My last post generated a lot of interest and even triggered a post on www.lightroomkillertips.com. Don't get me wrong. I believe that both applications, Lightroom and Aperture have their strengths and their weaknesses. It depends on your specific requirements and workflow which one you would pick. Or you could use both side by side. If you are on the Windows platform just stop reading, go out, take pictures and enjoy Lightroom!
My Aperture 3 retail box arrived today. As you can see I am serious about Aperture 3.
Many people get very excited about new features quickly but forget that one of the most important aspects of software like Lightroom or Aperture is how good they convert raw images. And here it starts to get very tricky and subjective. Some people like "Nikon" colours, some like "Canon" colours and so on. I do not like to get into the debate of which raw converter produces better colours as they can be tweaked to a certain degree to match closely your expectations even though some Nikon die-hards will say that you have to shoot in JPEG or use Capture NX2 to get the "right" colours.
Here is an interesting but also very simple test that I did with a Canon G11 CR2 RAW file. I took one file and processed it with the standard settings in Aperture 3 and in Lightroom 2 (Lightroom 2.6 to be precise) and uploaded the resulting images on flickr (Click on the images if you want to look at the full resolution files). I am also including 100% crops here in this post. You can judge yourself which one you find is the better raw conversion.
Aperture 3:
Lightroom 2.6:
The one thing I can see is that the treatment of chroma noise in Lightroom is not the same as in Aperture. The CR2 file was shot at 800 ISO. The image is amazing for a small sensor camera but there is a lot of chroma noise in the Lightroom conversion. You need to look at the darker shadow areas to see this. Here is a 100% crop of the Lightroom rendering.
Here is the Aperture 3 crop for comparison.
This matches the corresponding out-of-camera JPEG much more closely in terms of noise levels.
Even if I turn the chroma noise reduction slider to 100% in Lightroom it's still not as good looking as in Aperture. Now, let's go two stops higher.
Here is an example at ISO 3200. Surely, this is a stretch for the G11 but a great test. This is the Aperture version.
And here is the 100% crop in a dark area.
Let's have a look at the LR2 crop.
Even if you crank up the chroma noise reduction and luminance to 100% it does not get a lot better.
Yes, there are some differences in terms of sharpening between the two applications but I believe they can be adjusted to liking in both via sharpening sliders.
The other big thing I am looking out for is highlight recovery. We have many dull days here in Ireland that can generate a washed out sky so this is of particular interest for me. Again, this is the same CR2 file converted in Aperture and Lightroom and the only setting that I changed is the recovery slider. I pulled it to the maximum in each application. There are more ways of doing this, especially with the great curves adjustment in Aperture 3 but I went for the simple slider approach. Here is what happens in Lightroom.
Now, look at the result in Aperture 3. The second mountain (behind the first one) comes back into the picture. Aperture 3 was able to recover more details in the highlights.
If you like to try it yourself here is the original raw file.
Please bear in mind that this is not scientific proof that Aperture does a better job in general with RAW conversion. This is one example for one specific camera at one specific setting. The results may or may not look very different for other cameras and settings. I will try to do the same test with a Nikon NEF file when I get a chance.
Recommendation: If you are trying to decide between Lightroom and Aperture I would suggest that you download the trial and process the same images from the cameras that you have and use and look at the results and the overall experience.
My Aperture 3 retail box arrived today. As you can see I am serious about Aperture 3.
Many people get very excited about new features quickly but forget that one of the most important aspects of software like Lightroom or Aperture is how good they convert raw images. And here it starts to get very tricky and subjective. Some people like "Nikon" colours, some like "Canon" colours and so on. I do not like to get into the debate of which raw converter produces better colours as they can be tweaked to a certain degree to match closely your expectations even though some Nikon die-hards will say that you have to shoot in JPEG or use Capture NX2 to get the "right" colours.
Here is an interesting but also very simple test that I did with a Canon G11 CR2 RAW file. I took one file and processed it with the standard settings in Aperture 3 and in Lightroom 2 (Lightroom 2.6 to be precise) and uploaded the resulting images on flickr (Click on the images if you want to look at the full resolution files). I am also including 100% crops here in this post. You can judge yourself which one you find is the better raw conversion.
Aperture 3:
Lightroom 2.6:
The one thing I can see is that the treatment of chroma noise in Lightroom is not the same as in Aperture. The CR2 file was shot at 800 ISO. The image is amazing for a small sensor camera but there is a lot of chroma noise in the Lightroom conversion. You need to look at the darker shadow areas to see this. Here is a 100% crop of the Lightroom rendering.
Here is the Aperture 3 crop for comparison.
This matches the corresponding out-of-camera JPEG much more closely in terms of noise levels.
Even if I turn the chroma noise reduction slider to 100% in Lightroom it's still not as good looking as in Aperture. Now, let's go two stops higher.
Here is an example at ISO 3200. Surely, this is a stretch for the G11 but a great test. This is the Aperture version.
And here is the 100% crop in a dark area.
Let's have a look at the LR2 crop.
Even if you crank up the chroma noise reduction and luminance to 100% it does not get a lot better.
Yes, there are some differences in terms of sharpening between the two applications but I believe they can be adjusted to liking in both via sharpening sliders.
The other big thing I am looking out for is highlight recovery. We have many dull days here in Ireland that can generate a washed out sky so this is of particular interest for me. Again, this is the same CR2 file converted in Aperture and Lightroom and the only setting that I changed is the recovery slider. I pulled it to the maximum in each application. There are more ways of doing this, especially with the great curves adjustment in Aperture 3 but I went for the simple slider approach. Here is what happens in Lightroom.
Now, look at the result in Aperture 3. The second mountain (behind the first one) comes back into the picture. Aperture 3 was able to recover more details in the highlights.
If you like to try it yourself here is the original raw file.
Please bear in mind that this is not scientific proof that Aperture does a better job in general with RAW conversion. This is one example for one specific camera at one specific setting. The results may or may not look very different for other cameras and settings. I will try to do the same test with a Nikon NEF file when I get a chance.
Recommendation: If you are trying to decide between Lightroom and Aperture I would suggest that you download the trial and process the same images from the cameras that you have and use and look at the results and the overall experience.
14 comments:
Over all I fined Aperture a great program and excellent in RAW file conversion, I have only come across 2 bugs in Aperture 3 up to now (I have contacted Apple's Aperture team about them)
RAW Fine Tuning in Aperture 3.
I used a Canon G11 PowerShot camera.
I cant customs the RAW fine tuning as default, for importing new files, so each new RAW file imported come into Aperture 3 with the changes from the Apple default.
I had not problem changing the above in Aperture 2 - I have done it before and I now I have gone through the procedure correctly
Also after installing Aperture 3 my media browser disappeared (in all programs iWeb, iMovie, mail ect).
When I turn off face recognition in Aperture 3, the Aperture folders and images appears in the media browser in all applications.
When face recognition is turned on again in Aperture 3, the Aperture folders and images in the media browser disappears (in all programs iWeb, iMovie mail ect. )
I am still learning Aperture ... it's different to LR 2 and I have not explored many settings yet. Looks like that there are some issues still with version 3. Hopefully, Apple will iron them out. The media browser seems to be working for me. Also, I started with a fresh install as I had not AP 2 previously.
My tests have all been done with Canon 7D and old Canon 20D files.
I'm seeing the same results as Marco in A3 vs LR2.6, 3.0b and also vs C1Pro and even DPP to a lesser extent. DPP was previously turning out the best looking files for me. (Can't stand using DPP -- good riddance)
Hi Rockaway, Interesting that the 7D and 20D shows similar results. Do you find that Aperture 3 gives even better results than Capture 1 Pro? Many people seem to say that C1Pro is the best converter when it comes to image quality.
I was surprised, too.
I don't want to get off the Canon G11 topic, but I owned version 3 of CaptureOne Pro but abandoned it for Lightroom a long time ago. Tried C1Pro 5 yesterday and immediately put it to work on some ISO 6400 files from the 7D.
Don't forget - the early chatter online was that the 7D is full of features, but noisy. Turns out, it's only noisy if you used CameraRaw or LR. Aperture 3 turned it into a new camera.
Vs CaptureOne Pro, the A3 files are as detailed, but have virtually no noise. To be fair, C1Pro also eliminates all chroma noise but replaces it with very fine graininess. Some probably like that very much. Aperture just wipes it out.
You'd think that there would be a reduction in detail in exchange for reduced noise, but that's not the case with Aperture. At the default RAW processing settings, there is tons of detail, especially with my 18 megapixel camera. When I shoot with primes, it's astoundingly good.
The new CaptureOne is very good, but I cannot find a compelling reason to purchase it unless I owned a PhaseOne digital back.
Also, I'm happy to post a few samples. I'll try to work up a comparo and link to the location this weekend.
I too made a simple comparison between ACR (CS4), Capture one Pro 5, and Aperture 3. I want to settle on one, and that's it; there are so many products out there, its getting confusing. I came to the conclusion that Capture 1 is the best, especially with out of "box" RAWs, the sharpness at the default setting is amazing, and the detail preserved too. Even in PostP, I found that it still retained a lot of the details, as you said because of the fine grain.
Anyways, here is my link to it, check it out, see if it confirms what you've been saying:
http://alebaneseonline.wordpress.com/2010/02/20/comparing-the-three-raw-heavyweights/
Hi, thanks for this informative discussion. I'm planning to dump my windows based PC for a Macbook pro soon and am encouraged to hear Aperture is such a good application.
I currently use Breezebrowzer pro and Adobe Camera Raw with my Canon G9 20D and 40D cameras.
Does Aperture have the speed of Breezebrowser Pro for checking through large numbers of photos for sharpness? Thanks, Paul.
I am a professional photographer and use Aperture based on the quality of the raw conversions and several other advantages it has over Lightroom. In fact, Adobe asked me to be in a select group Beta testers for Lightroom a while back. I did that, but found Aperture superior for my needs and made the switch then. I use Aperture literally everyday and cannot imagine running my business without it.
A better comparison would be with Lightroom 3 Beta
I'm happy with the RAW results from both A3 and Lr3beta. If you made me pick a winner for RAW processing, I'd have to give the edge to Aperture 3.
I downloaded the photo to test the writer's hypothesis re: ACR/Lightroom/Photoshop CS3 raw conversion & Aperture 3. I found that ACR/Lightroom delivered excellent results, at least equalling Aperture. My process: I converted the G-11/CR-2 raw file to Adobe DNG, then opened it in Bridge/ACR. Re: Highlights: I could easily recover the highlights by moving Exposure to the left moderately, then I tweaked with Recovery & Fill - this is my usual practice; the 2nd, background mountain came in easily & clearly. Re: ACR & noise: I could easily clean noise with a small amount of luminance (35%) in ACR. I then opened the image in Photoshop. It looked excellent, & essentially noise free. By the way, nice photo!
Try LR3 Beta for color noise reduction. It's by far better than the 2.6.
Lightroom 3 beta might be better than Lightroom 2 but we do not know what LR 3 will be until released. 3 beta is crippled and I would not use a beta for production.
James L: Yes, I agree. You can get better results with LR2 by using a different method. I was comparing the function of the recovery slider of both products only as stated.
Aperture 3 is superior to LR2 in many ways.
Post a Comment