# Aperture users - Did you make the switch to Lightroom 3?



## mStevens (Feb 19, 2012)

I acted too slowly to take advantage of low price ($70) B&H was offering. I may make the switch if I see prices fall again.


----------



## alipaulphotography (Feb 19, 2012)

LR4 is due very soon. Try out the beta they have available for free. I gave LR a try after being a long time user of aperture. I wanted to dislike it, but my RAW edits just kept coming out looking better than they ever did in aperture 3.

Sealed the deal for me.


----------



## smirkypants (Feb 19, 2012)

I'm an Apple fanboy and own everything Apple including a bunch of stock. Aperture sucks compared to Lightroom 3 and is miles behind Lightroom 4


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 19, 2012)

So...LR goes on super sale, down to $70, and it's a bargain? While Aperture used to cost $200 for the boxed version, it appears that Apple doesn't sell it like that anymore. It's $79 on the Mac App Store, making it much more cost effective than the normal price for LR. 

FWIW, I use Aperture only for library management; I find DxO Optics Pro to be superior to both Aperture and LR as a RAW converter.


----------



## Picsfor (Feb 19, 2012)

I was the other way round.
I got into LR during my days when using MS Windows.

When i moved to Mac, and Apple launched its Apple Store with Apaerture going for a mere $40, i thought i'd give it a go. It sits in my wife's MacBook - but i couldn't get used to it.

So, Lr3, and Lr4, when it's released, will continue to be my main tool of processing and managing pictures.


----------



## jabbott (Feb 19, 2012)

Here is my quick and dirty comparison of Lightroom 4 beta and Aperture 3:

*Lightroom 4 advantages:*
- Highlight/shadow recovery (far surpasses Aperture)
- Built-in B&W presets are nicer
- Speed (mixed... sometimes it's faster, other times it's comparable)
- Lens correction for many lenses
- Noise removal (similar to NeatImage in quality but not as configurable)
- Available on Mac and PC

*Aperture 3 advantages:*
- RAW rendering (less noise is apparent... far surpasses Lightroom in certain instances, especially with solid areas of a single color)
- Built-in face recognition
- Chromatic aberration adjustment is more customizable than Lightroom (although this is inferior to Canon DPP)
- Price


----------



## fsu_dan17 (Feb 19, 2012)

As an avid MAC user, I didn't get LR. I will continue to use Apperture 3 for cataloging and minor edits with PS5/NIK software for major PP. I thought about getting LR because I have used it in the past but my wife didn't like it and I can't see having two seperate libraries. My only problem is my iMac screen doesn't give a true representation of what the photos will look like printed. I am debating on getting another monitor and hooking it up to my macbook pro and stop using the iMac. Any suggestions on a good monitor or a way to calibrate the iMac monitor?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 19, 2012)

fsu_dan17 said:


> Any suggestions on... a way to calibrate the iMac monitor?



I use an X-Rite i1 to calibrate my monitors. The DataColor Spyder4Elite is similar. Both are spectrometers that measure your monitor's colors and generate a monitor profile to display accurate color.


----------



## bigblue1ca (Feb 19, 2012)

+1 for X-Rite i1 monitor calibration, it's painless to use and setup. I've heard good things about Spyder4Elite as well.


----------



## barryjphoto (Feb 19, 2012)

No, I heart A3


----------



## te4o (Feb 19, 2012)

I've been using Aperture for file management & postprocessing up until I bought NIK. Ever since Aperture is just for managing my library. And cropping/repairing some of the shots. I can't even think of using it to do major PP. Don't know about LR, but if I didn't have NIK I'd look into something else than Aperture. DxO or LR probably. 
Aperture makes complex files within the library. I use a RAID 0 over 4 HDs' fast partitions (the first ones) and have noticed a BIG ISSUE there: my 4 HDs have bad blocks (every one has them) - so, some of the Aperture files are corrupt. Aperture checks the consistency of the library each time it is launched and repairs it if necessary. Then the error (bad block) is ignored. The software can even update a vault and backup over Time Machine. BUT the backups copy the error-file as bad and the vaults do NOT run! Even the Time Machine backup is not working then!. Carbon Copy Cloner is able to detect the file errors and signals them... This hard copy works fine after I corrected the corrupt files but I needed to reprocess all masters and re-create all thumbnails - 6 hours+ job for a 2010 6 core Mac Pro... with 24 GB RAM. 
The alarming thing is that I tried to recover from the vault but it didn't work either because the thumbnail library was corrupt. So, don't rely too much on a single backup software!
On the matter of calibration: I use a NEC 27PA and Datacolor Spider - works well for me. Expensive though...


----------



## CicliCiöcc (Feb 19, 2012)

LR is a great product, so is A3. For some reason though, with my mild but bizarre dyslexia, is was just easier for me to deal with A3. Really a matter of taste, and what works for you. You really can't go wrong either way.


----------



## smirkypants (Feb 19, 2012)

Grigbar said:


> aperture is for noobs. So are macs for that matter.


Mac vs PC flame wars are so 20th century... Must we?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 19, 2012)

Grigbar said:


> aperture is for noobs. So are macs for that matter.



Ugly black plastic cases are for people without aesthetic sense. I long for the day when Canon wakes up and releases an EOS 1-series camera in an attractive brushed metal finish. Let that magnesium-alloy show through!





smirkypants said:


> Mac vs PC flame wars are so 20th century... Must we?



+1 !


----------



## juwi (Feb 20, 2012)

te4o said:


> I use a RAID 0 over 4 HDs' fast partitions (the first ones) and have noticed a BIG ISSUE there: my 4 HDs have bad blocks (every one has them) - so, some of the Aperture files are corrupt. Aperture checks the consistency of the library each time it is launched and repairs it if necessary. Then the error (bad block) is ignored. The software can even update a vault and backup over Time Machine. BUT the backups copy the error-file as bad and the vaults do NOT run! Even the Time Machine backup is not working then!. Carbon Copy Cloner is able to detect the file errors and signals them... This hard copy works fine after I corrected the corrupt files but I needed to reprocess all masters and re-create all thumbnails - 6 hours+ job for a 2010 6 core Mac Pro... with 24 GB RAM.
> The alarming thing is that I tried to recover from the vault but it didn't work either because the thumbnail library was corrupt. So, don't rely too much on a single backup software!



I'd much rather say: Get an SSD and stop relying on ridiculously unsafe "RAID" setups like that.


----------



## The_Arsonist (Feb 20, 2012)

I used Lightroom a bit back in my PC days, switched over to Aperture 2 when I went to OS X. I'd consider giving Lightroom another look, but I don't really feel like having separate libraries. Aperture does what I need it to do, and I'm used to it. Same reason I'm still with Canon; it's what I've always used and I don't feel like switching glass


----------



## erakepio (Feb 20, 2012)

I originally used Lightroom and Aperture on the trial basis. Have to say Lightroom gets it for me and I'm even more excited about Lightroom 4. But Aperture is still a fantastic product.

I found LR just easier to use and felt more comfortable using the product. That's the main reason I chose it.


----------

