Aperture Vs Lightroom 4

I'm not a pro but I believe Aperture is much better integrated into the mac os. A big pro of LR is that its catalog can be read in Windows or Mac versions of the same program............not the case with Aperture.

I haven't seen the two features of LR that are most appealing to me mentioned here (except to say better PS integration)

1. the ability to send RAW images to Photoshop as Smart Objects and revisit the settings in ACR. I think this is huge.

2. The ability to "Edit Original" in Photoshop rather than a copy. This is a great time and resource saver when working with existing files. For example, I manage my scans in LR because they've already been through Silverfast HDR Studio (HDR processing) and Photoshop (resampling) before they ever get to a DAM application. I don't want to have to delete a copy if I decide to take it back to photoshop.

That being said, I find Aperture's DAM to be superior- especially the stack view mode which I find indispensable for choosing the best of similar images.

After seven years of using primarily Aperture, I find myself with one foot on either side of the line, and the fact that LR has far more users is no small thing to me.

DLS

Sorry all, if you search google "lr 4 vs aperture 3 colorspace" my blog gets the first 8 hits. The problem is my post don't talk about this comparison at all. This article does discuss colorspace workflow in Aperture 3 but not in comparison the LR. So I'm writing one that does since it's a good question. Here it is, fresh off the presses. Let me know if that helped.

Let me try to answer it Charlie.

"LR4's superior RAW processing"

I think you know this but just to be clear. No software or hardware can look at RAW. It's RAW and unviewable. The software looks at the file and does a conversion to be able to see it. It makes an image that viewable t=for you to look at. It has to trasnfer it into a format for viewing or editing. Both Aperture and Lightroom make thumbnails from the RAW. As you edit the picture the original is untouched.

As far as affecting the color space of the shot read this aeticle I just wrote. There's way too much to explain here.

These have nothing to do with RAW but you asked about;

"sharpening"

LR has more options for sharpening. If more options is better for you then LR is your choice. LR has 4 sliders to Aperture's 1 slider.

"lens correction"

LR has it, Aperture doesn't. This comes into play if you have a super wide angle lens that causes a distorted fish eye look or you use very wide aperture (fast glass), like 1.2 that causes super noticable vignetting.

TSTam

Aperture is better intergrated into Apple native applications. They both work just as well with Photoshop. they both work terribly with Premiere Pro.

Neither a PC nor mac can read a LR catalog. LR can read a catalog. LR can be loaded onto a Mac or PC. Aperture or iPhoto can read an Aperture library. Aperture and iPhoto can only be loaded on a Mac. I know this is what you meant, I'm just clarifying.

DLScreative

Yes. Those are benefits to LR. They aren't beneficial to me in my workflow. I like that there's a PS version and a non PS version.

I have been using Lightroom as the backbone of my professional RAW conversion workflow since the very first public beta for v1 ... it was marketed as a "Complete Workflow Solution" ... that included Library, Develop, Slideshow, Print and Web modules ... with the idea that you could catalog and manage your images from capture to export from within a uniform and familiar UI ...except for special needs of working an image in a pixel editor application or plugin only available in other apps like Photoshop ... It was a great concept. Though in my opinion, Adobe has fallen short in several areas.

While Lr does offer a great option and it does offer some capabilities currently not available in Aperture ... there are some key issues where Adobe misses the mark.

First off when comparing slideshow options between the two, Lr is a joke. Even though Apple has not offered a significant update to Aperture for three years now, Lr has only a the ability to offer a single slide transition, a single audio track, no timeline and has many difficulties and shortfalls in coordinating timing/syncing audio and slide durations in an accurate manner ... as well as overall image quality in the exported shows. This module in Lr has pretty much been untouched and has seen no update or improvement since v1 was released.

The new Book module in Lr4 is a complete joke for users who want to print a book with any other vendor besides Blurb ... I personally have no issue with Blurb, they don't offer the style or materals for the products I offer my clients ... unfortunately, Adobe in all their wisdom has decided not to offer a method to create your own user based templates/page sizes that would be compatible with other vendors. And folks say Apple is a "closed system."

For me, if Adobe wants to charge me for ALL the modules included ... I expect them to maintain some reasonable level of feature growth and support for ALL the modules ... not just a few.

Some other differences to consider ...

RAW image file support for Aperture is really handled by the OS using CoreImage ... the updates arrive via OS updates ... Conversely, if your new camera is introduced AFTER a new version of Lr is on the market ... you are forced to upgrade to achieve compatibility. Adobe does not offer backwards RAW image compatibility other than to convert your new camera's RAW files to DNG so you can use an older version of Lr/ACR for processing ... even then, you have to wait until Adobe updates the DNG converter app for your new camera ... but if you don't want to use the workaround ... you're stuck paying more ... even if the latest version of Lr doesn't otherwise offer any new features you require or desire.

Adobe adds tether support for new cameras at a glacial pace. Apple adds tether support usually on the same day they add RAW image file support for Aperture. For example, Apple added tether support for the Nikon D600 in Oct. 2012 ... Lr4 still does not have support. Then consider the total number of cameras supported for tehtered shooting ... Apple supports more than twice as many ... While the number of users that rely on tether support may be few ... I am simply pointing out that Apple seems to think offering that support is important enough to do so in a timely fashion. Adobe, not so much.

Neither software solution is perfect. Though, for me, if Apple ever gets off their duff and introduce a significant update to Aperture that would include better NR, lens correction and camera profiling ... I would be VERY inclined to abandon Lr as my confidence that Adobe has my best interests at heart is rapidly dwindling ...

MarinerTech wrote:

DLScreative

Yes. Those are benefits to LR. They aren't beneficial to me in my workflow. I like that there's a PS version and a non PS version.

To be clear, I was referring to images that are imported as PS masters. I have no need for two PS masters. To get rid of an unwanted master in Aperture, I have to go through three steps: deleting the master, emptying the Aperture trash and emptying the system trash. I'd rather choose not to have that extra master in the first place.

DLS

Badrakumar

I'm glad I could help. Sorry this is MarinerTech. I need to clean up my 1Password for this site.

I'm glad you liked the article I wrote. Please go there and make any comments. Also, if any of you have questions about either program I'd be happy to answer them. I have botha nd do do comparisions that you care about.

I have the same opinion as you in the comments you just made.

I think the support for a product is a HUGE deal. I'm a pro photographer with alot of high end needs. I didn't switch because I think the quality of the picture is any better on a scale my custumers would ever know.

Three examples of that support.

One

I can use a picture I took of my Color checker and hit a button and get automatic corrections with LR. For Aperture it's manual WB only corrections. This is because the makers of that prodcut had to choose one product to develop for and they choose LR.

Two

I don't do any prints for my custumers through Shutterfly, but my wife orders all our home prints through them. She loves their freebies and doesn't mind the lower quality. I had the shutterfly app in Aperture to make things easier for her. It doesn't compare at all though to the ease of using the shutterfly app in LR. That alone would have made me switch for home use, just because it saves my wife a TON of time ordering pictures and knowing which have been ordered. Both the Aperture and LR app were made by some open source energitic person out there sharing for free. There is two choices for Aperture and four for LR. The best LR one is better then the better Aperture one. It's just a numbers thing. More people using LR means better third partty apps.

Three

I went to an advanced PS editing seminar last Dec. The whole time he talked about the pros or cons of doing certain parts of your workflow in LR or in PS. There was no mention of Aperture. It's not because no one at the convention used Aperture, it's because far fewer people do.

ButchM wrote:

RAW image file support for Aperture is really handled by the OS using CoreImage ... the updates arrive via OS updates ... Conversely, if your new camera is introduced AFTER a new version of Lr is on the market ... you are forced to upgrade to achieve compatibility. Adobe does not offer backwards RAW image compatibility other than to convert your new camera's RAW files to DNG so you can use an older version of Lr/ACR for processing ... even then, you have to wait until Adobe updates the DNG converter app for your new camera ... but if you don't want to use the workaround ... you're stuck paying more ... even if the latest version of Lr doesn't otherwise offer any new features you require or desire.

That tells only one side of the story, though. That Aperture gets its camera updates through CoreImage doesn't much affect or help the extent of camera support itself. For a long time, Aperture users were annoyed because Adobe would regularly add support for new cameras significantly before Apple did. Only recently did Apple start catching up. Now Apple is not so bad and is often on pace with Adobe with the raw updates. But...

...there is also the question of range of camera support. If you compare the Apple and Adobe pages for raw camera support, the Adobe list is quite a bit longer. In some cases, the longer list for a particular camera brand is because Adobe supports new models already, and Apple is behind again. (For older models, that just means Apple simply chose not to support that camera, while Adobe is done and ready.)

What about the vaunted backward compatibility? If you look at the asterisks attached to some of the more recent cameras in the Apple list, those asterisks indicate...wait for it...Aperture version restrictions. Yes, if you own certain cameras and you want raw support in Aperture, you must own Aperture 3 or later, and in some cases you must have Aperture 3.4 or later. And, since DNG Converter (free) allows new raw files to be used by older versions, it is possible for older versions of Lightroom to process raw formats that versions of Aperture before 3 will not. So this is really not the advantage over Lightroom that it seems at first.

I didn't mean to imply that Apple is without their flaws when it comes to updating RAW file support ... only that for the average user ... there would have been fewer, less costly concerns for the implementation of a new camera when comparing Aperture 3 to Lightroom 4. Once Lr 4 hit the streets ... RAW support for new cameras ceased and will never be offered. Conversely ... Aperture 3 users are still receiving support for new cameras. At no additional cost ... unless you want to consider a $20 upgrade to Mountain Lion prohibitive.

GIMP.

I had the same question and ended up going with LR. There is no RIGHT answer to this question....it's really depends on a lot of individual usage factors. As I read LR product reviews that really clinched it for me.

LR Rreviews vs Aperture

cashaww wrote:

GIMP.

If that's a serious answer it doesn't make any sense in this discussion. The GIMP is a document-window pixel editor like Photoshop or Pixelmator, so it is incapable of replacing a metadata-based bulk processing & raw format editor like Aperture or Lightroom.

Network 23 wrote:

If that's a serious answer it doesn't make any sense in this discussion. The GIMP is a document-window pixel editor like Photoshop or Pixelmator, so it is incapable of replacing a metadata-based bulk processing & raw format editor like Aperture or Lightroom.

GIMP was offered in response to the OP's question about an alternative Ps ... not Aperture or Lr ...

Badrakumar wrote:

Good advice. I have purchased Light room.

Next budget Photoshop. Any suggesitions?

It's aboutthe same as Canon versus Nikon! 😁

Recently I bought a inbetween program tomake corrections and changes like Photshop can do. I use Aperture on my iMac and Notebook Pro. Photshop can do much more than I need. So I looked at Photshop elements, as I used it in my dark days, on windows PC and Laptop.

On my search I found another program called Perfect Photo Suite 7. That programm was advertised as to have a perfectly integrated version for Aperture and LR.

I downloaded both trial versions and finally bought that specific version. In aperture I chose the photo that I want to edit ,click on edit in aperture and I can go directly to the program.

With one mouse click to give an example, I change a colour photo to Black and White. But there is much, much more.

That program was in the past I have read almost expensive as Photoshop but that has changed dramaticly. Parts of it are even found recommended in the

Apple web site.So far I think it's a great extention for Aperture and LR.

I followed the discussions and think a try will do no harm at all.