Aperture Vs Photoshop: where are the benefits?

specialman

specialman

Suspended / Banned
Messages
8,193
Name
Pat MacInnes
Edit My Images
Yes
Just got given a copy of Aperture 2.1 and being a lifelong PS user (since PS3) and keen to see if an alternative package can provide me with a better way of editing and outputting my images.

I know where Aperture trumps PS is that it has archiving and image data at its heart, whereas PS has to rely on Bridge for this and I've had a little play in Aperture and the general adjustments you can make are fluent, easy to do and of a high standard, as good as PS if I'm truthful.

Thing is, what benefits will Aperture offer me in the long run? Will it help speed up image adjustment (and thereafter archiving)? Will it offer me better raw adjustment than PS (CS2)? Will it work alongside PS to help me create better, more polished final image adjustments, or is it best used as a standalone program?

I'm playing all the time with it but just wanted to test the waters with you guys to see what benefits this software bring, especially to those of you who use PS (IMO the best all-round imaging software) on a regular basis. :)
 
It's more like Aperture vs. Lightroom.

Here's a link to Lightroom, check it out.

I use Lightroom, it enables me to quickly look through shoots, pick images, discard the unwanted images, delete, make adjustments to images and output them in whatever format I need. You can also create a gallery to put online, set up photos for print etc. I'm sure Aperture does all of this anyway, it is Apple's equivalent of Adobe's Lightroom.

You would use Photoshop AFTER Aperture/Lightroom adjustments.
 
You would use Photoshop AFTER Aperture/Lightroom adjustments.
Click to expand...

+1

I use Aperture during any studio work, then photoshop for the finished files
 
I've only used Aperture very briefly, I'm more of a Lightroom guy and never use Photoshop, but it is the same difference?

The image management aspect is good, much like bridge, but better and without needing to open a differnt program. RAW processing, this is much like ACR, but generally anything you do after the RAW hass been processed (layers etc) you would need to go to Photoshop anyway. It is also possible to apply the same processing over multiple images without opening them and more importantly without needing to resave them as a TIFF or PSD, so less files to worry about.
 
95% of all my image processing is done in Aperture, with only occasionally pushing the file out to PS for anything there. I've done cloning and all sorts of similar things in Aperture. In fact, I can't remember the last time I pushed a file from Aperture to PS...
 
I've just got hold of aperture 2 and have previously processed all my wedding pics through Canon DPP software, then PS. It's been very clunky procedure and from what I can se eof Aperture it allows me to do 95% of what I would do in PS, all in one place.

In fact, I'm quite amazed at Aperture, it seems to have been created from a list of photographers requirements and genuinely seems very good and very clever. Gonna take me ages to get used to it, but I'm hoping it will speed up my PP work and cut down on PS work.

Never tried Lightroom...
 
jayeshpp said:
It's more like Aperture vs. Lightroom.
Click to expand...

I don't have Lightroom, I have CS2 but thanks for the heads-up nonetheless

I can see the benefits of Aperture as a raw editor, offering some more fine-tuning options than Photoshop's camera raw function but just how much more effective it is at processing raw images I suppose is A) up to the individual's preference for pixel peeping, and B) only time will tell through continued use.

I suppose I'll have to search out a few 'aperture 101' tutorials to see just what experienced users actually get from Aperture over a more established program like PS.

It is also possible to apply the same processing over multiple images without opening them and more importantly without needing to resave them as a TIFF or PSD, so less files to worry about.
Click to expand...

Craikey, now that sounds like a good idea. I have presets for ACR so I can batch process raw files, so to speak, but sometimes it's not as quick a process as I'd like, especially when a job has 400+ images that need doing for the next morning. I'll check this function out for sure...
 
I've not used Aperture, but I prefer Lightroom to using Photoshop CS3, I find I can make the adjustments I wan't so much faster. The clone tool on it is especially good I find, so much better than the PS one.
 
Am I right in thinking that Lightroom is a slimmed-down PS for advanced users featuring all the best bits, in the same way Elements is a slimmed-down version for the everyday Joe that has just the basic essentials? Either way, LR is obviously Adobe's version/competitor to Aperture - am I right?
 
Not really. Think of Lightroom as a better Bridge and a better ACR rolled into one with some extra bits.

My take on the differences is that Lightroom is better if you are taking loads of photos and want to get them tweaked and out of the door quick, whereas Photoshop (and Elements) is for when you have a few images you want to process to perfection. It is also a slightly different way of thinking.

You are correct that Lightroom and Aperture do exactly the same job. I'm well and truly in the Lightroom mindset having used it since it came out, I have tried the trial of Aperture 2, but I was already used to Lightroom so it made sense to upgrade to Lightroom 2. However, I can imagine that if you are used to iPhoto, Aperture will feel more natural.
 
I've used both LR and Aperture. They do exactly the same thing in slightly different ways. LR has a bit more in the way of edit options than Aperture does, but personally, I prefer the results from Aperture, when applying approximately the same settings, hard to do, when they are all called different things mind you.

Both of them are import, catalog and Raw processors... For some idea, all the images on these threads were processed only in Aperture or with Aperture plugins only. PS wasn't used.

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=148011

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=147586

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=147796

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=147313

And in that last set, where I've got multiple crops, I copied the adjusted image, but as this doesn't create any files, and is only pointers in the DB doesn't take up huge amounts of space, that creating multiple saves of the same image would. HTH.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top