Ok, so I have been using lightroom for ages and Aperture since they announced the trial version (just over a week), already I am finding Aperture's workflow and organizing features to be better than those in Lightroom. Also given my relatively modest spec mac (iMac 17" Intel with 1gb ram) I am finding that Aperture is at least as fast as Lightroom if not faster- that suprised me, given the negative press apwerture got on it's speed/

Having used both, what do you prefer, and why?

May be too early to tell. Over at PhotoshopNews there was a picture of the new Beta 5 of LR where they specifically pointed out the new Library folders structure. If it is more akin to Bridge, then that will certainly be an improvement.

In addition, LR has too many ambiguous sliders/controls. This may change in the final release. At least I hope so. Not in the least for the many instructors and/or instruction books and videos. It's one thing to tell people how to do fancy tricks, it's entirely another to tell them a decent procedure to achieve an optimal result. They unfortunately haven't prepondered that procedure (or the entire application for that matter) prior to implementation, and certainly haven't given a completely new or innovative approach to many of the possibilities in RAW conversion. Where's the colorcast slider for example? Or a truly modular develop module? Masks for every module? (idem for Aperture mind you).

It's interesting to see them go back to a folder structure. There's something very re-assuring about the good old OS structure when handling your precious images. And that is my biggest gripe about either application. There should be a clear one-on-one relation in the image management departement. And if you simply replicate all the RAW conversion capabilities as all other offerings and do nothing innovative in that area, then at least build relatively decent DAM capabilities. There is a certain minimum requirement that would help the majority of the users, and Bridge was getting very close to that requirement.

I really look forward to a possible improved Bridge in CS3. As for Aperture and LR (b4), they equally fail in the file management area. Yes, even the A1.5, see if this seems familiar to anyone:

- You import the images from multiple CF cards.

- Clearly you want to rename the files during import and add general keywords. Not a problem in either app. Because of using multiple cameras you might have incoming images with similar numbers but very different time stamps. Not really a problem and you're renaming anyway.

- You select the obvious duds and dispose of them or move them to the trash or a duds folder. In the latter case: is the duds folder replicated in the finder/OS?

- You re-order some of the images in an attempt to make a first preselection. Now the indexing obviously needs to be redone. Is the new naming replicated in the finder/OS?

- You categorize the images, for example in separate folders to end up with chewable chunks. You make another selects round. Again you may want to rename the files by category, but at least change the indexing. Is the new structure replicated in the finder/OS?

- Once you're organised you make your first backup. At this point it would be useful to have some sort of tracking option for back-ups. Aperture already has it, LR will have to follow at some point, i surely hope Bridge will follow as well. The latter apps will have a chance to it better than A, because A screws up everything, including the aforementioned steps for referenced files. It will consolidate the files into a backup, but it will not rebuild any tree structure to the referenced files when rebuilding your system. bad dog...

What's so hard to comprehend about the OS tree structure that it can't be represented in any of these Apps? Bridge seems to do a pretty good job of it! Add some minor backup & tracking options and you have a perfect DAM utility. Sell it separately, or integrate it into LR, but do not, I repeat DO NOT try to do the same thing differently in two places and certainly not half-heartedly in one of them. (Seems a repeating theme come to think of it: remember the ambiguous controls?)

It's beginning to sound like a rant. So here's my vote: they're both equally great Apps... in theory that is.

Hi Oscar, thanks for the reply.

I agree that they are very similar, but for me I find Aperture that little bit easier.

Obvious areas where it beats Lightroom: Stacks (why has nobody else thought of these?) and Vaults.
I know a lot of prolific shooters don't like the integral aproach which Aperture can have (if you import your images) as it can limit you library based on file size. However for many keen amateurs, the idea of a vault is hugely re-assuring.

You can easilly safeguard your images by having multiple vaults. If one drive fails, simply chuck it and replace it with a new one, then copy the images to the new drive in the form of a vault.

Size isn't a problem as my images fit on a modest 160gb HD, but with the costs falling I could get a 500Gb HD for £200. For me at least that will last a long time. Even a 250Gb drive would last.

At the moment I am backing up my images to a HD and CD/DVD, but I shall be implementing the Vaults and managed approach in Aperture. Much simpler and stops you forgetting what needs backing up.

Perhaps I'd feel differently if Lightroom had a version of Vaults and stacks, who knows and maybee, one day it will.

I have completely migrated to Mac from PCs, so I could go with either LR or Aperture --- my problem is that I have choose now, and after I choose, I have a feeling it's going to be hard to unchoose. I like Lightroom, and I think the cross-talk with Photoshop and Bridge might keep it modern. I haven't tried Aperture, because until the new release, a lot of people felt it had problems. My feeling at the moment is that I know where Adobe is going, because it has no choice -- it's an imaging company. Therefore, I think, Lightroom will be kept modern and the versions will be kept compatible. With Apple, as a company, I'm no longer so sure where it's going, especially since it changed to Intel. How many people will use Apple hardware but slowly move to PC software because there's so much more of it? Will the Mac operating system become more of a niche than it is now? And what does that mean for Aperture?

I like the idea of using Mac software because I'm now very comfortable with the way it works. But...

I guess what I would like is for somebody to tell me that the Lightroom/Aperture choice is a toss-up, pick one and be happy because the other one will never be much better. I'm going to have to make a choice soon, but I think I'd be better off if I didn't have to make it for five years.

JC

Hi John,

you could download and try both, as they are both available to try for free (Lightroom is a Beta, and Aperture has a 30 Day trial).

However I understand that you may not want to go through the process of learning both. Apple has a number of mini movies about Aperture, so you could watch those and see if it is for you.

From an ideas point of view they are very similar, but, as I have said before, I personally prefer Aperture.
I am not sure why you would be concerned about the future of Aperture, Joe Schorr has already said that Apple expect Aperture to become their most used pro app (from the podcast on Inside Aperture), if this is indeed true, why would they cut and run and let the product die.

I suspect that as each version gets better (and it does) that more and more people will use it. I know I will continue to do so.

Lastly, Aperture can, at the moment, do things that Lightroom cannot. Such as make use of stacks, create books, and can also support images larger than 10000px in lenght. This may be important for you, if like me, you shoot and stitch images together to make large panoramics.

Ultimately it's down to personal prefernece, as neither program is bad. I would strongly advise you to download Aperture and give it a try. If you don't want to commit to it fully, then you could only import a few photos, and play around with them.

HTH

I like some things about Lightroom but Aperture is the best for management and backup of Digital Photo files. The Lightroom UI is better and I like the split proccessing capabilities (does Aperture have anything like that?). I also like how easy it is to save a preset in Lightroom (again the UI).

Aperture is EXACTLY what I have been looking for as far as making it easy to manage and proccess files from ONE program!
I hate to say it but I have so many (iView Media Pro, Adobe Bridge, Captur One Pro you get the idea) but I was looking for one easy to use solution that would make it easy to be organized and save disc space. I had soo many duplicate files on my HD's and it drove me crazy. Having ONE place to do it all is helping a great deal with this. The only problem now is I still like the other programs at times for specific reasons. I figure I will keep it all under control with Aperture and just export a version or master for very specific circumstances. For example I have found that Capture One Pro did a much better job of saving a baddly exposed shot than Aperture could (probably a shot that some purists wouldn't save anyways but they sometimes still work depending on what your needs are). Yes I know I need to take better shots in the first place. I try but sometimes you just screw it up. Anyways in these specific circumstances I plan on returning the shot to Aperture to be managed right after the special processing is complete.

A few things I like other programs for:
- As I said Capture One Pro can save a baddly exposed shot better.
- Lightrooms Split Processing and some other color related effects I like with Lightroom.
- Photoshop with Alien Skins Exposure for B&W.

Is there a way to regroup these outer processed shots with thier Master files when bringing them back into Aperture other than Photoshoped ones which you can if you just save them in the same format and file name ( Save instead of Save As)?

I may still use iView Media to manage my graphic design projects and other types of graphic files as it handles almost all file types.

Any thoughts or suggestions on this reply?

interesting.
I am evaluation a photo-management software right now and tested some programs already. I think iview and imatch are quite powerful for managing. Since I don't have a MAC (yet), I was unable to test aperture, and looking at its description, I guess I did not really get THE benefit of it.
Therefore would be interested, if some of you changed from management-software (like iView) to workflow-tools (like Aperture,Lightroom)?
And does anyboby use both types parallel`?

thanks for help
Phill

Well I think one of the biggest thing is being able to do it all in one place. It takes care of all of it for you. It is much quicker to be in one environment than jumping from this app to that app and trying to keep your train of thought and go from one interface to another. In Apperture you can: Import with Metadata input (keywords), Select or edit if you will, Process your picks to include patching dust spots, Open in external editor (Photoshop) to do pixel editing and save with the edited file updating in Aperture so it stays one file which would be a version of the Master file, and finally Backup all your work if you use Apertures Library and Vault system. It all stays in one place and stays managed. One environment with one external editor for pixel editing.

Its about integration which is why companies like Adobe and what use to be Macromedia are/were trying more and more to integrate their Apps together so everything flows smoothly.

Before Aperture I would always have a million copies of the same files floating around because I wasn't sure if I had that version somewhere else so I would save it again, even though I tried to be organized. I am a graphic designer so for me it's not just keeping track of photo files but also all of my other graphics files and where and how I use my photo files, so any help I can get simplifing things is great. I would end up saving files multiple times because to loose a version of a file could mean hours of editing work if it is used for a graphic design project that requires a lot of Photoshop alterations. I think I still have to save anything other than .tif, .jpg outside of Aperture. In other words .psd or Photoshop files, if I am wrong about this someone let me know, but it is a lot easier to keep track of just Photoshop files with all others being taken care of in Aperture.

Hope this helps.

yes. thank you

Actually, you can save your .psd files into Aperture as well. Just save them with Compatible checked, then Aperture can view them and render jpegs, etc. from them.

Thanks

I just wrote up a quick analysis of both applications, and where I seem to be heading. Here is the link:

http://www.andybiggs.com/blog/?p=110

I was wondering what it is that you see as lacking in Aperture conversions? I have done several comparisons between Rawshooters(on PC), ACR(which I assume to be the same as Lightroom), and Aperture. I am sure I haven't done as exhaustive tests as you(or as well trained an eye), but I didn't find there to be a clear winner between ACR and Aperture. I felt, in the tests I did anyway, that there was no clear advantage to either?
When it comes to RAw converters, it seems almost as much a matter of personal taste as anything nowadays.
I would be interested in hearing your views on this.

I think you hit the nail on the head: personal taste. I guess I am more familiar with what C1 and ACR conversions look like, as well as feel comfortable with. When I compare ACR to C1, I do like the C1 'look' much better, especially with deep reds. Other than my images from Namibia with red sand dunes, I hardly ever push my red channel to a point where I notice the difference. Just personal taste.

Adobe Photoshop Elements used the idea first I believe in the very good [and under valued by Adobe] Organiser, which puts even Bridge 2.0 to shame in many ways, for ease of use and power.

Damn you, Andy! Now I've just set up an exhibit, and then you point me at your pictures making me feel like the rookie I really am:) Beautiful. Actually, I was looking for that blog posting, but it seems gone.

Anyway, that Skeleton Coast picture is *spooky*.

-Lars

Double post!!

Going back to the original topic!!?? I have decided to go with Lightroom, not Aperture. Why? Aperture is probably the better programme in it's current incarnation but .... I am not rich. I would need to buy a bigger, better, newer computer with a much bigger screen to really benefit from it. It does run on my G4 Powerbook but it's not designed for it. Lightroom wizzes along on my machine, plus it is easier to use anyway. The money I save only upgrading my computer occassionally can go to upgrading my camera/lenses instead!

Don.

If it's file management you want, then it's Aperture, if it's keeping track of various clients and who's had what it's Aperture, if it's making several versions of one image i.e. various crops colour and B&W conversions then it's Aperture, if it's easy back-up to other drives then it's Aperture, if you need to send low res watermarked images for approval it's Aperture, if you then need to send a high res exactly the same crop/adjustments etc as the low res it's Aperture, if you want to use dual monitors one for selecting and sorting and one for full screen viewing it's Aperture. If you don't need any of that then pick one from the rest.
It's worth buying a Mac to run Aperture.

Kevin.

I would have to agree completely as well. I have to say that Aperture is just superb! That was a nice summary of the more important features for some workflows. My only complaint is lack of RAW support for the Pentax K10D but I am sure Apple is working on it.

Bryan

I'll care about the other aspects of this debate once Aperture can read metadata that already exists in DNGs. Right now, Aperture is blind to the XMP metadata with which my images are tagged, and this data would have to be re-entered by hand if I adopted Aperture. Fortunately I don't have to choose today, but if I did, Lightroom would win on account of Aperture's lack of compatibility where I need it most.

Lightroom version 1 will be completely different from the Betas in that file managment will far surpass Aperture. LR will no longer do managed files, only referenced files, and the shoots are gone. Now it will have a folder structure that parallels the disk. You'll be able to move, copy, etc. files from disk location to disk location just as if you were in Finder or Explorer.



LR v. 1 will now have versions and stacks. I haven't played with stacks all that much in v.1, but others have reported that LR's stack's are better - I'll have to play around more with those to convince myself, I like Aperture's stacks.



Yes, AP's vault is great if you have managed files. LR will also have backup capabilities.



Yes, Adobe hasn't yet done the multi-monitor thing.

LR v. 1 also has spot healing and finely controlled adjustments. It seems Adobe has only half-gotten the idea of developing with the community -- all these new features are untested except for in-house. Why, after months of extensive testing in all manner of environments do they decide to throw in new stuff at the first release? The time spent trying the beta releases is now half wasted, since it has changed so much. I feel kinda cheated -- I cannot take an informed decision as to whether the new features work. Grumpf.

Other than that, thanks for the comparisions between LR and Aperture.

-Lars

While I personally prefer LR over Aperture, I'm finding 1.0's stack implementation to be frustrating and borderline useless.

The really big difference between AP and LR is the mental model. The rest is detail. LR is modular, AP isn't. With LR you adjust images in Develop (or Quick Develop). With AP, you adjust them anywhere. Takes a while to get your head around this (well, it took me a while), but once the lights go on, they stay on. AP is far more revolutionary and imaginative than LR, but that isn't necessarily a good thing in itself.

Whilst I think that AP is a better DAM at present (actually much better), I think the real question is do you work in a linear way or not ? If you're linear, methodical, then LR will suit you. If you're more random, or impulsive (or have attention span deficiencies) then AP's your think. Of course, if you use a PC then you have no choice (strange as that sounds).

There is of course the small matter than LR currently has far a more flexible and arguably better RAW engine - but then again I can think of at least two RAW engines that I prefer to Adobe's. And AP is better at working with external applications - including Photoshop.

As for performance, well I find I can run AP on a 2Ghz MacBook (not Pro) quite adequately. And AP is perfectly happy to import 200Mb .PSDs and TIFs originating from film scans.

Honestly I'm still using an iView based workflow, and I'm not going to switch until I've had a chance to see how Microsoft's ownership of it changes things. But if I had to choose now, I'd choose Aperture.


Finally, if LR is so intuitive, why do we need so many bloody books, DVDs, Broadway Shows and Cruise Tours all about using it ?

I wish I would have purchased Aperture. After trying both Aperture and Lightroom, I decided to use LR based on the fact that I am using a Power Book G4 as part of my workflow. I think I made a big mistake. For a program that centers around workflows, all the shortcomings of LR are just that. You would not beleive how nightmarish it is to move files you edited on the road to your desktop PC, and still preserve all your work.

I find out that his is so somple with Aperture. All you have to do is import your project, and Voila... it's done.

if you have been shooting MF digital....Aperture doesn't support it....until I believe a couple of weeks ago! When I bought Aperture thinking Apple must have done it's homework....I got 500 bucks lighter and was SADLY dissappointed!! I have updated the version to 1.5 but never used since.....I guess reading the above reviews I have to open and try it again.

I read they changed their put all your images in one CLOSED fault system idea.....which was my BIGGEST concern...sometimes I like to open an image directly into CS2...

I will try and get back.....but for now it is LIGHTROOM! from the most trusted name in the photo editing field: ADOBE....and NO I don't work for them...just love their products and bought the MASTER suite coming out in June...can't wait.

OKAY...checked out...and my final answer: aperture still sucks...the color correction tools are retarded!! who the hell thinks that these controls are actual controls?? And my Leaf files look like S... and I can't seem to find a way to get the colors right....in Lightroom the colors are right straight out of camera.

So Lightroom and the now out CS3 bridge are the way to go...managing the images in a library is easier in Aperture than in Lightroom...but I use Iviewpro which works fine.

but to each his own...in the end the final image is what you need to be perfect and any which way you use to get there is forgotten in the end!

The raw conversion controls between Aperture and Lightroom are like night and day. Aperture was completely overtaken with the Lightroom raw conversion tools. It makes Aperture look like the early days of raw conversion software. Adobe really put a ton of time and thought into Lightroom, and it shows. But there are some large shortcomings with Lightroom, most notably the database. Aperture is better in this area, but I suspect it won't take long for Lightroom to surpass.

It was frustrating to me to have raw files from esoteric cameras over the past few years, and Lightroom could handle all of them except the Hassy CFH39, but Aperture had a tough time with virtually all of the files. Leica M8, all Phase One files, Hassy CFH39, and a few more. The lack of support for cameras with DNG files is kind of stupid, IMHO.

$.02

YMMV

The poll's results are distortet, because posted in the Aperture section only.

In what way is the difference "night and day?" It seems like you're talking about the number of cameras supported, rather than quality.

For number of cameras supported, this is one of two things:

1) Not an issue at all, as your camera is supported
2) A show-stopper issue, as a critical camera you use is NOT supported

If it's option #1, what's the big deal? My D60 and 1D mark II work beautifully with Aperture. The fact that the M8 is not supported doesn't affect me in the least. For others it will be a huge issue, but for me it's no issue at all.

So people can make money?
Actually in reality neither are actually any less complex than PS. The complexity is in a different place that's all.