Author Topic: Lightroom vs. Aperture (Read 8160 times)

common · « **on:** March 29, 2008, 04:40 »

G'day,

I've recently started using Aperture, switching over from using Lightroom for processing and storing RAW files. This was after getting a couple of rejections on istock for artifacts. Has anyone else noticed Lightroom producing artifacts when exporting to JPG?

And for those who use these programs more intensively than i do, whats your preference?? Pros, cons..

I've used Capture One Pro a bit too, but don't feel very comfortable in it. Is there a good reason to use that over the other two?

Thanks for your input

diego_cervo · « **Reply #1 on:** March 29, 2008, 06:07 »

I use lightroom since it has been release and I love it.

Anyway, I gave 2 tries to Aperture for a few days (both the old version and the new trial). I found it very slow even using the most simple tools (consider that I work on a mac pro with 2x2,66Ghz CPU and 3gb ram!!!!!). The new version is a bit faster but is still a donkey compared to lightroom.
Further, I think it has a complicated interface and it used to crash using the loop tool....

In other words, it took me too much time to develop a few raws so every time I switched back to lightroom.
Best regards,
Diego

common · « **Reply #2 on:** March 29, 2008, 06:14 »

Thanks mate,

I found the same with aperture, whether using it on a Macbook 2.0 or a Mac pro workstation with 2 & 4gb ram, respectively. I think i'll go back to Lightroom, at least then I can have more than one program running at a time. Aperture also seems to take a ridiculous amount of time to both import and export files...

Any thoughts on Capture One Pro?

Cheers

Aurelio · « **Reply #3 on:** March 29, 2008, 09:18 »

I like Capture one a lot, but Lightroom is my choice for now, there is more option to control your images, only thing which i miss from Capture one is superb skin tones. Im using new Imacs with 4Gb ram and aperture is to slow comparing other two.

bravajulia · « **Reply #4 on:** March 29, 2008, 23:32 »

Hi, Know you if there is problem importing in lightroom all the job you has done in aperture (albums, projects, keywords not embedded, etc.)? I am thinking to migrate but if can't import the job of 37000 and over photos, it is simply crazy to think.

maunger · « **Reply #5 on:** March 31, 2008, 05:54 »

I've used Aperture since day 1... the newest version is lightening fast. Ok, the import tends to slow down, but overall, this is sooo much better than any earlier release.

I don't use lightroom so i can't offer comparison, but i won't even take the time to look at it as i've got too much invested in Aperture and it does a superb job for me. In many cases now with the new version, i don't even have to do a round trip to another editor - Aperture does much of the edits i need.

a.k.a.-tom · « **Reply #6 on:** March 31, 2008, 17:11 »

man... you guys aren't helping me...

I've been sitting on the fence trying to decide what to buy.

=tom

andresr · « **Reply #7 on:** March 31, 2008, 17:22 »

I tried lightroom yesterday for the whole day and I am not sure if I am doing something wrong but I could not get skin tones to look natural. I used cs3 for a looooong time, but for the past 5 months I have been using capture one 4, absolutely love it, fast, reliable and very simple to use.

Will get a macbookpro next week so I will get a chance to try aperture then; so far I have only got pcs.

maunger · « **Reply #8 on:** March 31, 2008, 20:06 »

Quote from: a.k.a.-tom on March 31, 2008, 17:11

man... you guys aren't helping me... I've been sitting on the fence trying to decide what to buy. =tom

Aperture wins!
http://www.news.com/8301-13580_3-9875221-39.html?%5E$

What's better: Lightroom or Aperture?
Apple Aperture 62.8%
Adobe Lightroom 37.2%
Total votes: 12588

ALTPhotoImages · « **Reply #9 on:** April 01, 2008, 12:26 »

For any image that I want the highest quality and color output in Lightroom, I kick it out as a 16bit, ProPhoto RGB color tag, tiff. I then have droplets do conversions for me if I want or to the point that I want to do some photoshop work before archiving.

For me Lightroom is the way to go, but everyone's needs are different.

dbajurin · « **Reply #10 on:** April 01, 2008, 13:15 »

Quote

Aperture wins!
http://www.news.com/8301-13580_3-9875221-39.html?%5E$

Yes Aperture wins, because more people use it. But does it really have better performance.

Check this out from this article:

"Correcting lens problems is a real issue, though, and Lightroom has a chromatic aberration correction I find very useful. It lets you fix some of the magenta, red, yellow, and blue fringes that show up in high-contrast areas, especially near the corners of images, and it also can alleviate the purple fringing overall. Aperture lacks this."

Does anybody except Yuri who is in microstock business can live without this?

maunger · « **Reply #11 on:** April 03, 2008, 16:05 »

Quote from: dbajurin on April 01, 2008, 13:15

Does anybody except Yuri who is in microstock business can live without this?

Well - i don't need it (at least i don't think so)... i rarely have issues with CA, but that could because of my lenses

Good glass works wonders.

wollwerth · « **Reply #12 on:** April 03, 2008, 20:08 »

Quote from: andresr on March 31, 2008, 17:22

I tried lightroom yesterday for the whole day and I am not sure if I am doing something wrong but I could not get skin tones to look natural.

Try using the color selection tool in the righthand menu and toning down certain individual color tones. I've found that orange and red need to be desaturated due to the tendencies of the camera sensor, (canon in this case). It tends to oversaturate orange and reds. This can be changed in the calibrate menu.

Secretariat · « **Reply #13 on:** April 06, 2008, 17:39 »

My two cents - hardly two cents, actually - on this is that I like Lightrooms noise reduction: I know some people complain about it being too conservative (as in not enough) but since I only shoot low iso's (or dont care anyway if its high iso!), i think the luminance noise cleans up really neatly.

kosmikkreeper · « **Reply #14 on:** April 07, 2008, 07:35 »

Quote from: maunger on April 03, 2008, 16:05

Quote from: dbajurin on April 01, 2008, 13:15

Does anybody except Yuri who is in microstock business can live without this?

Well - i don't need it (at least i don't think so)... i rarely have issues with CA, but that could because of my lenses Good glass works wonders.

I have gos lenses and I still get CA when shooting white backgrounds so this LR option is a charm for me (IS are picky about this). I've never tried Aperture since I'm on PC but I can't live without LR now. I barely go into PS now. And the new LR 2.0 will have dodge & burn and other spot editing functions.

mantonino · « **Reply #15 on:** April 07, 2008, 09:54 »

Quote from: kosmikkreeper on April 07, 2008, 07:35

I have gos lenses and I still get CA when shooting white backgrounds so this LR option is a charm for me (IS are picky about this). I've never tried Aperture since I'm on PC but I can't live without LR now. I barely go into PS now. And the new LR 2.0 will have dodge & burn and other spot editing functions.

It's amazing who I'm running into doing micro.

Hiya Kosmik - from an old friend.

Matt (mavrik, DPC)

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Lightroom vs. Aperture (Read 8160 times)

common

diego_cervo

common

Aurelio

bravajulia

maunger

a.k.a.-tom

andresr

maunger

ALTPhotoImages

dbajurin

maunger

wollwerth

Secretariat

kosmikkreeper

mantonino

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors