Aperture vs. Lightroom

You are absoultely right - I don't have to read it and I certainly don't have to post. However, I was interested in reading it because I thought there might be some interesting commentary about LR vs. Aperture, film>digital workflow, etc. I was disappointed that it was "I tried LR, I tried Aperture again, and Aperture is great." Not a lot of meat there.

Let's go a bit deeper, then - in what way did you find LR to have a rigid file structure? Was it that when you moved files around in your library they also moved physically? When did you run into problems with various locations for your stored files? I have files on a drobo, on a server, and locally. Not everything is connected at all times. I can even make changes on the ones not currently connected, though it's harder if I didn't generate and still have 1:1 previews.

The preference for panes is just a preference, and I completely respect that, of course. With dual display support now in LR I don't switch around very much. I presume you mean modules, btw. If I am wrong then I apologize and please let me know what you mean.

I run Vista 64 bit so LR is my only option, but I have used both Aperture 1 (wow, did they release that too early) and 2. I am frustrated by Aperture's tools as I don't find them as powerful as LR's. LR had a major RAW conversion issue in terms of color that has recently been addressed with camera profiles, thankfully. Both are highly effective as workflow management tools.

As for a film>digital workflow method, I'd certainly be willing to contribute my method but it's nothing special. Scan, import to LR, edit there, perhaps edit some more in PS. But I get the same tonal controls in LR as I did before in just PS, and it's cataloged with keywords.
 
I was looking for a thread like this article on P.net.

Could not remember where I read it but an hour with googles extended search tools has turned it up again.

Enjoy the read, I found it very valuable and will once again start to organise my workflow.
 
See below in red (there's more in the third and fourth paragraph, but for some reason the HTML's not working):

kaiyen said:
You are absoultely right - I don't have to read it and I certainly don't have to post. However, I was interested in reading it because I thought there might be some interesting commentary about LR vs. Aperture, film>digital workflow, etc. I was disappointed that it was "I tried LR, I tried Aperture again, and Aperture is great." Not a lot of meat there.

Let's go a bit deeper, then - in what way did you find LR to have a rigid file structure? Was it that when you moved files around in your library they also moved physically? It was very difficult to organise my files post-import in Lightroom. Once in their location (which, as you said, is as easily organisable though not as instantly intuitive as "Aperture Library", there was very little flexibility for in-app organisation apart from 'quick collections' (themselves without drag-and-drop) and colour-marking.When did you run into problems with various locations for your stored files? I have files on a drobo, on a server, and locally. Not everything is connected at all times. I can even make changes on the ones not currently connected, though it's harder if I didn't generate and still have 1:1 previews.

The preference for panes is just a preference, and I completely respect that, of course. With dual display support now in LR I don't switch around very much. I presume you mean modules, btw. If I am wrong then I apologize and please let me know what you mean. I did indeed mean 'modules' and my appologies if I wasn't clear on the lingo. They drove me up the wall. I was using two monitors, but that didn't really change anything: I constantly found that I wanted to add/change a keyword or metadata, only to discover I was in the DEVELOP pane instead of LIBRARY, necessitating a break in work to get it done...

I run Vista 64 bit so LR is my only option, but I have used both Aperture 1 (wow, did they release that too early my god was it a dog. Took me two years to give it another chance... ) and 2. I am frustrated by Aperture's tools as I don't find them as powerful as LR's True - the lack of targeted adjustments is the one I miss most - hoping it'll be covered by plug-ins; another pro in Aperture's corner.. LR had a major RAW conversion issue in terms of color that has recently been addressed with camera profiles, thankfully. I guess I missed that update, because the RAW conversion was a complete disaster - especially the reds. Both are highly effective as workflow management tools.

As for a film>digital workflow method, I'd certainly be willing to contribute my method but it's nothing special. Scan, import to LR, edit there, perhaps edit some more in PS. But I get the same tonal controls in LR as I did before in just PS, and it's cataloged with keywords. I just bought a Coolscan 9000 so I'm going to be scanning myself (previously imported from lab scans). Interested to see how it changes my workflow.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I always wonder how people manage their backup when all of their files are in an Aperture Library. I don't have so many files (7.500, 60 GB size). Now they are organized in a lightroom library that is 102 MB. Backup of that is easy. I make delta backups where all new images and the library file is backed up. If I had Aperture the Aperture Library would be approx. 80-100 GB large. That's one file, isnt' it?. Backup means moving the whole library to my backup drive every time. Ok, I could use the option that aperture does not import the files in the library. But then it's just like Lightroom with a more static file structure.

How do you aperture users manage your backup?
 
Well, for Lightroom, I have two identical 500GB firewire drives that came with backup software...I leave the software running with the drives unplugged, and once a week or so I plug them in and the software just copies over all changes to my documents folder. Piece of cake!

I think the backup software's slowing my computer down, though, and I may switch to doing this manually...
 
IdeaDog said:
Because I value being independent from any OS or application, I don't use LR (and wouldn't use any application) to catalog my photos into some kind of library for me. I keep my photos directly on a hard drive in a folder. This way I can manage my own files and backups.
Click to expand...

So do I--Lightroom doesn't rearrange anything at all, at least not the way I use it. I decide where stuff goes, then I tell LR where to find it. That is, I take any new scans or digital photos, put them into a new folder, name the folder (like, "March 10 09 Canon 7s 50mm TriX downtown" or something), put the folder in the My Photos folder (inside another folder marked with the year), then go into LR, hit import, and set it to leave photos in their original location. LR just keeps track of the changes, cross-references them, etc., but the physical files stay where I put them. I assume most people work this way.

BTW, I also like the web galleries in LR! I actually bought a great one from Sean McCormack and use it on my website below.
 
Urban - the smart collections in LR might solve the issue you've had with file handling. I am _not_ at all saying that you should switch back to LR, just saying that they did, IMHO, address the issue. I have several smart collections set up so that I can work on everything I imported that day, the day before, etc. Rather than going through each individual photo or folder.

I also do a file-by-file backup to a server located off-site, plus my drobo has built-in redundancy. The catalog is what is critical, though. That contains all your changes. I just moved all my files to my new machine, gave the drobo the same drive letter, then let LR2 upgrade my LR1.4 catalog and voila, everything was there. Took a long time to rebuild all the thumbs to match the changes but they were all there.

The plug-in issue bugs me but third-party developers have made some interesting items. But the lack of plugging in Noise Ninja or something specific like that annoys me.
 
tom.w.bn said:
I always wonder how people manage their backup when all of their files are in an Aperture Library. I don't have so many files (7.500, 60 GB size). Now they are organized in a lightroom library that is 102 MB. Backup of that is easy. I make delta backups where all new images and the library file is backed up. If I had Aperture the Aperture Library would be approx. 80-100 GB large. That's one file, isnt' it?. Backup means moving the whole library to my backup drive every time. Ok, I could use the option that aperture does not import the files in the library. But then it's just like Lightroom with a more static file structure.

How do you aperture users manage your backup?
Click to expand...

Aperture has a built in backup facility called Vaults. I actually have 2 vaults setup, one that resides on an external HD, the other on my Linux server (which has multiple HD's in an LVM, but I still have to rebuild it as a RAID), and there's also the local library copy on my Mac and my Time machine disk has a backup, so my aperture library exists in four places at all times.

Even though the library looks like one file in the finder, it's actually a directory.

Cheers.
 
Overconfidence said:
Uhhhm, you're doing something wrong then. You probably had some settings set to default (noise removal or something) on Lightroom causing this.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not. I've been using lightroom for the last couple of years. My default settings are with all noise reduction off, all sharpening off (standard lightroom sharpening is pretty bad).

Download a trial for Capture One 4 and run some raw files through it, export them at the same size as those files exported out of lightroom and compare them. You'll see what I mean. Capture one is ultimate for fine texture and detail - it retains SO much more than lightroom it isn't funny. Aperture is slightly better than lightroom with it but not as good as capture one - but it's so very good in workflow that I can forgive it.

ACR is horrible for converting raws - everything goes weird - fine textures, skin tones, colors etc. All you have to do is compare it to capture one to see that.
 
kaiyen said:
You are absoultely right - I don't have to read it and I certainly don't have to post. However, I was interested in reading it because I thought there might be some interesting commentary about LR vs. Aperture, film>digital workflow, etc. I was disappointed that it was "I tried LR, I tried Aperture again, and Aperture is great." Not a lot of meat there.

Let's go a bit deeper, then - in what way did you find LR to have a rigid file structure? Was it that when you moved files around in your library they also moved physically? When did you run into problems with various locations for your stored files? I have files on a drobo, on a server, and locally. Not everything is connected at all times. I can even make changes on the ones not currently connected, though it's harder if I didn't generate and still have 1:1 previews.

The preference for panes is just a preference, and I completely respect that, of course. With dual display support now in LR I don't switch around very much. I presume you mean modules, btw. If I am wrong then I apologize and please let me know what you mean.

I run Vista 64 bit so LR is my only option, but I have used both Aperture 1 (wow, did they release that too early) and 2. I am frustrated by Aperture's tools as I don't find them as powerful as LR's. LR had a major RAW conversion issue in terms of color that has recently been addressed with camera profiles, thankfully. Both are highly effective as workflow management tools.

As for a film>digital workflow method, I'd certainly be willing to contribute my method but it's nothing special. Scan, import to LR, edit there, perhaps edit some more in PS. But I get the same tonal controls in LR as I did before in just PS, and it's cataloged with keywords.
Click to expand...


http://www.apple.com/aperture/tutorials/

Go there and watch some of those videos, especially the ones with the folder structuring/importing explanations. The whole structuring of content as certain types of folders, albums, light tables, smart albums etc etc is much much more useful that lightrooms setup. To me anyway. Then there's lots of little things. I can't choose what I want imported in lightroom, and that bugs me. With aperture I can choose what I want off the memory card and only import those things. Metadata modification works a lot better because it's constantly just in front of you, rather than in a different module like lightroom. While editing photos I like them to be full screen on my 20" imac, with the editing tab still in the window. Can't do that in lightroom, can in aperture.

The recovery slider in lightroom destroys tones and colors. In aperture, it's a lot less detrimental to the tones and colors - especially midtones.

Light tables in aperture are very cool for seeing how groups of photos, or projects will look together. Can't do that in lightroom.

Smart albums are brilliant for immediately finding your best pictures, or pictures with a specific keyword or metadata entry and saving that as an "on demand" album. Can't do that in lightroom.

etc.
 
I've never really gotten on with Lightroom. I've tried it a few times, and I do find that a lot of its tools are more powerful than in Aperture. The levels tool in particular seems very weird to me in Aperture and I much prefer the LR version.

However, the Aperture workflow works much better for me. I like being able to seamlessly move from editing a photo, to creating a new smart album with a number of photos and automatically create a web gallery from there. The module concept in LR doesn't mesh with my way of thinking.

I can't comment too much on file structure and that. I appreciate having Aperture manage my files in one library. That way I don't have to worry about it, and I can concentrate on thinking about the images themselves, rather than what I did with that roll I scanned six months ago.

I think it really depends upon how one likes to work. I consistently find Apple's apps to work exactly as I would expect them to. I also use Logic for audio recording and I appreciate the fact that they each follow similar ideologies.

I also agree with all of fdigital's points. Opening a photo full screen with a small HUD with all of my tools is a great way to work.
 
well, perhaps it's time I gave aperture yet another try. if things go...kinda okay this year, I'll be able to upgrade to a mac pro for next fiscal. I'm not sure I need it, but I'm waiting for I guess CS5 which will actually work on OS X in 64 bit mode. it's all about what tool works best for someone. right now LR does what I need. and it does it quite well.

what is truly great is that both apple and adobe have thought about workflow, rather than just photo editing.
 
I just went shopping for Aperture and found that it wants fancier hardware than I've got. My Mac is a 1.8GHz dual-G5 tower but they say Aperture needs at least 2GHz. And a better graphics card than I've got too. More picky about memory and OS version than LR as well, which seems to be less demanding of hardware performance all-round.
 
Doug said:
I just went shopping for Aperture and found that it wants fancier hardware than I've got. My Mac is a 1.8GHz dual-G5 tower but they say Aperture needs at least 2GHz. And a better graphics card than I've got too. More picky about memory and OS version than LR as well, which seems to be less demanding of hardware performance all-round.
Click to expand...

Doug.

Ive got the same machine as you (4.5GB RAM) and have both LR 2.0 and Aperture 2.0 installed. As much as I just don't like Aperture and run everything in LR, Aperture will run on your machine
 
Doug said:
I just went shopping for Aperture and found that it wants fancier hardware than I've got. My Mac is a 1.8GHz dual-G5 tower but they say Aperture needs at least 2GHz. And a better graphics card than I've got too. More picky about memory and OS version than LR as well, which seems to be less demanding of hardware performance all-round.
Click to expand...

As I recall, there's a 30-day trial version of Aperture. You could see for yourself if it runs...

I picked up the first Lightroom beta on day one and loved it. By the time v1.0 was released (what, nine months later) I relied on the software and not buying it was no option. I've tried Aperture a few times (and I've tried others too... CaptureOne, Bibble...) and never been compelled to change. In my experience, the Lightroom workflow makes more sense to me, and the Lightroom Develop module has more tools and better tools than the competition. An internal Noise Ninja plugin is just about all I could ask for at this point, though now that I've got the D700, that's less of a concern.

Adobe occasionally frustrate me for one reason or another, but Lightroom is my favorite piece of software, without question. I enjoy working in it, and can lose hours there. Enjoyable hours, as one might have had in a darkroom.
 
Thanks Craig and Wiyum for your encouraging info! I should try the free sample versions and see what's what. I should give Capture One a fair try as well, and in brief experience I've been impressed at the processing results of Pentax Photo Library too, at least as a start, then save as TIFF and finish cropping, skewing, and a bit of selective lightening/darkening, resizing and Save as jpeg for upload in GraphicConverter.
 
willie_901 said:
This photographer ranks Aperture lowest in IQ when compared to PS CS4, LR (tied for second) and Capture One.

http://www.smaku.com/blog/2009/03/27/photoshop-cs4-vs-lightroom-2-vs-aperture-2-vs-capture-one/
Click to expand...

It should be made clear that the result by each raw converter is different for every camera file. For instance my Olympus DSLRs are horribile with ACR (adobe camera raw), okay with aperture, and brilliant with capture one. My Canon 5d files are very similar in aperture and lightroom, but better in capture one.

The reason I like aperture so much is because of it's library and image structuring - I think it's brilliant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom