Aperture/Lightroom vs. PS

[ramosa]

Hello All:

I currently use Photoshop CS4 (PS) and two Nik compatibles (one for b&w and one for color). I’ll likely be getting a new computer soon with new software, so I’m pondering computers and software options.

From reading a lot of pertinent online posts, I understand that Aperture and Lightroom seem to provide better workflow and file management—but I am struggling to determine if I (and not the “normal” user) would lose much or anything with a move away from PS to Aperture or Lightroom.

My approach to processing is fairly basic (whether in color or b&w). In proceeding through the below five steps, I do use layers—but only in a simple sense, so that I can see changes and delete steps (or return to the original form) if necessary.

1) I primarily organize my files in Bridge.
2) I begin each file in raw in PS Camera Raw and then may ponder simple changes (e.g., alignment, slight cropping) in PS.
3) Then, in the Nik software compatibles, I’ll consider changes in some areas (e.g., tone, brightness, vignetting).
4) Then, back in PS, I may touch up small details (e.g., a scratch from a film negative or a small dot of dust on a lens or digital sensor). (For this, the clone stamp tool works well—and I just found the spot healing brush tool, which seems to work even better.)
5) Then, still in PS, I may run a high-pass filter to sharpen up details.

With Aperture or Lightroom, Step 3 would not change—as the Nik software programs are compatible with both. Would I miss out on anything for Steps 1, 2, 4 or 5 with Aperture or Lightroom? For example, do Aperture and Lightroom have “touch up” tools on par with PS’s clone stamp tool and spot healing brush tool?

Thanks for any advice or recommendations.

R

 

[NickTrop]

You're gonna get a lot of recs. Your head will spin. Here's mine. I prefer PS and actually loathe Adobe LR. I like your work flow. Mine is similar. PS gives me anything I need. I fooled with Lightroom and one of the things I didn't like about it was its rigid file management system, its (to me) unwieldiness and slowness. I hated LR and its file management system almost as much as the forced sync that Apple inflicts on users with iPods. Leave the file management to me - thank you very much. I'll sync up if/when I want to... And just because I plug my iPod or my camera into my PC it does not mean I want your stupid application to launch automatically. I'm perfectly capable of clicking the icon. Hate that s--t.

Lightroom? Does everything PS does and less. It's also less extensible. But it sure has a cool looking modern interface! Bah. Just stick with PS if that's what you have a license for and what you're used to. Manage your own files or use something that's separate from the editor. Lightroom doesn't buy you anything and is a more annoying piece of sw. I'd do stuff in Lightroom, then take the image into PS for other stuff or to use a plug-in. Then I asked myself - what's the point? My experience is it was even more of a resource pig than PS too.

The only caveat I would add is that I used LR v1 for a spell - an old version, and truly detested it. Ever just hate a piece of sw and not see the point? But, per the thread below, it seems to still have its critics.

Jun 29, 2010 1:41 AM
Collection of really annoying LR stuff
http://forums.adobe.com/message/2935157
LR seems to require a Cray supercomputer to work well.

Giving Up on Adobe Lightroom
http://photomusings.wordpress.com/2007/05/23/giving-up-on-adobe-lightroom/

 

[jsrockit]

To me, Lightroom feels more like a traditional darkroom than photoshop does... that's why I use it. However, if you are used to PS, then you may end up feeling the same as NickTrop.

 

[user237428934]

@NickTrop: I can configure my computer that no application starts automatically or synchronizes automatically. You could do this too. When you use Lightroom, you decide about the file management. Lightroom has a lot of options for importing/organising. Just choose the right one. Your experience is from that dead old v1? No more questions.

 

[user237428934]

If you have a solution for organizing and you feel comfortable with doing everything in PS then I see no real justification for Lightroom. But I know two persons who started like you. Then they looked at Lightroom and found that file management and searching is better than that in Bridge. Then they found out that most of the basic stuff can be done in Lightroom. Lightroom in combination with the nik-plug ins is not so great. For every nik action it produces another TIF-File.

 

[Steve_F]

LR for me. Love to be able to flick through page after page of files. Particularly like to be able to search by keywords, metadata etc. I batch process in LR but for those deserve undivided attention ie: special prints, enlargements etc then I use Nikon Capture NX2. gets the most out of their .NEF files.
PS has far more than I would use so I just use PS ELEMENTS 6 (Mac) for text and stuff like that.

Steve.

 

[user237428934]

PS has far more than I would use so I just use PS ELEMENTS 6 (Mac) for text and stuff like that.

Steve.

I have LR + PS Elements + 2 Nik Plugins. No need for PS.

 

[NickTrop]

@NickTrop: I can configure my computer that no application starts automatically or synchronizes automatically. You could do this too. When you use Lightroom, you decide about the file management. Lightroom has a lot of options for importing/organising. Just choose the right one. Your experience is from that dead old v1? No more questions.

I still don't like it. I don't want to dig around and waste time configuring crap I shouldn't have to configure in the first place. I hated LR so much, I would never try another version. It's crap - straight from the concept, and a completely unnecessary, redundant, and irrelevant piece of bloatware.

 

[NickTrop]

If you have a solution for organizing and you feel comfortable with doing everything in PS then I see no real justification for Lightroom. ...Then they found out that most of the basic stuff can be done in Lightroom. Lightroom in combination with the nik-plug ins is not so great. For every nik action it produces another TIF-File.

So what's the point of LR? None. Why use LR for "the basic stuff" only to bring it in to PS to do everything else, and not just use PS for "the basic stuff" along with everything else in the first place? Use PS + Bridge or PS + another file management system and pass on useless LR. That's what we smart people do.

 

[barnwulf]

For me LR is fantastic. Much much faster than PS. I still use PS on occasion for for a couple of things that LR doen't do. You can export your file from LR directly into PS and PS will open up immediately for any additional adjustments you want to make. It just depends on how you want to work on your images. - Jim

 

[ramosa]

Thanks to everyone. I have a few follow-up questions.

tom.w.bn: Thanks. I’m a bit confused. You made two comments. First: “Lightroom in combination with the nik-plug ins is not so great. For every nik action it produces another TIF-File.” And second: “I have LR + PS Elements + 2 Nik Plugins. No need for PS.” I have a few follow-up questions. Per your first comment, if I were using LR and went through Nik and made one set of changes, it would create one additional file? PS doesn’t create any additional files, does it? Per your second comment, you seem to be happy with your setup of LR, PS Elements, and two Nik plugins. With that set up, what would you use PS elements for? Thank you!

steve_F: I used to use Capture NX as my primary (before PS). I liked it a lot—but it didn’t take Leica raw files, so I had to change. That’s still the case, no?

nick: I hear you. Your approach is similar to mine. I’m just pondering alternatives and seeing if things would work more smoothly and I’d miss nothing from PS. Thank you

To everyone: I initially raised a few specific tasks that I conduct in PS. I want to check if LR can handl these things. Realigning photo to horizon? Cropping? Touch up of details (e.g., a scratch from a film negative or a small dot of dust on a lens or digital sensor)? And, finally, high-pass filter to sharpen details?

Thanks.

 

[sper]

What LR and Aperture lack in manual file management they make up for in speed of batch processing, easy non destructive adjustments to the RAW file, and eventual export to whatever.

The big differences between aperture and lightroom are they way they handle files. Correct me if I'm wrong (it happens) but in LR you sort of 'develop' to an eventual tiff, just like in ACR. In Aperture, your file is what it is, you adjust as needed, and then export to jpg, tiff, or whatever. I usually export to the web or to photoshop if I want to print.

I do hate the file management, it's clunky, and if you screw something up it's even MORE of a pain to fix it then synch everything up. But when it works it works well.

I won't ever go back to a photoshop only workflow. Photoshop isn't that great for photo editing, honestly. LR and Aperture however, are godsends to those of us who aren't doing heavy retouching or making photo illustrations. Oh, and LR3 uses the same algorithms as ACR so your pictures won't process differently.

 

[user237428934]

For me LR is fantastic. Much much faster than PS. I still use PS on occasion for for a couple of things that LR doen't do. You can export your file from LR directly into PS and PS will open up immediately for any additional adjustments you want to make. It just depends on how you want to work on your images. - Jim

I think that is an important point. If you can do all the work in LR (without going in PS) for at least 50% of your photos, it's a huge benefit.

 

[ramosa]

sper: Thanks. You mention "non destructive adjustments to raw files." What do you mean? Does this mean that you cal alter raw specs at the beginning of processing and then return and tweak it later in processing? (Capture NX allows that.)

 

[user237428934]

The big differences between aperture and lightroom are they way they handle files. Correct me if I'm wrong (it happens) but in LR you sort of 'develop' to an eventual tiff, just like in ACR. In Aperture, your file is what it is, you adjust as needed, and then export to jpg, tiff, or whatever. I usually export to the web or to photoshop if I want to print.

Sorry but you are wrong this time 😱 Aperture and LR behave the same. They never touch the original file but write the changes in an internal database. When you export, you create a new file with all the changes.

 

[ramosa]

From more reading online, I think LR might have all of these things:

Realigning photo to horizon? Cropping? Touch up of details (e.g., a scratch from a film negative or a small dot of dust on a lens or digital sensor)? And, finally, high-pass filter to sharpen details?

It definitely has the cloning and healing tools, horizon and cropping. And, while it doesn't seem to have a high-pass filters, it seems to have excellent sharpening toos. Hmmm ...

 

[ramosa]

tom: thanks for the clarification of sper's point.

 

[not_in_good_order]

I use Lightroom as my sole photo editing tool. I only do very basic things to my images:

cropping
sharpening
minor corrections via the clone or heal tools for scratches or dust
curves adjustment
noise reduction
digital exposure adjustment
black point adjustment
contrast adjustment
resizing
brightness adjustment

Lightroom 100% meets my needs and I find its interface very intuitive. I can't really think of anything that I would need PS for.

 

[ramosa]

not in good order: thank you! your detailed list is incredibly helpful. i do what you do--but also use Nik plugins. i think LR would do fine for me--with no loss (as i'm pretty basic in my use of PS). i suspect Aperture would do the same for mac, etc.

 

[user237428934]

From more reading online, I think LR might have all of these things:

Realigning photo to horizon? Cropping? Touch up of details (e.g., a scratch from a film negative or a small dot of dust on a lens or digital sensor)? And, finally, high-pass filter to sharpen details?

It definitely has the cloning and healing tools, horizon and cropping. And, while it doesn't seem to have a high-pass filters, it seems to have excellent sharpening toos. Hmmm ...

cloning and healing: depends on how much healing-spots you have in a photo. It's easy and very good usable for a handful of cloning/healing spots. If have a lot of dust spots to remove than I wouldn't recommend to to this in LR. Just try it out. You can download it and use it for 30 days.