Aperture or Lightroom? Aperture versus Lightroom - Which one is the best? A few days past since I installed the Aperture 3 Trial. I have AP 3 installed on two Macs. One of them is a MacBook Air. I also have Lightroom 2.6 installed and I have used it for my digital workflow since version 1. Here is what sticks out so far.
Reason 1 - Enjoying The Digital Darkroom
After using Aperture 3 I realized why I never really enjoyed using Lightroom. The user interface is clean but clunky. In Lightroom I have to click between modules unless I follow Adobe's workflow and I also have to constantly click on scroll bars within the development module to make changes and adjustments or in the library module to select a folder. Yes, there are tabs in Aperture but it is so much fun to use with tools right at your fingertips where you need them.
Reason 2 - Brushes Work Better
This is probably another subjective opinion but for me the brushes including the healing brush work better and I can make adjustments that look better than in LR within less time. This is actually interesting because the brushes were destructive in the previous version of Aperture and LR was ahead of Apple here until now.
Reason 3 - Presets
Many people loved this feature in Lightroom and I would not consider switching to Aperture 3 if this was not included. This is a feature that Apple had to catch up with Adobe and they did well. I find it easier to use in terms of sorting your presets. There will be all kinds of presets developed over the next few months including the ones that mimic old B&W film. Great.
Reason 4 - Books, Loupe, Light Table and Full-Screen Mode
All awesome features that I am missing in Lightroom.
Reason 5 - Support Competition
Competition is good for the customer and in this case by switching to Apple Aperture 3 we can support another company that makes great software applications and it will help Adobe to keep improving their Lightroom and Photoshop CS products. If Aperture were to be discontinued Adobe would have less incentives to improve their photo software. At the same time it is great that Lightroom 2 was so feature rich. Apple had to step up a lot over Aperture 2 and they did. It is win-win for everybody.
Reason 1 - Enjoying The Digital Darkroom
After using Aperture 3 I realized why I never really enjoyed using Lightroom. The user interface is clean but clunky. In Lightroom I have to click between modules unless I follow Adobe's workflow and I also have to constantly click on scroll bars within the development module to make changes and adjustments or in the library module to select a folder. Yes, there are tabs in Aperture but it is so much fun to use with tools right at your fingertips where you need them.
Reason 2 - Brushes Work Better
This is probably another subjective opinion but for me the brushes including the healing brush work better and I can make adjustments that look better than in LR within less time. This is actually interesting because the brushes were destructive in the previous version of Aperture and LR was ahead of Apple here until now.
Reason 3 - Presets
Many people loved this feature in Lightroom and I would not consider switching to Aperture 3 if this was not included. This is a feature that Apple had to catch up with Adobe and they did well. I find it easier to use in terms of sorting your presets. There will be all kinds of presets developed over the next few months including the ones that mimic old B&W film. Great.
Reason 4 - Books, Loupe, Light Table and Full-Screen Mode
All awesome features that I am missing in Lightroom.
Reason 5 - Support Competition
Competition is good for the customer and in this case by switching to Apple Aperture 3 we can support another company that makes great software applications and it will help Adobe to keep improving their Lightroom and Photoshop CS products. If Aperture were to be discontinued Adobe would have less incentives to improve their photo software. At the same time it is great that Lightroom 2 was so feature rich. Apple had to step up a lot over Aperture 2 and they did. It is win-win for everybody.
35 comments:
Hi,
why do you miss full screen mode in LR? Try to press the F key ;-)
I think you cannot say the workflow of one of the products is really better. It is up to you which workflow you prefer. At the moment I am working with both (for testing) and I think LR is still much clearer as aperture. Also the print module in LR is really the best I ever seen. Only books is a great thing in apeture and I hope, Adobe will implement such a thing soon.
I think I will stay with LR, but as I said everyone should decide by him/herself.
best regards,
Günther
Exactly as you did, worked with LR since the first Beta, but only now has Aperture gained the edge and I've switched already.
Interesting article, but reason 5 is pretty poor and lets it down somewhat, suggesting we switch to Aperture so Adobe will keep improving Lightroom?
With version 3 of both apps, it's no longer a choice of one app versus the other after a quick review of important features. These apps are really starting to diverge in a number of key areas, and I believe I'll buy both of them.
IMAGE QUALITY - I don't believe its a fair statement to assert that Adobe has the best RAW processing engine anymore. Both apps are pro level image editors. Creating giant prints (30 x 40 and larger) from both tells me that you can create stunning printed output from either. Apple's new RAW processing gets the edge with my Canon 7D files. The A3 files show finer grain (less noise) than the LR3 files. There is also more detail in the shadows in the A3 files. These results might be different for Nikon users. One app is not clearly superior over the other in this regard.
SOFT PROOFING - We've been asking Adobe for this for years. If you only print to one type of media you might not need this feature, but if your work depends on printing to diverse media, this is a HUGE time and money saver. Aperture printing functionality is at least the equal to LR.
VIDEO / AUDIO - I shot several Mardi Gras parades over the last week and came back with as many video clips as stills. A3 imports them without question. Bravo. LR treats them as an annoyance. Once you've got the video files in your library, it's very cool that you can mix them into a slideshow. Definitely a pro-level feature.
The integration of the audio comment files is just as useful, maybe more so. Shooting with a Canon 1D, the shooter often tags shots with captions, or notes to self. A3 keeps those .wav files with the image -- where they belong. LR doesn't.
BRUSHES - I prefer LR's visual tags that let me know at a glance if there are brushes applied to a file. Great first effort for A3, though.
BOOKS - Many LR users buy Aperture just for this feature. The third party book plug ins raise the bar for this feature. It baffles me why Adobe is asleep on this.
Here are areas where I call it a draw between LR3 beta and A3:
- SPEED - Both apps delight and frustrate. Both apps can be painfully slow when I'm trying to get real work done. Both apps are grabbing virtually all the processing power, leaving very little available CPU or memory for other running apps.
- LIBRARY organization for images
- KEYWORDS and metadata
- PRINTING (LR3 beta's "Custom Packages" are similar to printing an A3 Light Table)
- RAW PROCESSING (both are excellent)
- UPLOAD to Flickr (yawn)
LR is superior in:
- B&W adjustment controls (very nice)
- BRUSHES are more responsive
- CAMERA CALIBRATION (to be fair, Aperture appears to have custom support for different cameras built in, but not tweakable)
- LENS correction
- HISTORY / Snapshots
LR lacks in:
- SLIDESHOW and web modules are weak. Not sure why we need a "module" for such a bad feature. Better implemented as items in Aperture's Library structure.
- QUICKDEVELOP mode is weird. If I want to twiddle with adjustments, I don't save any time using this dumbed down feature.
Aperture has the following exclusive convenience features built in:
- OS INTEGRATION with iPhone, iPod, AppleTV, iPad (very cool for the 250 million folks who have one of those devices) plus Integration with Pages, Number, Keynote
- FACES (this is going to be very useful after I get the time to tag 20,000 images)
- PLACES
Let's not forget the pro features that Adobe has not matched:
- SOFT PROOFING
- LIGHT TABLES (you can export them as PDFs)
- TETHERED Shooting
- BOOKMAKING and Online print ordering via your iTunes account
- WEB JOURNAL - You have got to try this. It's awesome.
- VIDEO/AUDIO support - can handle all files from modern SLR
I can't see how I can do without both applications until the version 4 wars begin.
I can't really speak to the first four, but the last "point" is, well, pretty weak. "Supporting competition" is no more a reason to move to new software than it is to sell your Honda and buy a Yugo*. Competition is supported by using the better product and having the other guys improve their own products. You're rather putting the cart before the horse with this suggestion.
* (not that I'm saying LR is the Honda and Aperture is the Yugo, I'm just using an extreme example)
How would I go about switching from LR2? I am at my wits end. It basically eats up all my memory 5 minutes into using it. I have 4GB RAM and run it on a MBP.
I want to switch but what would happen to all the edits I've made? Will Aperture 3 keep those edits or not? Is there a third party tool to do it?
Thanks.
In your LR Catalog Settings, click the "Metadata" tab and try turning on "Automatically Write Changes into XMP". Your adjustments should become visible to other apps that can read the XMP sidecar files.
Then create a new Aperture library and import your photos. You will not be able to import the LR catalog, but you can reference all the files in their current location.
I disagree that the brushes in LR are superior. They may (or may not) be more responsive, but A3 gives far more options.
The brushes in A3 are available for all adjustmenst (levels, curves, noise reduction, etc), can be used to brush in or to brush out, and can be selectively applied to highlights, midtones, or shadows if needed. That blows away the current brush options in LR.
These arguments are artificial IMHO. Similar comparisons are often said for Nikon and Canon equipment and yet there are WONDERFUL images captured by these brand of cameras and other brands. The OLD computer adage GIGO still applies. If you like one FOR WHATEVER reason, then use it. There is not one piece of software that is ideal so either you adapt or you try to show others how superior your thought processes are regardless of which software you use. The skill and the knowledge of the operator is MORE important than the software.
Nobody's suggesting you can't do great work with either tool. You can also use your iPhone to shoot a photo of a plane landing in the Hudson River and have it published in 3000 newspapers.
The fact remains that there are quantifiable differences between different products. I'm a Canon shooter, but I recognize that my gear can't touch the low light performance of Nikon D3S. Yes, the Nikon is a better tool for that job.
If you don't find the discussion interesting or informative, nobody's forcing you to participate in it.
I've moved to Aperture as well and wish I had never taken the temporary leap over to LR 2. Aperture win the latest battle hands down (yes I've used LR3 beta).
Thanks a lot Loyal Advisor. I am relieved that its possible.
I may have to wait though until Apple patches a memory leak (which would defeat the purpose of my move): http://www.macnn.com/articles/10/02/16/virtual.memory.eventually.renders.drives.unusable/
I find it interesting that so many people continue to believe that Aperture is better then Lightroom or that Lightroom is better then Aperture. That cannot be said until you consider a persons workflow and exactly what they want to do with the product. Each product has it's own set of benefits over the other. For one person Lightroom may be the clear winner, for another, Aperture may be the clear winner. All photographers do not want the same thing in their software.
i have used LR from inception as well, and i have often found the adobe raw conversion to be pretty bad (nef) aperture 2 was a better coversion but sucked on many issue, trying Ap 3 at present and it is soooo much better than Ap 2, LR2 is still great but the way Ap integrates with my macs, and flicker and facebook its a no brainer... but they do need to sort dual screen color calibration or have they and i cant find it?
Mmmh, I don't see here any comments about one well hidden info : AP3 new rendering engine supports only 7 cameras. There is a tech note about this.Funny to see that this is not discussed on Aperture websites.
AP3 turns now to an advanced amateur tool, some kind of a super iPhoto.
Hi Gilles, Aperture supports more than 150 different cameras. You can check this out here http://www.apple.com/aperture/specs/raw.html .
Karl, I calibrate my screens with a Spyder product independently of whatever OS X/Adobe/Aperture might offer for calibration.
I remember frequent comments years ago about how Apple computers were "toys" and not serious business tools. DOS and the Windows was obviously better, according to many who didn't know better. Later, some were quick to say that Final Cut Pro was vastly inferior to Avid and other much more expensive tools, too.
Plenty of pros disagree with all of the above. The same pros depend on Aperture every day.
Aperture/Lightroom arguments combing the obnoxiousness of Mac/PC arguments with with the photographers' pedantry of Canon/Nikon arguments
Marco, read my post again.
I'm talking about the new rendering engine in AP3. It supports only 7 cameras. There is a technote about this.
All other supported cameras still use the older (i.e. AP2) rendering engine. That means outdated demosaicing and denoise technology.
Gilles, I'd like to see that technote. Can you post the link?
Hi Gilles, yes, please post the link to the tech note you are referring to. I cannot find it anywhere.
Another note about the new Aperture image quality: I've spent a fair bit of time now comparing its RAW processing to the other Pro tools (LR 2.6, LR3.0beta, CaptureOne Pro 5) -- with my Canon 7D, the results with Aperture are consistently better. Maybe I'm getting the benefit of the new engine that Gilles mentioned, but regardless, I'm pleased with the output.
Now if they can just take care of the little performance issue...
I have just started playing with aperture 3 and so far am definitely impressed by the ease of navigation and all the tools that have been mentioned previously. The biggest blocker to switching is not a very easy way to migratemy lightroom collection to aperture
Here's another reason to stick with LR: simpler implementation of brushes.
A3's brushes are powerful, but you can't combine them, which is a major pain in the neck. In LR, I like to combine brushes to desaturate a background, while lowering contrast, lowering clarity and increasing brightness. In A3 you would have to paint the brush effect into the scene 4 times. In my example, if I'm trying to isolate an item in the foreground, I have to be very careful to brush all four effects in the same place, and I can't find any command in A3 that lets me copy the mask from one brush to another.
In LR, you can combine many effects into a single brush.
Just trying to be an equal opportunity crank.
I'm currently evaluation Aperture 3 myself. Also have Lightroom 3 Beta installeed and have been using lightroom as my main RAW-converter in the past.
What I like/don't like about Lightroom:
+ Use folders when browsing
+ Ease to use
- Show/hide panes are a clutter. THey pop up when I don't want them to.
- Scrolling, scrolling in developer mode
- Too much empty space/frames in viewer.
What I like/don't like about Aperture 3:
+Easier to search
+Somewhat nicer GUI
-Generally slow in updating RAW support.
-Would prefer to just browse my folders, and not import into projects
-
I really can't decide between the two. Maybe I should just stick with what I have been using (Lightroom), but there is something about Aperture that apeals to me. It looks cleaner. Being on a 13" MacBook at the moment, are probably the reason why I have to scroll more in Lightroom, but then I don't have to in Aperture on the same computer...
I also would like to be able to browse by metadata which seems to be easier in Lightroom.
Inge, your experience is very similar to mine in terms of UI. Also, raw support has been slow by Apple. The one thing I also found is that the raw conversion itself is really nice in Aperture 3.
I tested the UI using LR 2 and Aperture 3 on a MacBook Air, a 13 inch screen, and scrolling constantly is really annoying in LR.
For me it would not make sense to go out and buy a Mac just so I can try Aperture 3. If Apple is really serious about all kinds of levels of photographers they NEED to release Aperture 3 for Windows as well. For now I will continue using Lightroom. Adobe was smart enough to support both Windows and Mac users; that's a plus for Adobe.
So stop it and stick it!
Derek
Ap3.0.1 fixed all performance issues for me. It's a good day.
I keep seeing comments from Lr users telling Ap users that they are stupid because they are missing Lr's full screen mode. "Just press Cmd-Shift-F" they say.
Full screen = no other interface elements visible. Lr ALWAYS shows a 1/4" border around your "full screen" image with extra interface widgets (and a half inch on the bottom). Useful, yes, and very nice -- but not full screen. Hardly a feature worth switching over, though.
Another great Ap feature that goes unnoticed in all the comparisons is Ap's great ability to consolidate all master files that relate to a project, and then relocate them all to a new location. Can't do that with Lr. And finally, I'm loving the Vaults feature of Ap. Totally automatic backup to one or many remote hard drives of the master files and all adjustment files. This is a huge feature. Hard drives are cheap, and it's too easy to forget to backup manually. Yes, you can have Lr save a backup catalog, but if you use referenced files, you don't get backups of the masters.
For now, I'm squarely back in the Ap camp. But I'm still planning on buying Lr3 for the same reason we all have that one extra lens in the bag that we don't use everyday.
Marco:
I think that competition is always good, so I'm glad to see Apple release a new version of Aperture. However, when a new product "breaks" the interoperability of my metadata, which necessitates me having to re-enter my metadata, that is a deal breaker.
Apple has changed how Aperture 3 writes metadata to the point that most other applications only see a portion of the fields written. Which fields depends on the file format (JPEG, TIFF, DNG, Raw), and the fields you are using. I've tried to explore all the options in my article "Apple Aperture 3 Metadata Issues" at http://www.controlledvocabulary.com/imagedatabases/aperture3.html which includes a chart showing which fields are and are not visible by file format type in Adobe Photoshop CS3 and CS4, Bridge for CS3 and CS4, Photo Mechanic and Expression Media.
I would hope that a fix for this issue is in the works, but in the interim, I would not consider a move to Aperture from my present workflow.
David
I have been using both LR and Aperture since their inception. My computer is Macbook Pro 2.5 intel core 2 duo with 4 Gb RAM.
I am not sure if the list of 5 is really convincing.
#1 is completely personal and my personal choice is LR. The darker panels in LR are definitely less distracting. You have to scroll down to access all editing features in A3 as well and not just in LR.
#2 brushes work just as well in LR or better in my view (again personal). Note that graduated filter is missing in A3. I use it a lot, especially on pictures with flash.
#3 Presets - just because A3 has them doesn’t make it better. LR had them all along. So, why switch all of a sudden, as soon as they appear in A3? In-fact in LR you can access the presets in one click, on a panel that autohides. In A3 you have to click and navigate to access the desired preset, which defeats the purpose of presets (quick and easy access).
#4 Photo books is convincing. But overall, the printing options are more extensive in LR. I can use iPhoto to make books as well and don’t really need A3 just for that. Zoom function serves just as well as Loupe. Light table is fancy, but does not clinch the deal for me. Full screen mode is superior in LR. Just press F. There are no HUDs blocking your picture. All the panels can autohide in LR. Lights out mode is very neat (just press L).
#5 seems contradictory, because as I understand competition is supporting or spending your money on the best or the cheapest or whichever you think offers the best value.
Aperture Pros & Cons
Pros:
Good results with editing. Can't really say better than LR.
iLife integration.
Face detection.
Easy sharing on Flickr & facebook.
Photo books.
Copy and paste GPS location in metadata. Imports iPhone photos’ GPS coordinates (without importing the photos) and assigns GPS location to other pictures.
Improved full screen mode.
Nondestructive brushes is a welcome addition.
Color monochrome is good feature. Also available in LR through split toning.
Create slideshow videos, which is not available in LR 2 (available in LR3 beta)
A3 Handles videos.
Library sync function great.
Consolidate library: referenced pictures from multiple locations can be consolidated easily. I reorganized the structure of photo storage a few times and every time I reorganized the pictures, I had to point each folder independently in LR. It would be nice to have this feature in LR as well.
Easy comparison with the master by pressing m. LR offers good comparison tools as well.
Cons:
Aperture is way too slow compared to LR. LR is blazing fast. Disabling face detection didn’t improve the speed much.
Too many crashes with only 57K referenced photos.
Poor results with some auto adjustments. No auto WB.
Having to click and navigate menus to access a desired preset, defeats the purpose. LR offers all presets one click away on one panel that can autohide.
LR has Graduated filter - allows you to apply a gradual transitioning adjustment (exposure, brightness, etc) easily. Graduated filter is a great tool for me in LR, which is not available in A3.
HUD in A3 blocks image in full screen mode, unlike the film strip, which can autohide.
Very limited undo function. In LR you have access to complete history of all the adjustments you’ve ever made. Undo is not limited to one session in LR. This I think is the biggest winner of all!
When you search and filter in A3, the default list does not have some routinely used filters. You have to add Date & EXIF data filters to the list every time you use search function.
You can only straighten the picture around it’s center (unless I didn’t see). Cropping and straightening functions work seamlessly in LR and you are not limited to straightening around the center alone.
The lights off mode is superb in LR.
Hi,
As much as I want to like Aperture, I always find something I really hate about it. Performancewise it hasn't been a problem for me, but a few things stands out:
- Cataloging. I prefer my DAM application to rely on my folder structure. I want to be able to "update location" or have Aperture automatic update a folder when it gets updated from outside Aperture (I use Photo Mechanic for tagging and browsing). Early beta versions of Lightroom was just like Aperture on this, but due to public demand they changed it.
- Aperture is slow at updating RAW-support. Only when A3 was released I could finally see my LX3-files. And S90. Had to wait a little longer for GF1 support, but now it's there.
These two things are the main reasons why I stay with Lightroom. There are stuff don't like about Lightroom too, that Aperture handles much better. One thing is the use of the screen. Also, neither have a quick search field, which I would love to have.
Inge, Today's your luck day!
Well, actually your lucky day was about two years ago, when Aperture gave users a choice between a fully managed library (the kind you hate) and referenced files in your custom folder structure. Better yet, it does a much better job than Lr when you rearrange your folders on disk. You can move the library file (similar to the Lr catalog file) and it will always remember where your files are.
I know it's frustrating to wait for RAW support, but it looks like you have support for both your cameras. I had support for Canon 7D and 1D Mark IV from Aperture almost immediately.
never used Apature i swear by lightroom, but having read this ill have a look at apature
Oliver Prout london fashion photographer
Post a Comment