Lightroom Over Aperture

rookies

rookies

Suspended / Banned
Messages
8,064
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
No
WOW, I been trying out lightroom and the editing tools on it is Brill much better than Aperture I think. I love the Light Fill function and the Graduation Filter for altering exposure etc it a great feature. Cant we do Light Fill on aperture at all as that feature is great on lightroom I been able to alter some of my images in a great way in lightroom in which I could not do in aperture.
 
I'm sure I read somewhere that Apple are releasing upgrades to their pro applications at some point this year. I'm keeping my fingers crossed for a fairly substantial Aperture update.
 
I'm not really impressed with Aperture - clunky interface, limited adjustments and slow (although that may be my MBP struggling in it's old age). The only plus for me is that it works with D90 raw files, whereas Lightroom (1.4) doesn't. Adobe's instant drop of support for their software when they release a new version is infuriating!
 
Is that light fill not the same as highlights and shadows... Move the shadows slider up and the exposure on the shadow area is bought up. I did a side by side test, and tried as closely as possible (not easy) to match the edits in Aperture and LR and found I preferred the results of Aperture. The main missing piece is the Grad filter and brushes (but I never really used them much anyway).
 
SuperAP said:
I'm not really impressed with Aperture - clunky interface, limited adjustments and slow (although that may be my MBP struggling in it's old age). The only plus for me is that it works with D90 raw files, whereas Lightroom (1.4) doesn't. Adobe's instant drop of support for their software when they release a new version is infuriating!
Click to expand...

Shouldn't an update of Adobe Camera RAW fix that?
 
I'm pretty sold on lightroom functionality. The only thing I wish it could do better is colour handling. I find that loading up images into lightroom and CaptureOne, I get more natural colours in C1.
 
How do you guys feel about the file management in lightroom compare to Aperture. At this moment I seem to like the File management in Aperture and the Edit Functions in Lightroom if they both were in one it be spot on for me
 
I've only tried a trail version of lightroom a while ago. While I agree, it's adjustments on landscapes in particular are outstanding, I found Aperture easier to use as far as meta data/IPTC was concerned. Although It was a while ago now that I used it.

Aperture works best (for me)if you let it manage your library, but then, your files are locked into it. With lightroom, they remain on your hard drive or where ever you import them. Which mean you could use the files easily on other computers if you have them on a external drive between PC and mac. Or course you can have aperture reference your files, but I lost a whole load of IPTC data when I did that.

I'm personally considering getting lightroom and running the both side by side, using lightroom more for landscapes.
 
Yeah know what you mean about the file structure that is one good thing about lightroom but it hard to arrange them around name folders etc in lightroom compare to aperture that my though but then again i am working on a 15 " monitor.. This could change if i was working on a 24" monitor so i see more of the file structure of the lightroom.

Then again more money to fork out on software which annoys me
 
I have my aperture library structured in the same way as LR, using the same naming conventions. Makes it very easy... And all the images are stored seperately on disk.
 
jgs001 said:
I have my aperture library structured in the same way as LR, using the same naming conventions. Makes it very easy... And all the images are stored seperately on disk.
Click to expand...

How do you do this? and how you mean? Are you user aperture to store your image or reference it? Care to share and advise how you do this.

If I were to change the way I let aperture do my file management it be hard now wont it?
 
I'm using Aperture to make/store the edits and reference the original raw files on disk. In the import section, on the right somewhere, you can set the location to either be the internal DB or file system. Then you can adjust the paths to any structure you want. I user Year, Month, then date eg for today 2009/05/060509, then add metatags for searching etc in Aperture. This means I can take the Raw and load it directly into PS or some other program for instance, without processing it through aperture, or do both, or edit in aperture, then load to PS from there as a TIF...

I don't know about the change in management though, I can't help with that...

I use the vault for the Aperture settings and adjustments, and a program I found called iBackup that copies all my data over to an external hard drive.
 
jgs001 said:
I'm using Aperture to make/store the edits and reference the original raw files on disk. In the import section, on the right somewhere, you can set the location to either be the internal DB or file system. Then you can adjust the paths to any structure you want. I user Year, Month, then date eg for today 2009/05/060509, then add metatags for searching etc in Aperture. This means I can take the Raw and load it directly into PS or some other program for instance, without processing it through aperture, or do both, or edit in aperture, then load to PS from there as a TIF...

I don't know about the change in management though, I can't help with that...

I use the vault for the Aperture settings and adjustments, and a program I found called iBackup that copies all my data over to an external hard drive.
Click to expand...


I now understand what your doing :) If you were altering your images in Aperture you can see that altered image in a different program unless you export it into the folders your using is that right
 
Now I need to find a way to easily export all my images include the altered images and be able to import them back into aperture but leaving the images where they are and be able to see all the alterations I have done but I dont think this will happen?
 
rookies said:
I now understand what your doing :) If you were altering your images in Aperture you can see that altered image in a different program unless you export it into the folders your using is that right
Click to expand...

That's about right.

rookies said:
Now I need to find a way to easily export all my images include the altered images and be able to import them back into aperture but leaving the images where they are and be able to see all the alterations I have done but I dont think this will happen?
Click to expand...

have a look at this it might be of use in extracting the RAW files. Not sure how much it will help... but ...
 
natjag said:
If you want to make the files referenced, go to file>relocate master
Click to expand...

Thank for that but think it too late as all my master are in the aperture library so I guess I have to do the long route and export all my Master Images and start again???

I found using export a project in aperture export all the master into sub folders does the trick then I have to do all all my processing again. I know I can export versions but wont be able to import sidecar into aperture through import i believe

EDITED: Ignore me,,, this works doing what natjag says... Now I need to start doing it all.

I guess you all suggest to have my master stores in folders on my HD and just use aperture as reference, if I want the images I have altered to be in the master file folder do I just export the image to that folder?
 
check the quality of the RAW conversion in both programmes it can vary radically.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top