Currently Being ModeratedOct 28, 2013 8:12 PM (in response to DrivinWest)
I'm with you; while Lightroom can do a good job with my images, I don't like the workflow and I don't like the UI.
Aperture is better at organizing and viewing images. It's a great asset manager.
It's work to get images from Lightoom to Aperture with metadata intact. You can Google search for details on how to do it; it's beyond me to do a step-by-step here.
Aperture's organization is different; there is not a direct relationship between pictures and their location on disk (as there is with Lightroom's "folders" view). It's not something you should worry about. You can create lots of smart folders in Aperture (akin to Lightroom Smart Collections) but they are more flexible.
Currently Being ModeratedOct 29, 2013 4:12 AM (in response to DrivinWest)
Yeah, I've nothing good to say about Lighroom's user interface. It was clumsy and unintuitive back in the pre-1.0 betas, and subsequent releases haven't improved the situation. Besides a vastly superior workflow, you'll also notice that Aperture makes far more efficient use of screen real estate.
Aperture's Smart Folders will let you view by date/location to your heart's content. See also Five Simple Rules. You really want to understand the different kinds of folders and how they relate to projects before you get going. Aperture will read metadata from XMP sidecars during import. See metadata mapping.
Likely the thing you'll miss most are noise reduction and lens/perspective correction. Aperture's noise control is laughable by today's standards. Do note that there's a noise slider in the raw adjustment brick of the adjustment HUD. But for anything serious you'll want to run through DxO. Same with lens/perspective correction outside of micro 4/3 lenses. Aperture now relies on Apple Maps for geotagging, the resolution of which is just awful in backcountry areas.
More Like This
- Retrieving data ...
- This solved my question - 10 points
- This helped me - 5 points