# Lightroom or Aperture?



## prossernoski (Nov 24, 2011)

Can users list +/- points of both? I'm on the edge of a purchase 

Thanks in advance peeps!


----------



## lightseeker (Nov 24, 2011)

Personal opinion based on using both on a three year old iMac with 6 GB of Ram. Lightroom is far more stable in that it rarely has an issue that causes the program to stop working whereas Aperture 3 will often crash particularly when brushing in multiple adjustments. I recommend the tutorials on TheLightroomLab.com for getting started with Lightroom in an efficient manner. If you go with aperture there are support forums that will help with issues such as crashing however in my simple mind I would rather avoid such issues in the first place hence my preference for Lightroom.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 24, 2011)

I tried LR and didn't care for it. I use Aperture, and I've never had it crash (I run it on a 2010 17" MBPro and a 2011 13" MBAir).

Both LR and Aperture offer free 30 day full-featured trials - why don't you just download both and try them?


----------



## daveheinzel (Nov 24, 2011)

I've been using Aperture for years, and I love it. No complaints except for some minor frustrations with the watermarking and book creation tools. But otherwise, I love it. I now use version 3 on a 2009 17" MacBook Pro. I have never used Lightroom, but there's nothing about Aperture that makes me want to switch.


----------



## SixeL (Nov 24, 2011)

I am on Aperture since I am on Mac.


----------



## Jettatore (Nov 24, 2011)

Neither are necessary so its a very personal decision regarding your own preferences. You can do RAW processing, without missing (or added features that are not actually part of RAW processing) without either software. Photoshop for example, has a great built in, fully featured RAW importer that works perfectly once you learn how to use it, it even saves out .xmp setting files of your RAW edits and automatically re-loads them if you re-import the same image to tweak your edits. You can also use them as a default to apply to a batch of RAW files. Supports camera and lens profile correction, etc. etc., it's all there. If you are on windows and need a way to preview RAW files and sort them before importing them for processing, this is a simple yet elegant solution
http://www.microsoft.com/download/en/details.aspx?id=26829

If you prefer the workflow of a Lightroom and Aperture I could understand. I don't need or use them, not even for editing large galleries. Also on a side note, there are an increasing number of quality replacements that are professionally viable, or nearing so, to all of these software(s) that we are talking about, from the free and open source communities, especially so if you are using Linux. By the end of 2012 I plan to be fully Free and Open Source in all my software, and I don't plan on doing this by making a single compromise to what I already have. I will gladly detail that process once I have it ironed out and thoroughly tested.


----------



## DavidM (Nov 24, 2011)

Go with LR.


----------



## Tov (Nov 24, 2011)

Still using Aperture on an Imac from 2007 with 3 gb of ram and the program works fine.
Havent had any crash since Aperture 3. ( crop tool gave problems sometimes).
There is a big plus for getting Aperture. If you get it through the Appstore its much cheaper.


----------



## alipaulphotography (Nov 24, 2011)

I used aperture 3 for almost 2 years when I first got into photography as I figured it would be the best software for a mac. I then trailed Lightroom 3 to see what all the fuss was about and there was a big difference. Everything responded quicker than aperture ever did and the tools just allowed me to do so much more than I could with aperture. Brushes were a hell of a lot better than aperture and the gradient tool gets used from time to time. I've deleted aperture now as lightroom just did everything better.

Trial them both and see what you prefer. Lightroom worked a lot better for me.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 24, 2011)

There are two functions to perform with your photos.

1. Developing or editing them

2. Cataloging them so you can quickly locate a image out of hundreds of thousands. Photoshop is more expensive, but very powerful at developing and editing images, but does not try to help you manage the large quantity of images, so you will want a separate management program to help you manage a large number of photos. Lightroom does both for a popular price. 

I haven't used aperture, but for Mac Users, its a very good choice as attested to by the many satisfied users.

There is other software, DXO, etc that also has a lot of followers and may do some things better than other software, or have a interface that is easier to use.

Idoubt if you will go wrong with any of them, but use the free trial to see how it works for you. Also avail yourself of the onliine tutorials or check out a book from the local library. There are many things that can be done faster and easier that you might not discover when justplunging in. The very first thing is learning to use the Lightroom database, you won't get anywhere until you do.


----------



## Fab_Angilletta (Nov 24, 2011)

Jettatore said:


> Neither are necessary so its a very personal decision regarding your own preferences. You can do RAW processing, without missing (or added features that are not actually part of RAW processing) without either software. Photoshop for example, has a great built in, fully featured RAW importer that works perfectly once you learn how to use it, it even saves out .xmp setting files of your RAW edits and automatically re-loads them if you re-import the same image to tweak your edits. You can also use them as a default to apply to a batch of RAW files. Supports camera and lens profile correction, etc. etc., it's all there. If you are on windows and need a way to preview RAW files and sort them before importing them for processing, this is a simple yet elegant solution
> http://www.microsoft.com/download/en/details.aspx?id=26829
> 
> If you prefer the workflow of a Lightroom and Aperture I could understand. I don't need or use them, not even for editing large galleries. Also on a side note, there are an increasing number of quality replacements that are professionally viable, or nearing so, to all of these software(s) that we are talking about, from the free and open source communities, especially so if you are using Linux. By the end of 2012 I plan to be fully Free and Open Source in all my software, and I don't plan on doing this by making a single compromise to what I already have. I will gladly detail that process once I have it ironed out and thoroughly tested.



which software do you have for Linux? i only know GIMP by the way Canon DPP is also free.


----------



## Jettatore (Nov 24, 2011)

Fab_Angilletta:

There are a lot of options for the different types of software we are used to. GIMP is the Photoshop one, but you know about that, the new version which you can get but isn't official is really amazing. If you have need for an Adobe Illustrator replacement there is Inkscape, which is awesome, I actually prefer it. 

For RAW Processing and or variants like Lightroom/Aperture that do other stuff like organization, selective non-destructive editing and handling a lot of files at once... there are too many options to mention. A few I know off the top of my head and in absolutely no particular order: Raw Therapy, Darktable, UFRaw, F-Spot and the list goes on. For video editing, FX and nodal based compositing as well as 3D animation, all are actually done quite well in one software called Blender, but it's less known that it even has Video features in it, but it does and they are pretty awesome. There are too many too mention for various sound and music editing and composing needs and it's not my field but for the video guys who need to edit sound and music, there is no shortage.

Once I get a really nice combination that works well and should work on everyone's computer I'll either make a list or it could actually be released as a custom distro because it's all open source and is legal to share custom tailored versions of the entire operating system/software/settings/etc. that is ready to install. If you want to start testing it's fairly easy to install a virtual machine on top of your windows or osx installation and just test the waters, running linux as if it were an OSX application or a windows app, and then you can see what it's like before making the full jump. Private message me if you want, I know a little but I am still learning the new environment and have a ways to go, but if I can help I will.


----------



## panicboy (Nov 24, 2011)

Fab_Angilletta said:


> which software do you have for Linux? i only know GIMP by the way Canon DPP is also free.



I know following linux raw converters:

rawtherapee
darktable
dcraw (standalone or as gimp extension)
bibble

Bibble is commercial, the others are free/open source.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 24, 2011)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I haven't used aperture, but for Mac Users, its a very good choice as attested to by the many satisfied users.
> 
> There is other software, DXO, etc that also has a lot of followers and may do some things better than other software, or have a interface that is easier to use.



IMO, DxO is the best RAW converter available. However, it only a RAW converter, with no real capability for library management. So, I use DxO for RAW conversion, and Aperture for library management.


----------



## willrobb (Nov 25, 2011)

I only have experience of Aperture (versions 1-3) which I use on my old 2006 iMac and 2007 MacBook. Aperture 3 is the best version yet in terms of brush tools, but on old macs (like mine) it does occasionally crash.

Aperture's virtue is you can easily deal with huge amounts of photos quickly. I often have to download several hundred(a few thousand even) images, select the best, edit, catalog and get the photos sent off as soon as possible and Aperture let's me do this easily, no matter if you are shooting RAW or JPEG.

If you want to do intricate portrait edits, Aperture gives the basics but lags behind PS IMO.

Lots of my friends use lightroom, it's all good, as someone said before, try the free trials of each and see what suits your needs.


----------



## AG (Nov 25, 2011)

Throwing a spanner in the works here.

Personally i like to use Aperture or library management and Pixelmator 2.0 for any editing.

The new update makes a very useful tool even more so and its cheap.

If you didn't want to spend big $$ and wanted to give it a try check the app store for exact pricing in your area.


----------



## FB64 (Nov 25, 2011)

I have to admit a little bias but as a long time mac user Aperture works well for me. I have not tried Lightroom so I cannot compare. I am also unlikely too - not because of any bias but my workflow process is geared for Aperture and I am not easily convinced a change a process that works well. 

I like its file management and organisational tools, its adjustment options are quite powerful and are good enough to process photo issues that come up. I think the file structure is intuitive but that may be because it is not unlike other Apple processes. 

Of course Aperture has crashed from time to time but no more so that CS4 or CS5 - in my experience you just need to keep your software up to date. I still use CS5 for complex adjustments and of course things like gradients, HDR and being able to work in layers is always and advantage.


----------



## Enrico (Nov 25, 2011)

Before I made my choice I did extensive research and from my humble opinion I think they are pretty equal.

As with cameras and lenses I think the choice of software really depends on how you intend to use it  Alot of photoshopping or finally getting that pile of images sorted and ready to work with?

Earlier I used photoshop and thought I couldn't live without all the post processing tools available, but I was so wrong... Either one of them will most likely improve how you store, tag and manage your images.

I am not pixel peeping, and the brushes and tools provided in Aperture is good enough for me. Actually I think they are more forgiving that in PS that put all the responsibility on me...

I picked Aperture. 

Four things I how come to fall in love with (that was a total surprise) and that last time I checked was not supported in LR:

- being able to instantly produce a professional looking book (the little time you need to spend compared to the result is ridiculous) If you think you will produce photo books, family year book, event book or whatever, I think this feature alone should make you go for Aperture. Apple.com has tutorials that just shows you how powerful it is.
- being able to simply create a slideshow with music, photos and video (after som practice you can produce a 5 minute media show that will make your friends and family cry of joy  Yes, note family... for professional use I dunno if it is sufficient)
- face recognition. you dont need to tag images with names on people that are in the shot. the face recognition works very well.
- tag images with GPS coordinates (or store it automatically if your camera supports it). When you have tens of thousands of images it simply brings you just another beautiful way of getting hold of those images you want. It complements tags, ratings etc very well.

As said earlier.

Watch the tutorials and perhaps try the demos. But more importantly, decide and get going. I don't think you will regret your choice whichever software you choose.


----------



## Crapking (Nov 25, 2011)

Another unique use of Aperture is the automatic photostream synching with the iOS 5 devices IPad/iPhone and other computers. 

Also has easy exporting to MobileMe gallery and with a plugin Phanfare.


----------



## Jettatore (Nov 25, 2011)

passserby said:


> Jettatore said:
> 
> 
> > By the end of 2012 I plan to be fully Free and Open Source in all my software, and I don't plan on doing this by making a single compromise to what I already have. I will gladly detail that process once I have it ironed out and thoroughly tested.
> ...



Your best bet is to find a plug-in or technique for GIMP that works well for you, and if you find it works really well, please let me know.

http://photodoto.com/free-noise-reduction-plugin-for-the-gimp/

http://www.gimp.org/tutorials/Selective_Gaussian_Blur/

http://gimpguru.org/Tutorials/ReducingCCDNoise/

http://registry.gimp.org/node/4235/


----------



## Picsfor (Nov 25, 2011)

I go with the earlier recommendation - download the trial versions and see what you make of them.

I've had Lr since v2, and get along with it nicely. When i was offered Aperture 3 for Â£44 at the launch of App store, i got it purely because of the price - have tried to get to use it - and failed. It now sits on my wife's MBP - she just needed a bit more than iPhoto.

Really, it is a personal choice, like Nikon or Canon, 7D or 5D2 MS Windows or Mac OSX (scrub that - Mac OSX wins hands down  )


----------



## Jettatore (Nov 25, 2011)

passerby, I think you might have missed the 4 links I left for you. Also, yeah both 16 and 24 bit support is on it's way to GIMP but until it is here, it's a deal breaker.


----------



## bycostello (Nov 29, 2011)

used both prefer lightroom... esp curves


----------



## bchernicoff (Nov 29, 2011)

I am use Aperture 3 and love it. I too trialed Lightroom. I prefer Apertures UI for adjustments to Lighroom's Develop module. On my core i7 27" iMac with 8gb of RAM, I found Aperture to be much faster when making adjustments. I know someone previously said they had the opposite experience, but I don't know what hardware they were on. One feature I really liked in Lightroom was the ability to toggle side-by-side before and after views of my edits. Figure in the price difference now that Aperture is only $79 through the App Store and it's a no brainer. Also, with the App Store version, you can legally load it on each of your Macs without purchasing multiple copies.


----------



## Isaac (Dec 1, 2011)

Try both of them by downloading the free 30 day trial period. I've downloaded them and found them both great. I personally chose Adobe Lightroom.


----------



## niccyboy (Dec 1, 2011)

I prefer lightroom + photoshop combo


----------



## Chewy734 (Dec 2, 2011)

I used Aperture for over 4 years and loved it. The only reason I switched to LR3 this year was because with a large library Aperture was _very_ slow. The same photo library in LR3 flies on my Mac and makes editing a cinch.


----------



## skitron (Dec 2, 2011)

Capture One Pro here (Mac, PC). They also have a lite version that is surprisingly not dumbed down very much from the Pro version and is reasonably priced. Only a few key truly 'pro' features are missing, and most of those are associated with their Phase One medium format camera line. 

CO has all top shelf tools in it imo, not a single dud in the entire bunch. Some of the very best camera specific color profiles, NR, sharpening tools, color correction, masking, spot removal, etc. But it isn't for "pixel manufacturing"...if you want that get PhotoShop.

Going from DPP to Capture One was like going from kit lens to L lens all over again, in fact I think it was more of a difference than the lens were.


----------



## kennykodak (Dec 3, 2011)

Lightroom


----------



## KarelP (Dec 3, 2011)

Lightroom, and PS CS5. Covers all the bases, and as a professor at a polytechnic I can pick it up at huge academic discounts (all Adobe tools except LR (which costs 90 euro) for 30 euro in the Web edition... can't resist that). 

Cheers,

Karel


----------



## JR (Dec 3, 2011)

I prefer the Lightroom / Photoshop combo for my PC based system. However I also have a MAc Pro and I am thinking of starting to use Aperture as I use the iPhoto book features a lot to print photo books from Apple.


----------



## alipaulphotography (Dec 3, 2011)

Enrico said:


> Four things I how come to fall in love with (that was a total surprise) and that last time I checked was not supported in LR:
> 
> - being able to instantly produce a professional looking book (the little time you need to spend compared to the result is ridiculous) If you think you will produce photo books, family year book, event book or whatever, I think this feature alone should make you go for Aperture. Apple.com has tutorials that just shows you how powerful it is.
> - being able to simply create a slideshow with music, photos and video (after som practice you can produce a 5 minute media show that will make your friends and family cry of joy  Yes, note family... for professional use I dunno if it is sufficient)
> ...



I would describe all these bonuses you describe as gimmics. But then again I am using software for professional use, not for amateur.


----------



## niccyboy (Dec 4, 2011)

I stopped using capture one 18 months ago... it became too buggy... kept crashing during shoots and looked unproffesional... then the tethering ability in lightroom 3 filled my needs.

Capture one was brilliant when it worked though!


----------



## skitron (Dec 5, 2011)

niccyboy said:


> I stopped using capture one 18 months ago... it became too buggy... kept crashing during shoots and looked unproffesional... then the tethering ability in lightroom 3 filled my needs.
> 
> Capture one was brilliant when it worked though!



Haven't had any crashes out of v6 (PC) but can't speak to earlier versions, but I don't use tether in case that was the issue for you. Seems I read that v6 was a major rewrite for them so maybe I got in at the right time...definitely brilliant and not buggy.


----------

