Bill Pierce
Well-known
Apologies for disappearing from the the site for a week, but I've been on the road.
I've been getting a lot of questions about which I prefer, Lightroom or Aperture. Truth is I'm just getting to the point with Lightroom where I'm beginning to explore the features that aren't an absolute necessity for me. As to Aperture, I know nothing.
Apparently, a lot of us are in the same situation. Any wise folks out there who know how these programs compare?
Bill
I've been getting a lot of questions about which I prefer, Lightroom or Aperture. Truth is I'm just getting to the point with Lightroom where I'm beginning to explore the features that aren't an absolute necessity for me. As to Aperture, I know nothing.
Apparently, a lot of us are in the same situation. Any wise folks out there who know how these programs compare?
Bill
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
Lightroom all the way. LR and Aperture are very similar programs in concept, but the ability to run on a PC (should one ever switch platforms) and access to Adobe's ACR converter are the tiebreakers. The integration with Photoshop is nice, too.
Access to Adobe's ACR is a big deal if you have a lot of older digital file types (like Kodak DCR, etc.). Aperture's compatibility concentrates on the latest and greatest digital cameras first and begrudgingly goes back to older models. And Apple needs to fully implement DNG support. Now, two versions into Aperture, it still does not look like it has happened.
Both of these programs, though, are a product of Photoshop's becoming a bloated, inefficient product for large-scale file processing. Whose idea was Bridge, anyway?
Access to Adobe's ACR is a big deal if you have a lot of older digital file types (like Kodak DCR, etc.). Aperture's compatibility concentrates on the latest and greatest digital cameras first and begrudgingly goes back to older models. And Apple needs to fully implement DNG support. Now, two versions into Aperture, it still does not look like it has happened.
Both of these programs, though, are a product of Photoshop's becoming a bloated, inefficient product for large-scale file processing. Whose idea was Bridge, anyway?
__hh
Well-known
I guess that it comes down to personal taste. Although I have 2 Macs, LR for me - somehow it seems more intuitive. I also like the fact that my files stay where I put them (rather than being moved to a proprietary library) and that there is duplicate file detection so that I don't import the same file twice into the library. I am sure that Aperture can do these also, but I somehow just don't get it.
willie_901
Veteran
I think LR is much, much better.
Sam N
Well-known
I've only used Aperture for about half an hour, but I like Lightroom MUCH more.
user237428934
User deletion pending
I am using LR right from the first version and I really like it. A month ago I switched from PC to Mac and I really enjoyed the migration of LR because it was so damn easy.
Don't know Aperture but I think that both programs provide nearly the same functionality.
It is said that Aperture integrates better in the rest of the i..... Programs. So if you want to order a photo book with iPhoto I read that you can directly use Pictures of the Aperture repository.
My opinion: LR when you need cross platform portability and better integration in other Adobe products. Aperture when you are the 100% Apple person.
Don't know Aperture but I think that both programs provide nearly the same functionality.
It is said that Aperture integrates better in the rest of the i..... Programs. So if you want to order a photo book with iPhoto I read that you can directly use Pictures of the Aperture repository.
My opinion: LR when you need cross platform portability and better integration in other Adobe products. Aperture when you are the 100% Apple person.