In elementary school, I was never the fighting kid. I was the kid who got the fighting kids in the same room and began discussing a topic that was controversial, with each fighter’s feelings strongly opposing the other’s (most likely the coolness of Zordon, since debates over the physique of Kimberly vs Trini were still a few years away). In that spirit, I’d like to pose this question: Aperture or Lightroom?
I know it’s not going to be a knockdown, dragout fight here, since typical tone of discourse in the MacUser comments tends to be of the more civilised sort. Plus, I’m assuming most have not spent enough time with Lightroom to really form a strong opinion. So I suppose I’m not really throwing a lit match into a bowl of gunpowder as I am querying the collective tastes of the MacUser reader-base.
Also, it’s less an attempt by me to stir up trouble than it is to get a dose of thoughtful insights that I’ll take under consideration while trying to determine which app I’ll be using to replace the novitiate nuisance that is called iPhoto.
So please, share your thoughts. I’m waiting…
I find Lightroom's UI more friendly. I still haven't done much with Aperture because for an Apple app the UI is a bit opaque to where things are. Lightroom's UI designers obviously spent some time on the app, while it seems the Aperture people just went "eh, make it all gray" and left the meeting.
my Lightroom beta expires next week and since I already have Aperture I guess I'll deal with it.
I really don't use either. I'm content to use iPhoto to store my photo's or bridge and I use photoshop to do any editing to them. I don't think that these applications should think so much about editing pictures, like on iPhoto you can adjust colour, exposure and contrast but it does it badly, Leave photo editing to Photoshop I say.
I own a copy of Aperture and gave up on it for one simple reason: it's a dog on my dual-processor Power Mac G5. Why? Apparently, the stock NVIDIA GeForce 6600 card that Apple dumped in these units sucks. Well, not apparently. They do. And, as of yet, Apple has not provided an upgrade path. Why does this matter? Aperture is coded to make heavy, heavy use of the processor on the video card rather than the CPU. Which means this crummy video card makes even the most basic tasks in Aperture like walking through a tub of molasses. Just to compare, I moved my entire database of 34,000 images into iPhoto and it runs immeasureably faster because iPhoto doesn't depend on the video card like Aperture does. Likewise, Lightroom runs like a dream. So be sure to pay close attention to the video card you're testing with.
To be honest, I absolutely love Lightroom. I've been using it exclusively since November, and find it so useful and powerful I've not used iPhoto since. (iPhoto seemed so cool for about... a month. For some reason it doesn't have the Mac-happiness that other apps do? I dunno.)
Aperture without doubt. No contest.
Especially since ver. 1.5.2
Best,
Thomas
I own a powerbook G4 (1.5Ghz, 1.25GB ram) I think that only lightroom will run and not aperture. But is it worth the 200$ over iphoto? I also own/run photoshop elements 4.0...
Aperture all the way. It is much more flexible and powerful, and doesn't try to conform you to it's workflow, as Lightroom does with it's 4 modules. I'll give Lightroom the fact that it has a very, very nice UI, and I wish for a new Aperture interface in version 2.0.
However, there is one feature that I would like, that neither of these apps offer. Seamless Aperture syncing between multiple macs. I want to be able to hook my laptop up to my desktop via firewire 800 or Gigabit Ethernet, and have all my metadata, keywords, and ratings synced and kept up to date, as well as any photos that I have taken in the field. Also, I would like an option where after the sync between the machines, Aperture would delete the master photos off the laptop (which has limited storage) and leave only the jpeg previews for slideshows and ratings on the go.
Anyway, for now I'm sticking with Aperture, because I want to be the one to control my own workflow.
I have been using iPhoto until I upgraded my elements to 4. I am testing Bridge in there and I think I will stick with that. Aperture and Lightroom are both priced out of the amateur's budget.
Honestly I love taking pictures.... but as a fifteen year old, the workflow portion of my photography consists of making an iPhoto slideshow for my parents and playing with a couple settings... iPhoto does more than enough for me.
Kyle, I am a mere 14 years old :) ! I don't think it really matters what your age is, however if you are looking into a DSLR, or looking into photography as a future profession or enjoyable hobby, these programs are offered at a relatively low price. To think that a year and a half ago, none of these programs had existed, and their was nothing that really filled this market! I am an Aperture fan, but I welcome the competition Lightroom brings to the table, and ultimately, it benefits the consumer!
Aperture is lightrooms ahead of Adobe.... er. light years.
Aperture runs fast on a dual 2 ghz G5 with ATI x800xt agp card. 23" Cinema Display helps a lot too! $2k for the whole kit.
FYI. Aperture seems to only need less than 500 megs of ram (on top of the system requirements) for a 20,000 image library.
The video card matters a lot people.. Without a good card, you haven't used Aperture. Core Image and Core Data are a major strategic advantage for Apple. Lightroom can't compete.
Aperture may be one of the best programs ever written.
I just wish that the rendering of raw files looked as good as Camera Raw! Its closer than ever but there is a slight edge there IMHO.
Apple should buy Adobe.
Not to be a comment bomb. But I use to be a Power Rangers fan too, I just learn the other day Trini (Yellow Ranger) died in a car accident in 2001, also, the person who played Zordon is dead and Rita Repulsive died of cancer last year.
Lightroom has some excellent tools for image manipulation, that are lacking in Aperture, such as split toning, and vignetting.
Having said that, Aperture is a far surperior product in almost every other way. The tool based metaphor of Aperture is far more flexible than the module based approach in Lightroom. Copying settings between photos is a breeze in Aperture with the lift and stamp tool, but extremely clunky in Lightroom.
Lightroom may initially feel snappier than Aperture but with 12 megapixel images from my Canon Eos 5d, Lightroom quickly slows to a crawl.
The metadata browser is nice, but Aperture's search features and hirearchical tagging are much better and more flexible.
Also, the Flourish design on the Lightroom interface has no place in a professional application.
Aperture to Lightroom for mee seems like the difference between Photoshop and Elements. Aperture is the grown up professional tool, while Lightroom is the younger prosumer oriented tool.
Aperture of course.
I don't like the way Adobe program's users inferface is going, Apple's UI (in Final Cut Pro, Aperture, Motion) is much more professional. Adobes UI is steadily getting worse.
Funny, Adobe dusted off shelved Lightroom project when Apple's Aperture came out.
I'm waiting to take a look how iPhoto in iLife '07 looks like before taking the leap to Aperture.
Here's my two cents on the topic. (Though two cents is an understatement)
http://www.pbcentral.com/columns/hildreth_leo/070221_apple-adobe.shtml
I tried the Aperture demo, but I have to agree with the previous comment describing it as "walking through a tub of molasses". (This on a dual 2GHz G5.) Lightroom runs much more fluid on this machine. I like the UI of both, but I lean slightly to the Lightroom side...
As for those using iPhoto, it's an awesome app for managing photos, but I really can't take the adjustment tools seriously... but I've been using Photoshop daily since v 2.0.
i agree with andrew r - running aperture on my quad 2.5 g5 is so slow, i'm finding it almost useless. and why does exporting a web gallery with 200 images have to take over half an hour? i just ordered lightroom today.