Aperture 2 and Lightroom 2

Hello everyone.
I know this question has been asked before, and I have read some previous threads about these two products. However, I was hoping to have a few things clarified for me that I was not to sure about.
I just recently started to really become involved with Digital Photograph. Purchased my first SLR (Nikon D80) and love it. I really found a hobby I enjoy.
With all the pictures I am taking and will be taking, I obviously need to find post processing software that suits my needs. Here is where Aperture 2 and Lightroom (and to a degree, CS3) come into play.
Let me ask some obvious questions first.
1.) Lightroom 2 is a organizing piece as well as editing software piece correct? lets you get into the photo, make adjustments. Pretty good editing from what I can tell.
Can it be said that LR2 and A2 do the same thing, just differently? A2 lets you organize your photos and edit them as well. They just do it differently correct? For example, A2 lets you edit in full mode.
I guess that is one of my main questions.
2.) Fundamentally, what are the main differences between L2 and A2?
Down the road, I am planning on using CS3 (or CS4) to take advantage of layers and do the really cool fun stuff. But that is down the road when I am more experienced.
I downloaded both LR2 and A2 and installed the trials and plan to use them over the next 30 days to 'test them out.'
A2 seems to 'plugin' better to the iMac, which I expected.
With LR2, from what I can see, I could use LR2 instead of iPhoto for my organizing/cataloging, and if I wanted to move photos from LR2 to iPhoto (to make books, calenders, etc. etc.), I would need to export it out of LR2 and import it into iphoto. That correct? Where as Aperture 'co-exists' easier with iPhoto?
Is there really anything that stands out and separates the two?
The other thing I need to consider is when I bring in CS3 down the road. What is the easier way to integrate everything.
Appreciate the help.
Cheers,
Jason

Hi,
I migrated to the iMac from PC around a month ago and was evaluating my photo options both before and after the migration. The difference with me is, I guess, that I haven't previously been much of a user or any version of Photoshop, so had no Adobe-centric preconceptions to colour my own evaluation of Lightroom and Aperture.
I guess I qualify as an enthusiastic amateur who finally migrated from film to digital 5 years ago, after 25 years of film. On the PC, my photo management comprised folders on the hard disk plus Picasa to provide some basic abstraction layer and album facility. Editing was very basic and relied on The Gimp if no addressed by Picaca's built-in adjustments. Then I started taking photos in RAW rather than jpeg, and it all went to custard as they say.
Picasa didn't cut it any more, RAW opened up a lot more options and my collection was becoming unmanageable. Tried ViewNX - limited manageability. Tried Lightroom 2 on the PC - wow, this is more like it. Didn't like ACDSee, iview. Migrated to Mac, and started comparing all over again.
Lightroom - given my previous try-out I was expecting Good Things, so left the start of this trial until after using Aperture for 2 weeks. Suddenly Lightroom felt clunky - very modal and constraining.
Aperture - didn't really know what to expect. Imported all of my photos as referenced and found my folder structure replicated by albums. Kind of disconcerting initially as I couldn't work out where the Masters were, nor the true behaviour of albums, projects and folders in Aperture. Then it clicked - great version control and cataloguing, non-destructive edits etc etc, logical collections of photos. It worked more like my thought processes, rather than my thought processes having to adjust to how the software worked.
For my uses, Lightroom's closer integration with Photoshop is a bit of a non-event as I don't chop up photos - just develop them. Anyhow, Photoshop Elements is there if I REALLY need it (so far not at all after a month).
I can see how previous experience with Photoshop or Lightroom would create a preference for continuing with Lightroom. For me, there's no business reason, emotional attachment or previous experience to consider, so Aperture won. Lightroom was uninstalled after 2 weeks.
Regards,
Calx
PS - I think from an interface design perspective, Aperture is an amazing piece of software, leaving aside other comparison aspects.
Message was edited by: CalxOddity

Similar Messages

IPhoto, Aperture and Lightroom

The basic question - should I stay with iPhoto or move over to Aperture or Lightroom? I've done a ton of reading on the web and end up with more questions than I started with! Some of the reading included http://digitalmedia.oreilly.com/2007/03/05/aperture-vs-lightoom.html and http://digitalmedia.oreilly.com/pub/a/oreilly/digitalmedia/2007/03/05/aperture-v s-lightoom.html?page=1
Background stuff: I have been a long time user of iPhoto plus iPhoto Buddy which allows me to manage several iPhoto libraries (actually about 15). My photography is of three very different types - the first type being family and friends which are mostly candid shots that document the moment and are often a tad short on the artistic side. The second type is when I try to be Ed the Serious Amateur (my website http://blueorbimages.com/index.htm#). The third type consists of photos I use in reports I create for the consulting work I do - overseeing the proper construction of building exteriors for large buildings such as hotel, office buildings and hospitals. These photos are purely documentary. I have been shooting jpegs but am now shooting RAW for my serious work and jpegs for the Family stuff. In switching over to RAW I also took a hand at using Adobe Bridge as I use PS CS3 along with a lot of the other CS3 components - Dreamweaver, Flash, Fireworks, etc. While Bridge is a good file organizer I started to look at Lightroom as a better tool. I also have been looking at Aperture for the same reason. I am now leaning toward Aperture in part due to the ability to "manage" my current iPhoto files, the "versions" feature and the preservation of the original. As stated before - I also have a number of unanswered questions:
I use SuperSlideshow Pro for creating my web pages. I want to keep the "slideshow" format - am I correct in that Aperture only produces thumbnail type galleries?
From what I've seen on this forum I have concluded that I will be better served to export/import all my iPhoto images to Aperture rather than access the iPhoto images via references - is this correct?
Two features in iPhoto that I use frequently are to email images (often reducing the file size) and to export images for resizing for other purposes - insert in Word reports, upload to a photo forum that I belong to (Photozo.com), merge into a data base I created in Filemaker for managing the printing, framing and displaying of my work at various exhibits. Are these features available in Aperture?
I'm a big user of Photoshop for my consulting work as well as my serious photography - cropping, color balance, adding text and symbols and the precise management of color in the printing process - I do most of my own printing on an Epson 2200. How easily can I go from Aperture to PS and back to Aperture?
I get a feeling that MacWorld SF 2008 may give us an update to Aperture - any thoughts here?
Any other issues I should consider?
BTW my Mac is an Intel 2 x 2.66 dual core with 7GB RAM, 30" Apple display and a 21" Samsung display and 1.5 TB disk space spread over 3 drives. I feel I should have no problems with horsepower, monitor real estate or storage space when using Aperture. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Thanks in advance for any and all input/comments.
Ed

I use SuperSlideshow Pro for creating my web pages. I want to keep the "slideshow" format - am I correct in that Aperture only produces thumbnail type galleries?
Correct, although there are export plug-ins for Gallery etc.
From what I've seen on this forum I have concluded that I will be better served to export/import all my iPhoto images to Aperture rather than access the iPhoto images via references - is this correct?
I never had enough images in iPhoto to know, hopefully others can answer.
Two features in iPhoto that I use frequently are to email images (often reducing the file size) and to export images for resizing for other purposes - insert in Word reports, upload to a photo forum that I belong to (Photozo.com),
Aperture has an 'email image' function, you can set quality/size etc. For use in other apps such as Word you will either need to turn on Preview generation (with a performance hit) and will be able to drag-n-drop directly, or you will need to export Versions as needed to the Finder and then import to the other app.
merge into a data base I created in Filemaker for managing the printing, framing and displaying of my work at various exhibits. Are these features available in Aperture?
There's an Aperture-to-Filemaker export plug-in, but as I don't use Filemaker I've no idea how useful it will be. If you are relatively knowledgeable when it comes to AppleScript you should be able to set up your own copying of data between the two apps.
Note that LightRoom has no scriptability +at all+, and only gained the ability to add export plug-ins in the most recent version, so there aren't many yet.
I'm a big user of Photoshop for my consulting work as well as my serious photography - cropping, color balance, adding text and symbols and the precise management of color in the printing process - I do most of my own printing on an Epson 2200. How easily can I go from Aperture to PS and back to Aperture?
Reasonably easily, but it's going to involve 16-bit uncompressed files so will use up HD space quickly. You shouldn't need to be doing any cropping or colour balancing in PS as that can be done first in Aperture.
I get a feeling that MacWorld SF 2008 may give us an update to Aperture - any thoughts here?
It seems likely...
BTW my Mac is an Intel 2 x 2.66 dual core with 7GB RAM, 30" Apple display and a 21" Samsung display and 1.5 TB disk space spread over 3 drives.
A minimum of 2GB RAM and as good a graphics card as you can afford...
Ian

Aperture and Lightroom - still thinking ...

I'm finding the increased clunkiness of Aperture annoying. Aperture is not the slick trouble free application that I was lead to believe it would be on a high end Mac Book Pro. The feature set is brilliant. The inconsistent speed issues are a pain - even for basic edits.
I'm starting to wonder if Lightroom will be any better. I've tried the beta and the adjustments do appear to be somewhat smoother, which may ultimately result in a more productive workflow application for my purposes.
Releasing the library in 1.5 has enabled Aperture to become another tool in the arsenal - rather than the only tool. From a purely performance based standpoint (and by performance I mean speed of adjustment) I wonder if lightroom will be opened more than Aperture.
Interesting times.
Paul

There must be architectural issues if they are still present on the latest equipment (see the cite above)
On October 13th, the equipment Paul described may have been the latest equipment of the day, but my recently-purchased laptop is a MacBook Pro Core 2 Duo 2.33GHz with 2MB RAM (and the potential for 3MB). I have the standard 5400 RPM hard drive. Aperture adjustments are smooth on my laptop, with the exception of the straighten tool which has only a slight hint of jerkiness. My RAW images are from an 11 megapixel Canon 1Ds.
BTW, I keep activity monitor open with the dock icon set to a pie chart of system memory. I just adjusted a RAW in Aperture (including straightening and cropping), opened the image from Apterture into Photoshop as a PSD, added several adjustment layers with masks, saved, and back in Aperture did a few more adjustments. Still smooth, with Aperture and Photoshop open at the same time. The combined wired and active system memory never went over 1GB, and there was free memory available the entire time. I can't complain.
-Karen

Managing pictures in Aperture and Adobe Lightroom

I have just installed Aperture on my iMac for the first time. I also use Lightroom and Photoshop.
As such I want to keep the photo’s in the “Pictures” directory and not manage them within Apeture.
I have just tidied up some folders etc using finder and when I go into Lightroom I just press the “Synchronise” button and hey presto, the folders in Lightroom are aligned with the actual folders in the Pictures directory.
Can anyone tell me how I do the same in Aperture, as the changes I made to the folders/pictures are not reflected in Aperture’s directory?
(I have selected “Consolidate master file” in Aperture, not sure what it is doing, but it’s taking a long time!)
Many thanks
Confused 1st time Aperture user!

Note that's not what I said: Aperture does not HAVE to store the files inside its library (called "managed images"). They can be anywhere on disk you want ("referenced images"). It is entirely possible to put the files in a single location and access them from both Aperture and Lightroom.
Again, though, the key is discipline, as if you start moving them around or renaming them (via Finder, or via Aperture, or via Lightroom), you will have issues because both the applications expect that you use them to move or rename the files. If you move/rename them in Aperture, you are "breaking" what Lightroom expects you to do, and vice versa.
I think in large part it's not the best idea to try and use both Aperture and Lightroom. What they do has a huge degree of overlap, so it's really best to pick one as your primary tool. If you value Aperture's Faces functionality and interface, and perhaps its integration with other Apple products like iWork/iLife, or ease of synching pictures to iPad or integration with PhotoStream, it may be the better tool. If you'd like to edit photos and maintain smart objects, and you like Lightroom's editing tools or rendering better, it may be the better tool. There will be compromises either way, but from a sanity and workflow perspective it's probably better. Both tools can produce outstanding results.

Hi does anybody know how to perform roundtripping between aperture 3 and lightroom 3? i can set up aperture to send the file to lightroom BUT i cannot get lightroom to send it back with the just the adjustment (it sends the image as a separate file)

basically, i find the sharpening tool in aperture extreamly slow and would like to use lightroom, just for sharpening. I then would like to send the image back to aperture as just an adjustment on the original file and not a whole new replica file as the original. can any body give a easy solution? cheers

What you want to do can't be done. There is no low-friction way to combine image adjustments from Aperture and Lightroom. There is no way at all to combine them without creating new files.
This was recently discussed in this thread.
Are you using the Edge Sharpening adjustment? In Aperture 3, it superceded the old Sharpening adjustment, which remains included for backwards compatibility.

Side by Side: Apple Aperture and Adobe Lightroom in S.F.

Below is info on a first ever (?) head to head comparison of Aperture vs Lightroom presented by Schorr & Hogarty. Should be a great meeting. If you are in Nor-Cal, check it out;
March 13 in S.F. http://www.asmpnorcal.org/events/event.html
Side by Side: Apple Aperture and Adobe Lightroom
Speakers:
Tom Hogarty, Product Manager for Lightroom, Adobe Systems
Joseph Schorr, Product Manager for Aperture, Apple Computer
This Tuesday join us and the designated gurus from Adobe and Apple
for a lively evening as we jump headlong into both Aperture and
Lightroom and discover the nuts and bolts of how these applications
work. You'll learn how these programs were designed from the
ground up for media photographers from the guys who helped design
them.
Dual 2.0 G5 Mac OS X (10.4.8) 17" PowerBook 1.67
Dual 2.0 G5 Mac OS X (10.4.8) 17" PowerBook 1.67

Wow, maybe this is what Schorr meant by "VERY soon" in this post in this thread on March 10th.
"Actually, Apple has annouced that Aperture support for the Pentax K10D, K100D, and K110D will be available very soon.
We will also be adding support for 11 other RAW formats from different cameras, including the Nikon D40, Leica Digilux 3, Panasonic Lumix DMC-L1, Samsung GX-1L, and seven of the Leaf Aptus and Valeo models.
Can't publish a release date, but this update will be coming VERY soon.
Joe Schorr
Sr. Product Manager, Aperture
Apple"
http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=4209290&#4209290
If so, as a Pentax k10D owner, I will be happily cleaning Lightroom of my machine and moving ahead with Aperture!
iMac and PB G4 17" Mac OS X (10.4.8)

Finder vs. Aperture/iPhoto/Lightroom et al

I’ve tried everything from iPhoto to Lightroom to Aperture, but have found happiness with Finder+Tags. I offer this “solution” for image organization and archiving for anybody who is interested.
Caveat: this is a narrowly defined system that works best, for me, under these conditions.
I shoot in RAW, so conversion is always a primary component of any process
I use the Desktop for initial organization, but also works by importing directly to any spot on your HD for review
I do all my RAW conversion in Adobe Camera Raw and editing in Photoshop for layering and compositing reasons
This is a low volume workflow, one image is edited at a time, no batch processing
Having said all that, the simple Finder Tag workflow using colors as categories:
Import images > Desktop folder > Name and Tag folder YELLOW > Tag images RED for conversion/editing > Delete untagged images
RED Tagged image > ACR > Photoshop > Edit > Save & Tag (GREEN + PURPLE or GREY) and change RAW original from RED to ORANGE
Files keep the camera file name + Tags; Folders are arranged by simple 4-digit code (MM/DD) + Tag YELLOW (still editing one or more images) or GREEN (finished editing).
That's it. It's simple and it works. For me. But I'm always open for any comments/criticism and suggestions on how to make it work better.
Brian

To get an idea of the benefits of Aperture and Lightroom you might visit the DAM (digital asset management) forum and see what they say about those applications over there.
The DAM Forum
TIP: For insurance against the iPhoto database corruption that many users have experienced I recommend making a backup copy of the Library6.iPhoto (iPhoto.Library for iPhoto 5 and earlier) database file and keep it current. If problems crop up where iPhoto suddenly can't see any photos or thinks there are no photos in the library, replacing the working Library6.iPhoto file with the backup will often get the library back. By keeping it current I mean backup after each import and/or any serious editing or work on books, slideshows, calendars, cards, etc. That insures that if a problem pops up and you do need to replace the database file, you'll retain all those efforts. It doesn't take long to make the backup and it's good insurance.
I've created an Automator workflow application (requires Tiger or later), iPhoto dB File Backup, that will copy the selected Library6.iPhoto file from your iPhoto Library folder to the Pictures folder, replacing any previous version of it. It's compatible with iPhoto 6 and 7 libraries and Tiger and Leopard. iPhoto does not have to be closed to run the application, just idle. You can download it at Toad's Cellar. Be sure to read the Read Me pdf file.
Note: There now an Automator backup application for iPhoto 5 that will work with Tiger or Leopard.

Aperture vs Lightroom: any head-to-head comparisons/reviews?

I've spent a good deal of time looking for a head-to-head comparison of Apple's Aperture and Adobe's Lightroom and haven't been able to find anything. Can anyone point to to something?
I'm an amateur photographer who is progressing toward semi-professional (from a hobby standpoint anyway). I've been thinking about "upgrading" from iPhoto to Aperture or Lightroom. I've downloaded the demos of both but at this point I'm a little overwhelmed at figuring out which I like better (I know it's ultimately my decision, but would like to see some sort of comparison of the two). I use Photoshop Elements, but tend to be a bit of an Apple fanboy, so am leaning toward Aperture.
Thanks for your thoughts....

This looks interesting.
The Showdown: Apple Aperture and Adobe Photoshop Lightroom
A new breed of software has recently emerged that promises to shift the digital photography landscape. Designed to streamline and integrate the digital workflow, Apple’s Aperture and Adobe’s Photoshop Lightroom represent an exciting new generation of imaging applications.
What sets Aperture and Lightroom apart from the current stock of programs is the unwavering focus on digital photography, integrating the most critical aspects of the digital workflow from image import, metadata management, and cataloging to image correction and output.
But how well do these applications capture the nuances of the typical professional workflow? How do they compare with existing applications? And what does it take to integrate these applications into your existing operations?
Join us in March for a highly instructive and information-packed evening as we jump headlong into both Aperture and Lightroom and discover the nuts and bolts of how these applications work. You’ll learn how these programs were designed from the ground up to help you tame the digital avalanche and help you manage, select, and output your best images.
You’ll also learn how Aperture and Lightroom fit in with your existing tools ranging from raw converters to digital asset managers such as Microsoft iView Media Pro and Extensis Portfolio. You’ll discover when it makes sense to perform image manipulation within Aperture and Lightroom, and when you’ll need to turn to a higher-end image manipulation program, such as Photoshop, for advanced adjustments.
Our panelists will provide expert advice on how to use advanced new features in both programs to quickly examine hundreds of images, and how to organize your libraries for maximum flexibility and efficiency. You’ll also learn about new high impact options for outputting your images to print or the Web.
So be sure to join us in March for a lively and comprehensive exploration these two exciting new applications. You’ll come away with a good understanding of what these applications do, and how they compare with existing tools you are already using. You’ll also discover time-saving tips and learn important best practices that will help you maximize efficiency and capitalize on the state of the art in digital tools.
Speakers:
TBA
Sponsors:
TBA
Venue:
Blue Sky Rental Studios
2325 Third St.
San Francisco, CA 94107
415.626.7232
Date:
Tuesday, March 13
7:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m.
Social hour: 6:00 p.m.
Cost:
ASMP members Free
Students $10
General $20
Advance Tickets: through Pay Pal
Jeff

Aperture vs lightroom vs adobe bridge

I'm very very very new to all this, I plan on buying an imac soon and I'm trying my hand at amateur photography, but I am unsure what the difference b/w aperture, lightroom and adobe bridge is. Can anyone explain the differences in a nutshell?

Alejandra-
What Charles said. Aperture, Bridge and Lightroom are all applications for advanced digital image handling. Each has a steep learning curve that requires prerequisite full conversance with the Mac, batch image handling and digital photography in general. Simply running a trial version of Aperture, for instance, will not give a novice an appropriate idea of how Aperture behaves and what it is capable of.
Take at least a thousand digital pics and manage them using (free) iPhoto. Buy (inexpensive) Adobe Photoshop Elements and learn basic image editing and manipulation. Then re-ask your question. New Aperture and Lightroom versions and new training routines will then be available and you will get much more relevant advice. Do not run the 30-day trial until you have righteous hardware and training CD tutorial(s) in hand.
Planning an iMac purchase be aware that images processing is very hardware intensive. Anyone intending images processing should plan on buying strong hardware: Mac Pros, Macbook Pros or the highest end of the iMacs. Best performance will come from the strongest hardware. 2 GB RAM should be considered minimal.
-Allen Wicks

Aperture Vs Lightroom 4

Could anybody tell me which is better between Aperture and Lightroom 4 please. I need to decide
Badrakumar

I'm glad I could help and I'm glad you decided. I think you'll enjoy LR. I've been a very loyal Aperture fan for years but have just switched to LR recenlty. Make sure to learn what catalogs, folders and collections are and I bet you'll be a super LR user in no time.
I don't really understand the question? What version of PS should you buy? If I was you I'd play with LR for a long time before deciding if you need PS. Most pro's find they are doing moe and more of thier work in LR completely. PS can sure do things that LR can't, don't get me wrong. I'm just saying LR (or Aperture) can do ALOT!
If PS is definitely on the plate then what's your budget?
If money is no object and you only will ever be interested in photography, then I'd say buy PS CS6.
If you are strapped for cash then find a previous version for sale. I wouldn't go before CS4, when they added 64 bit.
Make sure to take advantage of the education or teacher versions. Just know upgrading down the road may be hindered if you do.
Creative Cloud-
If you don't mind spending more in the long run, want to always have up to date software, and want to dabble in video, audio, web sites in the future then go for Creative Cloud. It the leasing service Adobe just invented. If you do the math it's highway robbery.
That being said I'm a creative cloud customer. I went from PS CS3 to now having access to all of CS6, and let me tell you I LOVE it. It's given me no excuse to not download a new software and totally be blown away by what thier other software can do. With the help of Lynda.com I've learnt Premiere Pro. Look what I did with my Canon 60D and a $30 mic, http://youtu.be/lPRgdNvIIPE
Then hearing my sister wanted some kind of logo I designed it in PS downloaded After Effects, learned how to use it and made an animated logo for her charity. Wow pretty neat skills to have access to all for the same price!

Aperture and iPhoto...a marriage?

Do you mean it would be great if Aperture behaved like Adobe Bridge? Meaning you can open Bridge, point it to the iPhoto library execute changes within Bridge or PS (version whatever) and have it reflect the changes in iPhoto. That would be very cool, very cool indeed. As it stands I don't think it can, I hope I can be proven wrong. Because both programs are designed to run independent I don't think you will ever have the two programs work off of one "Library" and reflect changes respectively in either program. A work around I have tried using is set Aperture as your main import/edit manager. Work on your images and when finished drag them over to iPhoto. As you can guess the problem here is now you have two copies of the same image, even more given the extensiveness of your edits. If anyone can solve this problem (looking in your direction Apple) I would think there would be a great deal of happy people and more would be inclined to give Aperture a go. The End....I'm off to try and point iPhoto to the Aperture Library and see what happens.

QUOTE: "I don't like all this reference and non destructive editing stuff. Have one copy, back it up somewhere and work on the original. The way Aperture is set up you end up with too many edits and "stacks" there for bloating your work flow and perhaps HD space. I'm not sure how this applications functions in "real world" use by photographers but I would be interested in hearing about it."
Where to begin??
For one thing, Aperture's soon-to-be main competitor, LightRoom, works on the same principle, so there seems TO BE merit in this type of software (some say it's the wave of the future). It's a marriage of DAM (digital asset management) with meta editing. You are working with a different paradigm, pixel editing individual files, not meta editing. The master file in Aperture is the "root" file for all derivatives. You only need to have that one (pixel-based) file stored on HD, all other versions are merely instructions (meta data) that tell the software how to display the master with global changes applied. This data requires much less disk space. What you are doing is making a copy of an original and pixel editing it, resulting in another huge file being saved.
QUOTE: "As I wrote before I would love to be able to use any image editor working off of one central folder of images having any changes reflect in the central folder reflected in any image organizer (Aperture, iPhoto). "
Again, you are looking for the editor to make permanent changes to a file that any other editor/organizer can read. If that's what you want, then Aperture (and Lightroom, Lightzone, and other new photo-based editors) is not what you want. If you accept the concept of non-destructive editing, then a database is essential, and once you have that built into an app, then you need other apps to be familiar with that database in order to read the edits. Since we're at the beginnings of this new paradigm, your other apps will not have the capability of reading Aperture libraries, and may never. (Adobe is now updating Photoshop and Bridge to be compatible with Lightroom - they've been in the same boat.) As it is, Aperture can send a tiff file off to Photoshop for tweaking. That file then becomes a new master in Aperture. The original master is still there in Aperture, allowing you to make more versions.
Using your system, if you had many tens of thousands of images, you'd soon get lost in a sea of backed up originals, and derivatives. With no database component (DAM) available, you'd be left to your own devices - with folder and file naming conventions your only way to find your way around.
- Pierre

Aperture vs Lightroom Color Renderign

Like many I have downloaded the Lightroon beta to stack against Aperture. It is an interesting excercise to run the two side by side on a 30" screen. Takes a bit of grunt.....
I have a question that maybe someone can answer:
If I open the same image (either RAW or JPEG) in both Lightroom and Aperture, and ensure that all auto editing is turned off (I think!) there is a MAJOR difference in the color rendering of the same image between the two applications. I have to say that Lightroom seems to be doing a MUCH better job on flesh tones than Aperture. But why are they different???
An explanation, would be greatly appreciated.
Rgds
Chris

I think I am doing better than that. In the small cog menu at the top of the Aperture adjustments pane there is a menu option 'Remove All Adjustments' which I select prior to comparison. Likewise in LIghtroom there is a Reset button bottom right corner of the Develop pane. I would point out however that even pressing this reset button produces a different color rendering than that in the Library area of Lightroom. I therefore see THREE raw states
1.Lightroom Library
2. Lightroom Develop (with reset pressed)
3. Aperture Master Image.
This used to be a problem with the likes of iView Media Pro in that it was not color managed but both Aperture and Lightroom are color managed and yet producing completely different renderings of color.
Chris

Aperture to Lightroom: Switching experiences?

I'm wondering what experiences any users can share who have made the switch from Lightroom to Aperture.
How long did it take you to convert your Library?
How is the performance working for you in the new application?
What features of the new application have surprised or dissapointed you?
Was it worth the trouble to change?
Thanks for sharing!

Before Aperture 1.5, I used Lightroom extensively. In fact, I was asked to be in a select group of Beta testers that were able to communicate directly with the engineers. It is a good program and does the job for some people. However, after trying Aperture 1.5, I never went back to Lightroom. There were 3 main reasons:
1) The file management is superior in Aperture. Projects, albums and folders allow me to organize my work exactly how I want to. I can take care of both my assignment and stock clients in a very efficient manner. Plus, I use Aperture to manage my fine art prints and personal photos.
2) Aperture is a much more polished and mature product. So much thought has gone into how the program should work. Initially it was different than what I was used to in my old workflow, but I quickly realized the benefits of Aperture. Version 2.0 of Aperture will only add to the features and capabilities.
3) I processed some of my typical images using Aperture and Lightroom, and thought Aperture's photos looked better. Aperture's files were natural and film-like (without the grain!), while the Lightroom files had a plastic look to them.
My feeling is that Lightroom works for fine art photographers or pros and amateurs whose volume of work is low. If you are the typical professional, Aperture's workflow and features will make your business more efficient and thus make you more profitable. And you may even have more time to spend with your family!
I am a Canon shooter and have not been affected by the recent delay in support for new cameras. I would suggest people waiting for support to look at the big picture. First, you will not be updating your camera on a frequent basis. The D3 and D300 are far superior to older Nikon cameras, which caused Nikon shooters to jump at the new cameras. Future Nikon camera improvements will probably be more modest and you will not immediately need to buy them. Second, I think the Apple people have learned from this experience and may be able to implement changes for quicker support. I have no personal knowledge of this, but it just makes sense. And third, with Joe Schorr's posts, it is obvious the new camera support is almost here. It would be ashame to jump ship with support just around the corner.
If Aperture will benefit your business, then try find a workaround for this short period of time. What about shooting raw and jpg files and using the jpgs in Aperture? Then you would have the raw files to use with ACR for problem images.
My 2 cents,
Dan

Aperture to Lightroom Nightmares

With Apple pulling the plug on Aperture, I reluctantly went over to Amazon and bought a copy of Lightroom 5.5.
(If you go to Adobe's site, you can buy only the Cloud version and pay $10/month for all eternity.)
I'm hitting snags at everything I attempt. I'm about to spit tacks.
I have a list as long as my arm of things I can't figure out how to do. I have to have a browser open Googling every bloody thing I want to do and many times fail to find an answer.
One doozy is the keyboard combo to simply throw a photo in the trash. Shift+Option+Command+Delete. I expect "Vulcan Death Grip" key combos for arcane actions, but this is just the everyday trashing a file.
I wanted to share the 2 Lightroom face plants from this week, trying to figure out how to make this thing work.
#1 Flickr Authentication:
I set up the Flickr bit and expected my stuff to come flowing in from the site, but no. It sits there dumb and silent.
I set up a new album and dropped some photos into it and it did its thing and the new album and photos showed up via a web browser. I had hopes that by creating a new album using LR, it'd give it a nudge and bring in my current albums. No Go.
I launched Aperture, went to the Shared services and selected my Flickr and in flowed the new album and photos synching up without any monkeyshines.
#2 iCloud Photostream is absent:
I couldn't find any support for Apple's iCloud to bring in the photos from the iPhone, iPad, iCloud stuff. There are some kludgy incomplete solutions like creating an automator script and creating a "watched folder" in LR, but it's only one-way.
I fee like I'm in a nightmare and I can't wake up.

#1 I don't use Flickr so I can't say.
#2 doesn't surprise me: Adobe wants you to use their sharing tools. I can't really hold this against them.
Note that while Aperture and Lightroom do very similar things, they aren't the same programs. You'll need to learn a bit about how Lr works and it's not necessarily "wrong," it's just different to what you're used to. Moving the same way could be similarly frustrating for people.
As far as deleting images, Lr is actually pretty good. For me, to delete photos, I just hit the 'x' key on a photo which marks it as rejected. Then I move on. Eventually I hit command-delete which will delete ALL rejected photos in the selected folder. It works fairly well.

From Nikon ViewNX to Aperture or Lightroom?

Currently my main DSLR is the Nikon D300 and I am happy with the way Nikon's ViewNX organizes my RAW files.
But I am considering Aperture or Lightroom because I am going to buy one more camera and it will not be a Nikon, so I want ONE application to manage all my RAW files.
I've been test-driving the Aperture 2 and Lightroom 2 free trials for one week or two and I'm pretty satisfied with the organizing capabilities of both. The only point I'm not satisfied with is that the colors and sharpness of the NEF files are not quite right when opened with either Aperture or Lightroom.
Is it true that RAW files are best opened by the original camera manufacturer's own software? This issue aside, I'm not sure whether Aperture of Lightroom is better. Also, as I'm using a Power Mac G5 and I'm not likely to upgrade to an Intel machine in the near future, I'm concerned that the upcoming
Aperture 3 and Lightroom 3 will not support PPC Macs anymore. So if I'm going to purchase a copy of either Aperture 2 or Lightroom 2 for commercial use, I want to do it quick.

The colors and sharpness in the default rendering from Aperture and Lightroom will differ from Nikon View. That's largely a given, as the "default" rendering that View uses is based on proprietary Nikon information. So Aperture and Nikon will both do a default render based on the RAW data and on the work that the respective engineering product teams did to get a result that looks "good."
Sharpening should be easy; RAW files themselves are typically not that sharp - the RAW converters apply little sharpening. You can easily do this yourself in the respective applications… Aperture's default edge sharpening is fairly good but not very aggressive. Lightroom's sharpening can be a more manual procedure, but can also achieve very good results. I would absolutely encourage you to spend a fair bit of time experimenting with the sharpening in both programs and look at some specific parts of images at 100% and seeing which you prefer.
As far as color goes, I prefer the default rendering of Aperture to Lightroom at this time, but that's for my Canon camera. Lightroom 2 brought camera profiles which does help a fair bit. But I'd encourage you to look at Aperture's default color rendering, versus a few of the Lightroom profiles, and decide if you have a preference. Lightroom 3 is attempting to improve their default renderings, but running a PPC machine you don't have that option. Given no such product as "Aperture 3" has been announced by Apple who knows if/when/what it will look like or support from an OS or architecture perspective.

Aperture 2 and Lightroom 2

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for