Mac Users: Aperture or PhotoLab3?

drewdlephone · 11-19-2008, 02:26 AM

Hey everyone. I was just wondering what the Mac users on here use for their post-processing and JPEG development. I've been shooting in DNG and importing using Aperture, but am wondering if using the Pentax PhotoLab software would get me better results, and if switching to Pentax RAW would help either. I found that PhotoLab crashed a lot on my Mac, which is a Penryn 'Book running Leopard. I upgraded the memory to 2Gb for Aperture use, perhaps that was causing the crashing.

What do you Mac users prefer to use?

legacyb4 · 11-19-2008, 07:19 AM

Lightroom 2.x; after trial testing both Aperture and Lightroom, I found it easier to understand Lightroom's interface and workflow, probably from years of exposure to Photoshop.

Yale Quan · 11-19-2008, 08:50 AM

Originally Posted by legacyb4

Lightroom 2.x; after trial testing both Aperture and Lightroom, I found it easier to understand Lightroom's interface and workflow, probably from years of exposure to Photoshop.

I use Lightroom also. I'm coming from using Aperture but I liked the control that Lightroom gives me during post-processing.

-Yale

davemdsn · 11-21-2008, 01:14 PM

Opposite to other posters, I moved from Lr to Aperture. The reasons don't matter. As for either Lr or Ap compared to PPL, I think they all do similar jobs at the end of the day (image quality wise). I couldn't stand the UI of PPL and didn't see any advantage in the IQ so I removed it entirely. My entire workflow is Aperture and Ps CS3.

marcdsgn · 11-23-2008, 08:24 PM

Macbook Pro.

Haven't used LR or Aperture. I use Photolap simply to upload the images then immediately convert to a workable format for Photoshop. (Possibly i should experiment with editing in Photolap, so I have a better feel for how it performs with Mac, but I'm familiar with Adobe, so I stick with that).

But basically, I've found no issues with any programs on my Mac.

Redfish · 11-23-2008, 09:08 PM

I recently migrated a 20,000 image library from Lightroom to Aperture 2. The speed difference is enormous. I did this after using LR 1 to 1.4, then testing 2 to see whether speed had improved. It had not, so I migrated. I must say I'm happier with the Aperture IQ, and prefer the Aperture interface now that I know it better. Sure was a hell of a migration though - all of a wet weekend indoors.
(FWIW, Macbook Pro 2.4, 4GB Ram)

*heliphoto* · 11-23-2008, 11:56 PM

My macbook runs Lightroom. Seemed faster than the demo of Aperture and more intuitive to me. PPL is so ridiculously bad it reminds me of 1998 freeware running on a 286. Atrocious UI, crashed all the time, yuck!

wildboar · 11-24-2008, 11:47 AM

I use Raw Developer by Iridient Digital. I preferred it to Lightroom 1.0 and Aperture 1.5 back when I was demoing all of the products.

BPT · 11-24-2008, 03:03 PM

I use Bibble on my Mac (laptop) and Linux (desktop) I find it does a good job and it is nice to have a consistent program across platforms

*Wombat* · 11-24-2008, 10:36 PM

Originally Posted by drewdlephone

I've been shooting in DNG and importing using Aperture, but am wondering if using the Pentax PhotoLab software would get me better results,

What are you dissatisfied with in your present setup?

Dale · 11-25-2008, 03:01 AM

Another vote for LR. Heaps cheaper than Ap. Bit slow on my Powerbook G4, with only 1Gb of RAM.

Might have to upgrade soon...

2techsans · 11-26-2008, 04:39 PM

What settings do people use in Aperture for Raw conversion?

Much like LR, I find the default raw conversion in Aperture too orange.

I'm on the 30 day trial now... any help is appreciated.

*tybeck* · 11-26-2008, 05:36 PM

I'll put in another vote for RAW Developer. Wonderful rendering and very quick, even on my old G4 Powerbook. Really it's amazing what a one-man shop and put out. The developer is usually the first to support new RAW formats amount the Mac Raw converters. The highlight correction feature added with the last version was most welcome. If you do any B&W conversion this is the program to use, quite good. It doesn't try to be anything other than a RAW converter, so no asset management functions like Aperture or LR.

Derridale · 11-27-2008, 03:30 AM

I have both Lightroom 2 and Aperture 2.1 on my Macbook Pro. But having spent the last several weeks playing with both to see which one I preferred, I've gravitated to Aperture, along with a few Aperture plugins. I hardly need Photoshop any more, even though I have CS3 on the machine.

With the Dodge and Burn plugin, plus Noise Ninja, the Nik package (Viveza, Sharpener, etc etc) and the Tiffen filters, I can do just about everything I need in Aperture, and quickly too.

I do need to flip out to Photoshop occasionally for the odd bit of specific cloning work, but mostly, everything is now done in Aperture.

Love it

Oh yes - and I moved from PC to Mac purely because of Aperture.....

PS - one other thing... I can highly recommend the following book if using Aperture:

Digital Workflow series by Focal Press: "Apple Aperture 2" by Ken McMahon and Nik Rawlinson

ISBN: 978-0-240-52039-1

jaws · 11-27-2008, 02:23 PM

Macbook Pro with PS 3 & LR 2.1, I love LR and its easy to swap between PS, haven't used Aperture I'm sure its a good program too.
There are some good books my Scott Kelby on LR 2.0 which makes the learning curve a whole lot easier.
Cheers,
John