[selar]

Lightroom has the most non-intuitive user interface I've seen in a modern consumer program.

[normhead]

I was trying to be helpful by sharing a specific list of items people can investigate for themselves if they wish. I wont be disappointed if you refrain to replying to my posts in future.

I was trying to be helpful by sharing my experience, and unfortunately your experience and my experience aren't he same. So it would be negligent of me to allow such a one sided post to stand as if it were some kind authoritative opinion. If you don't want to be contradicted, stop being such a Lightroom cheerleader. As I said, there are more LR users than Aperture users if for no other reason, there are more computers capable of running it. These conversations usually turn in to LR love ins with everyone piling it on. The fact that you may think LR is worth "all that" doesn't make it true. Even if it's true for you, doesn't make it true for everyone else.

I'm just trying to provide some balance here. You sound like the Adobe marketing department.

[NickLarsson]

After using Aperture for 2 1/2 years I switched to Lightroom 6 months ago and am very glad I did so. Things I like a lot better in LR are:

1. Noise reduction
2. Lens correction
3. Perspective correction
4. CA correction
5. Better highlights and shadows control (and results)
6. Publish services, wow, how come no one mentions this!!! Love it
7. Better support for presets and tools in LR (eg timelapse)
8. I actually prefer the way LR organises images compared to Aperture which was a big surprise to me
9. Regular major updates

Things I prefer in Aperture:

1. No need to switch modules like in LR
2. Faster import of images

All in all I wish I had switched earlier

Almost the same experience for me.

I used Aperture for 1 year and then switched to Lightroom 6 months ago.

The reason I switched is that I have an old mac mini (2008) and I want to stay with Snow Leopard, and it appears that you have to upgrade to Lion if you want to use the latest version of Aperture, whereas LR4.4 works fine on Snow.

In addition to what have been already said, I find LR more responsive on my computer, also it has a bigger community on the web, which means more dedicated tutorials, presets and forums.

In the end, both are good and similar products but I think LR is a bit ahead in terms of features so just try it for one month and see if it fits your needs

[normhead]

Almost the same experience for me.

I used Aperture for 1 year and then switched to Lightroom 6 months ago.

The reason I switched is that I have an old mac mini (2008) and I want to stay with Snow Leopard, and it appears that you have to upgrade to Lion if you want to use the latest version of Aperture, whereas LR4.4 works fine on Snow.

In addition to what have been already said, I find LR more responsive on my computer, also it has a bigger community on the web, which means more dedicated tutorials, presets and forums.

In the end, both are good and similar products but I think LR is a bit ahead in terms of features so just try it for one month and see if it fits your needs

That's another really good reason to use LR. Tessfully and I are committed to using the hardware needed to keep Aperture running. Aperture does many adjustments commulatively, that is it redraws the screen with every movement of a brush, right from the first adjustment. Which is an awesome way to work, but when you've been working on a photo for hours and you've made lots of adjustments, it starts to bog down. All 4 cores of our i7s are maxed out and so is the video software that has to keep up with all those redraws. People say it runs on lesser machines, and they're right it does, but if you're really going right to a commercial end product in Aperture, you're going to have serious issues.

Our latest machine is a refurb mini-mac server with an i7 and a 21.5 inch Philips monitor. Cheap for a Mac system and it still cost us a grand. Adobe started in the business when processor power was expensive, and their products reflect that. So if you can't commit to the power to make Aperture run smooth it's a really , really, frustrating piece of software. RIght now in our two editing systems we have about $3,500 invested (for two of us). If you're not selling prints, that's insanity.

Apples tradition is to make it smooth easy and intuitive, but design everything to the specs of Apple's newest best computer. Adobe is much better at designing software that will still function on computers that are a few years past their prime. Adobe just sells software, sometimes I think Apple sells software that will sell their computers.

Aperture is design to run lightning fast, on a 12 core machine. I'm running it with 4 cores, others are running it with 2. If one of us could get to a place where it's running on 12, we'd be mightily impressed. You're probably looking at somewhere around 7 grand to buy that.

I know guys who include the cost of new Mac Pro in the cost of every major contract they accept. Now if only I could get contracts like that.

---

Last edited by normhead; 03-18-2013 at 10:26 AM.

[monochrome]

What are you taking about?

Someone argued with me on another thread that digital photography is free and I finally relented and agreed that I must be wrong when I say digital costs as much as film all-in - or at least digital is closer to the cost of film.

The winning point was, since the computer is already there, why should I say there is a cost to processing image files? There isn't any cost. The computer is already there. (I tried to say I had bought the computer exclusively for editing image files and everything else I did on it was free, like MSWord, Excel, Quicken, TurboTax, PowerPoint presentations, but that didn't fly).

Why on earth would a customer sign a contract that had a new MacPro priced into it - somebody else could just price compete since the old computer is already there and digital is free, right?

[normhead]

What are you taking about?

Someone argued with me on another thread that digital photography is free and I finally relented and agreed that I must be wrong when I say digital costs as much as film all-in - or at least digital is closer to the cost of film.

The winning point was, since the computer is already there, why should I say there is a cost to processing image files? There isn't any cost. The computer is already there. (I tried to say I had bought the computer exclusively for editing image files and everything else I did on it was free, like MSWord, Excel, Quicken, TurboTax, PowerPoint presentations, but that didn't fly).

Why on earth would a customer sign a contract that had a new MacPro priced into it - somebody else could just price compete since the old computer is already there and digital is free, right?

If you have a reputation.... this is particularly true in the film industry. You're assuming someone else can do what this guy can do. Competition only works in an artistic sense for two guys capable of producing the same product. Some guys have both track record and talent, and people know hiring them isn't a risk. Paying them a lot is safer than trying to get by with some one "cheaper".

One of my GFs had a father who owns one Toronto's top ad agencies. They paid Richard Avedon $2000 a day plus expenses to come up for a couple day's work. Her dad said in the end he didn't feel he got $2000 a day's worth, but he also didn't say he lost money on the shoot. It was factored in and he had a client willing to pay for a big name, so he got his cut, and though he said Avedon wasn't worth the money, I know he got a bigger cut because of how the contract was bigger with Avedon as an expense.

[monochrome]

If you have a reputation.... this is particularly true in the film industry.

I should have put the sarcasm tag in my Reply. I tried 17 different ways to explain that there are costs to digital photography but (aside from setting up straw men and kncoking them down) this guy kept saying, "No there aren't, because the computer is already there doing nothing."

I finally gave up and wrote, "Yeah, I concede, you are right," and he kept arguing - with HIMSELF!!

[normhead]

I should have put the sarcasm tag in my Reply. I tried 17 different ways to explain that there are costs to digital photography but (aside from setting up straw men and kncoking them down) this guy kept saying, "No there aren't, because the computer is already there doing nothing."

I finally gave up and wrote, "Yeah, I concede, you are right," and he kept arguing - with HIMSELF!!

He obviously sensed your sarcasm.... next time, type "you're right", type it like you mean it!
Can you tell I'm married?

[IchabodCrane]

I should have put the sarcasm tag in my Reply. I tried 17 different ways to explain that there are costs to digital photography but (aside from setting up straw men and kncoking them down) this guy kept saying, "No there aren't, because the computer is already there doing nothing."

I finally gave up and wrote, "Yeah, I concede, you are right," and he kept arguing - with HIMSELF!!

Everyone knows the variable costs associated with digital photography are virtually nil. It's the fixed cost component that's always harder to pin down. In fact, it's the same case in almost any business... two people can have different views on what a fixed cost is for an operation and they both can probably back it up with different and often valid arguments.

[twitch]

I was trying to be helpful by sharing my experience, and unfortunately your experience and my experience aren't he same. So it would be negligent of me to allow such a one sided post to stand as if it were some kind authoritative opinion.

Why is it "unfortunately"? We have different views, so what. Where did I imply I have an "authoritive opinion"? Who made you the forum opinion policeman anyway?

How about not harassing people who are just sharing their own experience, it's actually very poor forum etiquette, you can start with not harassing me. Thanks

[normhead]

Why is it "unfortunately"? We have different views, so what. Where did I imply I have an "authoritive opinion"? Who made you the forum opinion policeman anyway?

How about not harassing people who are just sharing their own experience, it's actually very poor forum etiquette, you can start with not harassing me. Thanks

Who is harassing who here? We have differing opinions on that as well.

My message is you can get it done with Aperture should you choose it. No one needs the endless tirade of "my software is better than your software".

[monochrome]

Everyone knows the variable costs associated with digital photography are virtually nil

Well not to start the discussion again - just to state my opinion, with which anyone is free to disagree:

1. The variable cost associated with digital photography is directly related to the value of the time I spend hosing around in Lightroom converting .dng files to presentable or printable conversions. That cost is definitely not de minimus.
   1. If an in-camera jpeg is good enough output, then I concede your point
2. I will NEVER be as good a file editor at any price as my lab tech was an enlarger and printer. He was an artist and worth whatever he asked.

[IchabodCrane]

Well not to start the discussion again - just to state my opinion, with which anyone is free to disagree:

1. The variable cost associated with digital photography is directly related to the value of the time I spend hosing around in Lightroom converting .dng files to presentable or printable conversions. That cost is definitely not de minimus.
   1. If an in-camera jpeg is good enough output, then I concede your point
2. I will NEVER be as good a file editor at any price as my lab tech was an enlarger and printer. He was an artist and worth whatever he asked.

Actually, I think most cost accountants consider salary/compensation to be a fixed expense unless clearly shown to be otherwise. This only highlights why these subjects aren't so tidy.

[jac]

Aperture 3 gets my vote on an iMac. I look forward to the update everyone is claiming is pending. With Aperture I can use PS Elements as an external editor and I use numerous NIK and Topaz plugins as well as PortraitProffesional. I prefer how the NIK plugins work with Aperture 3, but now that Google owns NIK they will probably be retired, as they don't get to collect personnel data from photo editing plugins. Or do they?

Ditto although I do not use portraitProffessional. This combination does everything I need. I too am a bit skittish with Google's involvement but I can't foresee too much of an improvement over what I do anyway. If they don't upgrade, it likely won't affect my PP workflow anyway.
John

[falconeye]

My personal vote goes to LR. But I own Aperture and think it is a great tool too. Let's never forget that it was Aperture which forced Adobe to fork LR off its Photoshop and ACR siftware. Aperture just doesn't fit my style of working as does LR.

As for who wins PP competitions ... I think who really masters the topic contributes to dedicated sites such as deviantArt, not PF. And then it is almost always done in PS. The pros I know use PS for select photos.

And here comes a major advantage of LR over Aperture: Better support for PS. E.g., you can import a LR photo into PS as smart object. Which means that you keep the entire power of LR's develop module within a PS layer. Some advanced techniques even duplicate such layers and combine different develop settings into one image.

Feature wise, LR offers a few things Aperture may or may not offer (I did not check):
- Support for 32 Bit images with some support to create tone-mapped hdr (I like it because of realistically looking results).
- Support to trim and develop videos (*)
- Support to track changing locations of where the images are stored.
- Support for Wacom tablets.


__
(*) Support seems limited at first. But you can extract a sample photo from a video (in library mode), then edit that sample (in develop mode) and synchronize back the edit onto the entire video. Pretty cool and not many seem to know this. Eventually, PS includes a full blown video editor which I find intuitive to use and which IMHO only lacks a gallery of cross-over effects. E.g., as a video editor, I would prefer PS over Premiere Elements. I still have to try my copy of Final Cut Pro X though