We are currently looking into a program like Lightroom or Aperture to help smooth out our workflow. Both look great from the tutorials I've watched. Has anyone compared these two programs? Are they user-friendly in a time crunch? What are the benefits/ draw backs of each?

Thank you!
Leslie

I'd be interested in feedback in this conversation too.

I'm an iView gal now but got some demo time with Kevin's lightroom and thinking of switching but want to hear more about all three first (mine's an older version of iView & works just great for me now).

I'm interested in this too. I've seen Lightroom vs. BibblePro posts but no comparisons between Lightroom and Aperture. Now that I am propably going to switch to Mac, I want to find out more about Aperture.

I've tried both, and although Aperture has gone a long way... I still prefer Lightroom.
Aperture when it first came out had lousy reviews and I hated that the library was the only way to access your changed files. Things have changed dramatically with aperture 1.5, I really like the lupe, the stack, and even better the way it works and looks when using two monitors... but it takes a lot of time to learn this new program. I really don't want to take the time right now.
Lightroom has a quicker learning curve if you have been using any Adobe creative products over the last several years. It is finally in version 1.0, but has gone through some really great beta versions. It is relatively quick, has some really cool features (modules) and in the newest version it even has a spot healing brush that can be applied via sync to any or all of your images (this is great if your sensor had a dust spot which you forgot to clean).
It also uses the same raw engine that CS3 has, which I would think then could be opened in photoshop with all your changes still on the raw file. I have yet to use cs3 but it seems logical that it will integrate really well.
I'm sure there are many more great things about both but I would definitely go with Lightroom especially now that there is a discount... you can get it for $199!


Carlos Andres
I personally use Photomechanic, Lightroom then Photoshop for all my images. I shoot EVERYTHING raw and just recently realized I can't work without Lightroom.

We prefer Lightroom to Aperture as well. We were early adopters of Aperture -- as in day 1 for $500 -- and really wanted it to work for us, but Lightroom's integration with Photoshop and speed just can't be beat.



The two RAW engines issue was the deal-breaker for us on Aperture. What's the point of doing all of these fine adjustments to a shot only to have it be slightly different when you open it up for final editing in PS?

Now that LR is released, there are a lot of similarities to some of the basic functionality between the two applications. Things like stacking that everyone loved in Aperture are in LR now, etc.

Reasons I'd love to use Aperture:
2 monitor support
Light table
Books/prints/etc from inside the application
Fun interface
It's Apple!

Reasons I won't use Aperture:
Very difficult to adjust multiple images at a time
No ability to save presets
No vignette
Complicated developing system (unintuitive and slightly bulky)

Reasons I do use LR
Presets
Presets
Presets
Vignette
Super fast/intuitive workflow
Very intuitive develop mode
Fast
Simple interface
Awesome slideshow (great for receptions)
Fast
Presets

I don't think you can go wrong with either application. You can get around the no presets in Aperture by saving images that have all the settings you want in a folder and then selecting those images, copying their settings, and pasting them to the image you want. It's a bit cludgy, but it does the job.

If LR doesn't get multi-monitor support done right, I may be switching as soon as I buy my second monitor!

One thing that stood out in my brief overview of both programs is that Aperture "Bridge-like" look to it and was capable of working with files directly without having to import them into the program; however, I didn't see any sync modes or cloning tools that are nice to have in Lightroom. The "stacking" of pictures was also very nice in Aperture.

I think my biggest question is which program imports/exports easier with the least amount of confusion in the organization of files. Then... which program works the smoothest in transfering files back and forth from photoshop? And which one has the best editing capabilities?

I'm going to keep learning with both of my trial versions, so I might end up answering some of my own questions. But I sure would appreciate more input in the mean time! Thank you!

They both do this. Aperture actually just changed to be able to work with files in their default location -- they used to require moving them into the library.




They both have stacking. They both have cloning. Not sure what you mean by sync mode.


They both function very similarly in this regard. They can work by importing images into a library that the application manages or by using your own file structure. Up to you.

There's little problem here, either. They both create a copy of the file and allow you to edit in in PS. Since you can't actually "edit" a raw image, a copy is required. They both treat the copies as versions or stacks when you get back to the application.

While you can make the same type of adjustments in each, the use of presets in Lightroom makes it significantly faster.

$.02

Thank you Kevin! Carole has told me alot about you! I really appreciate your input! I obviously still have alot to learn, but this gave me a great jump start! Thank you!

I bought Aperture 1.5, too, and really wanted to like it. But, like Kevin said, the lack of a vignette tool, presets, and curves kind of killed the romance, for me.

All in all, I feel like LR is a better imaging tool, while Aperture is a bit superior in file management (and I like that you can sort things on the light table, and get books and stuff).

This sums it up for me too. LR is better at imaging and presets, Aperture is much better in file management. I love LR but am drawn to the file management of Aperture (plus it's Apple!).

I think for now I am going to stick with LR just based on speed. I believe that Aperture is going to continue stepping it up though.

just my .02

I tried both and Lightroom won. Like all the others said above, PRESETS!!! And vignette ability. Plus, the use of Lightroom was much easier for me to understand. I've actually just started using Lr for all of my processing within the last two days.

Rw

I've tried both and like the develop controls much more in LR. Plus, the fact that LR supports conversions in ProPhoto RGB is huge. Take a look at this screen grab showing Adobe 1998 vs Pro Photo RGB.

(Adobe 1998 is the black area in the center)

I've used both a bunch too and have settled on Lightroom (for reasons mentioned above). There is a series of Aperture vs. Lightroom comparisons here:

http://www.oreillynet.com/digitalmedia/blog/adobe_lightroom/

Pro Photo RGB can't really be printed, so you're not exactly gaining anything--but it is a cool 16bit format!

so sadyl enough, I dont know what either of these programs are...do you use them in addition to photoshop or inplace of?

You use it in addition to Photoshop. If you need to do any major cloning or "re-arranging", you will still need to do that in photoshop. Lightroom doesn't have any of the levels or masking capabilities that are in photoshop. But the cool thing about lightroom it handles editing photos in bulk... or individually. With lightroom you can enhance the photo(s) and then save those enhancements as presets to use again. Look it up online and you can learn more.

If you are saying that no printers print in Pro Photo RGB you're correct. However, if I process my images and then convert to the space it will be printed in (sRGB, CMYK, or an Epson print) I can control the clipping of what colors get clipped. In many cases it's not much.

Also, many Epson printers can actually print beyond Adobe 1998. Therefore I would want to process my images in a larger space to maintain that color.

I notice this especially in the blues and reds of my images. This is why I also feel so strong that photo labs (ie Pictage) offer custom ICC profiles. I know the Fuji Frontier machines can print more than sRGB color space (which most of them tell us to tag our images in). Check out this site- http://digitaldog.net/

I've been using Aperture lately, just to stay on top of its capabilities, and realized you can't rename your files from inside Aperture. You can mess with the name on import and export, but not once the images are in. That sucks! Everyone always says how much better of a file manager Aperture is than Lightroom, but I consider file renaming a no-brainer when it comes to file management.

Interesting.

Another thing I just discovered... You can't edit the original photo at all in Aperture. At best, you have to show its location in the finder, then update it directly that way. Not very friendly.

Aperture =

Lightroom =

I think that pretty much sums it up.