Any thoughts on this? OR you could just reply and tell me if you use either... My friend, Patrick, sent me a link for a free Aperture workshop specifically for wedding workflow and it got me thinking! Until now, I was strongly leaning towards purchasing Adobe's Lightroom to help manage my workflow...

What are your thoughts? Differences between the two? Any help is appreciated!

The link to the free workshops is HERE.

Biggest problem: Aperture does not support presets.
Small problem: Aperture does not allow for vignetting.

Even before I got the completed version of LR, I would have taken the beta over Aperture for those reasons. The presets is a monster.

I love Aperture because of it's mac integration -

I really like the new organizational structure in 1.5
Send pics directly to e-mail
Automatic uplaoder to my agency Photoshelter
Keywords lift and stamp

I just wish the tour was coming to Austin...

I'm in favour of lightroom. Really streamlines the workflow. And all with good ol' jpgs!

Chris

Kevin,

everyone keeps telling me the new version does...

Everyone is wrong. It supports presets for EACH ATTRIBUTE, not for an entire set of attributes. E.g.,

You want a preset that changes white balance, sharpening, hue, color saturation in blue, and exposure. In LR, you set all those things the way you want it and save it as a preset. In Aperture, you set each one the way you want it, then you have to save each attribute as a preset. e.g.: white balance preset, sharpening preset, etc.

So, if you want to apply all those settings to an image, you have to go through and select each freaking preset one at a time.

So, if they think that means it supports presets, then I guess they're right.

how about the close/patch tool that works in the metadata not the actual pixels? how about editng jpegs without altering the pixels?

Lightroom is just awesome, take the 30 day trial and see for yourself!

Maybe we should get an Aperture v. Lightroom forum opened in Ya Wanna Fight! J/K

Seriously, I really am in awe of Lightroom - it is so great to work with! But, I haven't even considered or touched Aperture, as I'm a PC guy.

I've looked at both (mostly lightroom) and hope to compare them some more. But NO PRESETS! was the deal killer for me. I don't exactly know what Apple was thinking, but I'm sure they'll get it in the next version.

That's what I thought after they fixed the raw engine in 1.0.. Then they announced versions in 1.5, so I quickly downloaded and upgraded. Sigh. It was the biggest screw up in software history. I posted to their engineers and they told me that no one wanted to save presets for images because each photo was unique.

After I read that, I stopped bothering to post or go to their forum.

Ya well no one actually wants to even edit their photo's, so why bother making software in the first place

I like Apple products, but they need to get real sometimes. Oh well there bound to catch on, once lightroom is taking off

Thanks for all of the input guys. I think the preset comment was the deal breaker here... Lightroom it is! (not to mention it's cheaper)

My biggest problem with LR (at least beta, and what I seen from LR 1 is not much improved in that area) is that is not much of a "management tool". Aperture kick its butt there. So much that Adobe integrated "versions", "stacks" and "reject" from Aperture.

If there was no Aperture out there I would have found LR to be great. But Aperture is out there and its management tools are incredible. I stiil waiting for LR 1 to ome out so I can see what changes they made and if I can find a way to do those things I love for Aperture in LR.

Those who love Bridge will love LR.

I agree with Kevin and others that Lightroom is the perfect tool for wedding photographers.

I also agree that Aperture is a better file management tool...personally I don't think wedding photographers need a big file management system like Aperture because we're only tracking a limited amount of events and rarely need to go back and find anything anyway.

Rock on!
DJ

we adore lightroom and have preordered!

I have the release version, the file management system is much improved over the betas. Although, I find even the beta system to be plenty for me--if you understand how digital file management works in the first place. And as for LR stealing file management techniques from Aperture... Well, let's just say that before LR entered the market, Aperture forced photographers to store all their images in the Aperture database. LR came out, allowing you to use whatever filing system you wanted _or_ the LR database. By version 1.5, Aperture did did the same thing. Stacks is nice, but compared to forcing me to put my masters in a database vs letting me use whatever system I want is a bigger deal imho.

What is it you can do in Aperture that you don't think is possible in LR?

This is the way Adobe intoduces Lightroom to the World...

This is how Apple introduces Aperture:



They are both completely correct. LR is "one easy application". The problem is that is not a complete solution, but rather a limited one. Aperture aims to be a complete tool. While LR may be easier and simpler, well, shure. but I can do so much more with Aperture. There are two different mindset at work and I am glad there are alternatives for the way each one of us works... Don't forget, they are just tools...

Is nice to be "easy", and most certainly LR has a lot going for (awesome develop module and flash galleries). But I want more than easy. Easy was my old file system... copy cards to a folder, open them in bridge and correct in ARC. What can be easier and cheaper.

So simple and easier is not the only yard stick but as a workflow tool how effective and complete it is.

Apple, as usual, has made people think out of the box with Aperture. It challenged the status quo and they are not happy. If it wasn't for Aperture, LR 1 probably would have remian beta 1 or 2, but people saw what Aperture (or a management tool) could do and went running to Adobe and force them to rethink their approach. I am glad! Competition is healthy and we all benefit with tools that better serve us.

Every time I hear someone ranting against Aperture and how much better Lightroom is, even in beta, seems that they forget the powerhose of feature that Aperture is and focus only in those things of the past, or in one little thing that Aperture does not do...what about all else it does? How can not having "presets" negate every other awesome features?

Aperture may not be perfect, nor LR, but Aperture has so much going for it thatit would be foolish to ignore it! As a a compare and select tools goes Aperture is feature rich, smart albums, smart web, book making, light table, stacks, versions (added by LR), etc, etc, etc. As a management tool, Vault is incredible, two display support, the loupe (now LR has a loupe). I can upload my flies directly from Aperture to many services such as Pictage, photo reflect, etc.

DJ is right, Aperture is not for everyone, nor LR. If you are happy with Bridge, or if you outsource everything, or if you just shoot, correct, upload to pictage and forget about the rest, or if you don't track large photo libraries or if you are Windows only, save $100 and buy LR. Aperture is not for you.

Honestlly, if your are one of those described in the previous paragraph, you may want to think about your real needs, not be blinded by Adobe or Apertures hype and claims, and save your money. Invest it in Photoshop CS3 with Bridge 3 and ARC 3. It probably be enough.

Bottom line, the only selling point LR has going is simplicity and easy... but not complete, or feature robust, etc. They can be both get better, and I am sure they will...


PS. Adobe should remember their experience with Final Cut vs. Premiere... Those who forget history are condemn to repeat its mistake...

well david, I thnk kevin already asked the question:



I don't see anything there listed that isn't more of a personal choice than an actual feature that one can't live without. I tried it and hated it. Lightroom offers more (I'd get it probably just for the printing driver) and is so much more intuitive and refined.

The fact that you don't like Lightroom's workflow isn't really reason to bash it, it just doesn't work for you. Most would leave it at that, but you seem to have a vendetta against them which I don't get.

I fully agree with you. And I don't have a vendetta. I am just tired of Aperture bashing. If you read what I wrote I am speaking of realities and not bashing. If LR rocks your world, Great! I know many photographer that are happy with ACDSEE, Great! It works for them. That is what I talking about it.

But I get the drift from some that if you are using Aperture you are less than human... Because "LR rules!". And you get tired of that after a while. You make it sounds that the "spirit" of the debate is "whatever works for you, man!" But, really!

I tried them both, and as amatter of fact, I still undecided as to my final choice. I am waiting for LR 1 trial to come out so I an give it a full test before I decided. But for sure, Aperture is looking pretty good right now.

So, I agree with you. Goe for whatever woks for you, but the only thing I ask is fairness, otherwise we are giving bad opinions.

Someone drank the cool-aid...


Aperture is an awesome tool. No question. It was the first into the space, and that's awesome. LR (even Bridge) has stacks, versions, etc. etc., too. Vault is just a way to back up your images, LR has that capability. You can't upload to Pictage yet (though it's been promised for a long time), unless I missed the final announcement. LR has always had the loupe functionality (or something like it). So the major differences are the books and the light table. Personally, I don't need or want either of those features. But presets are a deal-killer for me, and Aperture has missed the boat on that. It's also INFINITELY easier to apply settings to multiple images in LR. Aperture is a clusterf*** when it comes to that.

Nope. Bridge with ACR 4 (I assume you meant ACR and not ARC) is no substitute for LR. I never open anything in Photoshop any more. If you think this is a comparable workflow, then I'm quite certain you don't understand the power of LR.

And the whole "blinded by Adobe hype..." is just silly. It's not Adobe hype. It's owning both programs and using them extensively.

Sorry, but that's just not true. Again, if you believe this, you are unfamiliar with what LR is. Maybe _you're_ buying the hype? Or just justifying sticking with the program you bought?

Final Cut rocks. Premier is just decent. Aperture has the potential to rock. I'm one of the biggest Apple supporters you're likely to meet, but that doesn't mean I blindly support anything they do. I was so excited about Aperture when it first came out.. I was playing with it before it was released and STOKED. When LR came out, I was against it, cause I was already using Aperture... but since I'm a software freak, I download and play with everything. When Adobe asked me to be part of the team, I was eager to give them input on what made Aperture better and LR not so good...

Now, it's just a matter of using the best program for my workflow.

Amen! That is what I have been saying all along. And that is what I have been asking here to help me findout, but what I get is... "LR rocks and Aperture don't" or "Aperture got the potential..." I want to know how each software can help me accomplish my work, not superficial answers and opinions.

Yes, you are correct when you say ACR and Bridge are not substitute for for LR.

When Aperture first came out I was thrilled and dissapointed because of the centralized library. The LR beta cam out and I was excited with the news. I download it and used exclusively through beta 4.1.

Then came Aperture 1.5 free trial. When I learned all the things I could do in Aperture that I could not do at all or as easily in LR I was dissapointed with LR. I hoped that when LR 1 would come out would have more functionality that I have grown to love in Aperture. And they have added some for sure.

And, honestly, I am still thorn between both. I just don't like the Aperture bashing I have seen lately in OSP because I don't think is fair.

If you don't think I have discovered the full potential of LR, I have been asking for people for help discovering it. Expecifically, you asked me in another thread what were those things from Aperture that I wanted to learn to do in LR. I haven't heard anything back from no one.

But aparently some people think I just want to bash LR which is not true. Now, if Apple wants to pay me to do that, I'll consider it But, so far, I haven't got the job. I want to understand it and see if it does what I am looking for, but so far, no matter where I go looking for information, not even Adobe website, the answer is no where to be found. I am all ears, I want good information so I can make an informed decision. The only thing I don't need is "LR rocks and Aperture don't becasue I say so"...

Finally, Aperture does not have just the potential, but it does rock at what it does! and it does a lot of things that LR cannot do, but that does not make it better, just makes it a different solution. One or the other is only better for me... for me... if it becomes the solution I need.

But again, who is bashing what.

Sounds like its time for the Great Swan-ini's Lightroom tutorial DVD!

Neither LR nor Aperture is ACDSee when it comes to file management

If you need more file management than LR, or need faster file management than Bridge, try PhotoMechanic if you're on Mac.

I think you'll all be pleasantly surprised with the release... Adobe gave me a copy so I could get crankin' on my video, and it's pretty slick. The file management in LR now reflects the reality of the file folders in which the images are contained. Makes more sense and it's easier to know where your stuff is... Also, if you remove a folder from the LR organizational panel, it removes it off your harddrive--so everything is "real," more like Bridge.

Anyway.. It's coolio.

I have tried Photomechanic, and it is nice, quik and easy to use, but why would I spend $150 on just a "browser" when for $199 I can get more than that and an awesome Develop module in Lightroom? Plus I already have IviewMedia Pro that does a very nice job as a file management tools. I am with Kevin when he says that he wants to stay within os solution avoiding to go tp PS unless is realle needed. All those other solutions force me to go for every image to PS.

See, I am not against Lightroom. I want LR to work for me.

And I still waiting for someone to show me how can I use LR 1, so count me in for the DVD. (I am serious).