhone more important than iTunes? Was anything bigger than Google finding a great business model? CNET offers its list of the 10 most important stories of the '00s.
About Underexposed
This blog sheds light on digital photography subjects such as cameras, photo editing, and Web sites. Shankland joined CNET News in 1998 after a five-year stint as a science writer. He's a lab rat who grew up in Los Alamos, N.M., and graduated from Harvard.
Contact Stephen at Stephen.Shankland@cnet.com
Add this feed to your online news reader
Underexposed topics
bonus. Does that mean a pre-pubescent Bulgarian can also look at
my photos when he takes over my PC to send spam?
sluggish for my size of library, and more importantly I wanted
RAW support. At the time, Lightroom had better performance
and more editing features (curves, etc. as the article mentions).
Those outweighed Aperture's better integration with my Mac
ecosystem. Now Aperture 2.0 has caught-up/surpassed
Lightroom in performance, quite possibly changing the decision.
I think Lightroom still has an edge on editing, if you want to
make adjustments without round-tripping to Photoshop, but Aperture is catching up there too. As far as plugins, Aperture is
opening up more but Lightroom's use of Lua makes
development more accessible to the non-programmer or
scripter.
Best advice: Try the demos, and look at a few alternatives as
well.
Windows machine. I tried Aperture at the time to see how it
would stand up to Paint Shop Pro Photo XI and it was an abysmal
failure. It had almost none of the features I wanted at a price
higher than Paint Shop Pro.
Since then I have moved all my photography business over to a
new Mac and had to drop Paint Shop. I looked at what was
available, including Lightroom, and practically cried; still almost
none of the capabilities I needed for less than $300US. In fact, I
ended up purchasing PhotoShop simply because I needed
different straightening features that were available in Paint Shop
but not in anything else shy of the full version of Photoshop.
Don't get me wrong, the two applications in question can do a
lot for basic photography, but perspective correction and image
alignment are things I find I need frequently when working with
clients' photos. As a result, I was forced to buy far more function
than I really wanted just to get the few features I needed.
only a few days. I have been shooting for 15 years and any piece
of software that takes a month to learn is garbage. I tried to
enroll in a class for Aperture and was quoted from $1100 to
$1500 from three sources. So that $199 price tag is going to
cost you big time down the road if you are to ever unlock the
potential of the program. Im disappointed in this overly
complicated product Apple has put out.
Jury is still out on Lightroom.
agree with you as to the complexity or learning curve I do
understand the classes are very pricy. Especially from Apple
themselves.
That said, you should check out the video series from Lynda-
dot-com. $25 a month gets you access to all of their video
tutorials and their Aperture series is great. I don't work for
them, but they got me up to speed on Aperture and several other
programs for dirt cheap compared to many sources. I highly
recommend it from one photographer to another.
the same materials, there is a definite edge with Lightroom.
Not only the features available, and the definite speed
advantage, but the intuitive nature of Lightroom just feels right.
Perhaps it's why people choose one camera company over
another .
I do know that Adobe will always be in the imaging business.
Worth a free download to check them out. It's a commitment, so
choose what feels right.
Cheers!
Damon Webster
www.photoinduced.com
Apple is a leader in this space with Aperture and with Apples rapid innovation they will continue to be the leader.
beats me. Especially when you compare with Lightroom.
Perhaps if you are used to the modular way LR works you find
Aperture to simple to comprehend, but eventually there is no
contest if you compare how well Aperture is put together
compared to LR.
I find the RAW conversions more pleasant from Aperture as well,
a major advantage if you feel the same.
Best,
Thomas
www.thomastukker.com
But I think Aperture makes smart design decisions with a few
interface options. Its movable panel isn't very obtrusive, and
now in 2.0 you can toggle it easily between editing, tagging, and
file management modes. For me, editing and adding metadata
such as titles, captions, and tags are much closer operations
than the big divide between Lightroom's develop and library
modules would suggest, and I don't like switching back and
forth between editing and tagging.
a sorting nightmare, per job I spent about 10-15 hours in basic
post production working with Lightroom which I gave up for
Apeture 1. and that made my post work about 5-6 hours.
Aperture 2.0 which I have owned for 3 days now that same work
load I can do in 3 hours the the qualtiy of the RAW decode is
incredible far better than Aperture 1. Once again Apple nails the
tools that a working photographer needs which is less time in
post. So I can spend more time behind the camera where I
belong.
being delayed so long. I bought Lightroom thinking it would be
tightly integrated with Photoshop; it is NOT! The raw conversions
are not accurate, and it won't support 2 screens. With the
enhancements in 2.0, Apple seems to have tilted the tables back in
its favor.
is terrific to print from once templates are set up. Click two
buttons and you can print any number of the same size selected
images.
just to do what Aperture did in one integrated program.
Aperture arrived first and claimed the space. Lightroom which
arrived after Aperture copied the concept so it is historically a
knockoff conceptually of Apple. The first developer claims the
space. The has been true over and over again in intellectual
history. The first is usually the best as the later-comer is forced
to either copy the first development (illegal unless your
Microsoft) or have less choice in how to express the central idea.
Apple, on the other hand, started with a blank slate in
developing Aperture. Since Lightroom couldn't occupy the same
space as Aperture it had to come up with something else. The
modular sub-concept isn't as good as Aperture 2 which is far
more tightly integrated. And, after all, integration is the name of
this particular game as originally defined by Apple itself.
the top.
os and useful items like books.
Lightroom - Quick edits and back out the door taking photos.
Lightroom full customizable presets will always have the
advantage here especially since most camera settings do not
carry over. The raw fine tune settings in Aperture are just not
enough to have a great image on import.
When Aperture 2 was announced, I downloaded the upgrade
immediately. A huge improvement.
Last weekend, when loading RAW photos I'd shot on my brand-
spanking new D300 (blown away!), Aperture wasn't pulling in the
in-camera adjustments I'd made, like saturation. This was most
frustrating.
So in trying to figure out what might be happening ('cause all
the pretty colors were GONE!) I loaded up Capture NX (which
rendered the NEF perfectly, but it's UI is atrocious) and
Lightroom did what Aperture did but for some reason the image
looked sharper and less desaturated, to my eye.
So I stuck in Lightroom for a while, and the only thing I really
missed was the Loupe. The picture adjustments are amazing in
Lightroom. It handles shadow adjustments with greater
precision. I thought Aperture's shadow adjustment was the
bees-knees until I saw how Lightroom handles the adjustment.
It makes Apertures shadow adjustments look muddied. But the
"select a property" eye-dropper adjustment is the most intuitive
adjustment tool I've ever seen. You just click on the color
property, click on the color in the image and drag the
adjustment. It's like putting your hands into the photo and
manipulating the image. It's a goal that us video editors have
had for years.. no sliders, just adjust the image. That feature
alone sold me.
Also, the file system is better in Lightroom, at least to me. I can
never figure out EXACTLY where the original photos are in
Aperture. And, depending on how I work and which drive is
attached, I have 2 different library files on different drives now
in Aperture. That's very confusing, and I don't know how to
merge them.
Downsides to Lightroom? No Loupe, and a poor full-screen
mode, unless I've missed something (quite possible). The white
balance adjustment seems slightly better in Aperture. The
Aperture version rings truer to how a white balance change
should look. In Lightroom, the adjustment looks a little funny..
off somehow. Aperture does books, and you can order prints
directly online, nice for us lazier types. Lightroom also lacks the
.mac gallery features, or at least I can't figure out how to link
the two. So for now, I drag the photos (yes, a direct-drag
works!) into iPhoto and post. But I've since paid for the program
and I'm using it regularly right now.
It's strange to be in a different environment after over two years
of Aperture use, but I'm adjusting. I will probably bounce back
and forth for a while, but for now, Lightroom is my new photo
home.
and book printing tools. I use it to add jobs to my web site
http://www.edwardcrim.com (though I do have to edit the html
to get the results I want - see my State Capitols pages
http://www.edwardcrim.com/state_capitols.html ), print books
via Apple's printing service (over 30 last year), mock-up finished
albums, keep a record of customer orders and a running tab of
my favorites. Aperture is the only program that does everything
I need to do.
On the other hand, I really like Lightroom's rotate & crop tools
and the printing options it has. Though there is plenty of room
in Aperture for improvement, I just bought two more copies for
other computers I use.
In this debate, there's no contest
Because, you see, it's all about
What you bring, not what you shout,
And Lightroom shouts, "Me too! Me too!"
And that's just sad. And nothing new.
Innovation sometimes bleeds a bit,
But Aperture is still the s**t!
Oh, one more thing,
As evening falls,
I give money to Steve,
But Adobe? My b*lls.
location. I prefer Aperture! At work I use lightroom. The Aperture
interface feel more like something a photographer would have
designed. In Aperture 2.0 it so much faster than lightroom. Plus the
addition of new themes for book, website and finally tethering make
Aperture a hands down better application. If you are still using
Lightroom you haven't never use Aperture 2.0. Monday I have a
meeting with my manager to discuss moving to Aperture.
running and using 90% of its features. Maybe you should stick to
IPhoto. Have you used Photoshop, talk about a learning Curve.
- How about stacks?
- by bobsmith222 February 22, 2008 4:31 PM PST
- I really liked stacks in Aperture 1.0, and was glad that Adobe decided to copy this feature. However it is not really a usable implementation in Lightroom. You cannot make stacks unless you are looking at the folder view, even if all of the pictures are actually in the same folder. What's worse, is that stacks are not honored in all views.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 2 of 4 pages (140 Comments)So... if you like the idea of stack, Aperture is the only software that really has them.