Mac Users.. Are you using Aperture 3 or something else?

I'd only just started using aperture when I downloaded LR4, so I guess it's just first impressions and which I just seemed to click with I think. I prefer the layout and organisation of LR, and the integration with CS5
 
Another long term Aperture user here. I've tried lightroom but it just didn't do it for me. I bought Aperture 2 at the full whack price and 3 at the retail upgrade price before the App Store was even thought about and even then I thought it was superb value. Now at the App Store price it's a total no brainer if you own a mac.
 
Another Aperture user here. Used to use CS4/5 but moved on but have Photoshop Elements for some editing tasks. Tend to use iPhoto for making books and calendars.
 
Been a Lightroom user since the first Beta. Aperture 1 had a problem in that it didn't support external hard drives. Why I can't imagine , but it didn't, which made me look at Lightroom. Never looked back, it works just as I want it work, plus the fact I have over 125,000 images cataloged It would be a real wrench to change. Plus I haven't seen anything that makes Aperture a better app than Lightroom.
 
I've been back and forth several times between the two, but for me it's Lightroom all the way.

Mainly due to better noise reduction, lens correction and plugin support.

I also got sick of waiting weeks/months for new camera RAW support to be added by Apple.
 
I've been using Lightroom since it came out, so am really stuck in the Lightroom way of doing things, not to mention all the images I have in my catalog already.

Having said that I do try Aperture at each release, but don't get on with it, mainly because I'm used to Lightroom. This is based on Aperture being 1/2 the price of Lightroom, now it is nearer 1/4 of the price I would probably go for Aperture if I was starting again!
 
I'm still using Iphoto. I don't generally shoot RAW so I don't really need anything fancy.

I tried aperture before but it was a pain and didn't do the basics I wanted like fb upload (leopard too old) so it was no good. I'd be tempted to try it again as it is so cheap now.
 
Chappers said:
Been a Lightroom user since the first Beta. Aperture 1 had a problem in that it didn't support external hard drives. Why I can't imagine , but it didn't, which made me look at Lightroom. Never looked back, it works just as I want it work, plus the fact I have over 125,000 images cataloged It would be a real wrench to change. Plus I haven't seen anything that makes Aperture a better app than Lightroom.
Click to expand...

And that's the problem, once you've got several thousand images catalogued and you're used to your workflow, it's a real wrench, and a massive pain in the butt, to change. Even if the other system offers advantages.

This is probably why I felt that Lightroom didn't do it for me - the idea of relearning another workflow, and then having to re-catalogue a few thousand images massively outweighed any perceived advantages I thought that I may have got with Lightroom.

It's kind of like the Nikon Canon thing. Once you've started with one system and built up a collection of matching kit you're unlikely to change unless the other system offers something so mindblowingly amazing that it makes the upheaval of the change worthwhile.
 
Last edited:
Lightroom here to but purely for the reason above- I get on with it and have 19000 odd images catalogued in it!
 
I too use Aperture 3. Tried Photoshop & Lightroom, not very happy with them. I found they left files installed all over the place on my imac.
 
I bought Aperture 1.5 but then tried a 30 day trial of LR and switched never to return.
 
Aperture 3 here for a few reasons

It works
It's £50
It's NOT Adobe

srichards said:
I tried aperture before but it was a pain and didn't do the basics I wanted like fb upload
Click to expand...

Works fine on AP3 and Snow Leopard here
 
Aperture 3 here.

Had version 2 and retail price upgrade. Price is unbeatable. I am in a position as above, I have a catalogue set up so the chances of me switching are slim. One click to edit in Photoshop so no issues there. I tried Lightroom but when I bought my first mac it had Aperture thrown in, so went with it to cost.

Honest opinion. If you are starting from scratch then it will make no difference, they both are pretty much the same thing.

The more used reason is the new version Beta, which will have features that Aperture users will want. Then Aperture 4 will be out and the same will be said of Lightroom (bar some sort of Final Cut X bodge job).

It really is a Canon/Nikon argument. The only advantage LR has is a few more plugins are available for it.
 
Aperture has got a huge advantage though. After all those years adobe still hasn't integrated with the apple media browser framework. As such it can't unlike Aperture fully integrate with all you other applications without needing to run the app. I.e. browse search the catalog and even automatically convert and import to a compatible format. So no need for duplicates exporting etc.

And then there is the powerful brush system. None of these old fashioned and unintuitive layers required.

Very happy with Aperture and for the money at the moment it is a bargain.
 
dejongj said:
Aperture has got a huge advantage though. After all those years adobe still hasn't integrated with the apple media browser framework. As such it can't unlike Aperture fully integrate with all you other applications without needing to run the app. I.e. browse search the catalog and even automatically convert and import to a compatible format. So no need for duplicates exporting etc.

And then there is the powerful brush system. None of these old fashioned and unintuitive layers required.

Very happy with Aperture and for the money at the moment it is a bargain.
Click to expand...

But for some that doesn't matter. I don't use ANY of Apples iLife or iWork software. I use CS5 and LR3 integrates well with that. I actually switched because of the way that the two packages store their input images. I only realised that you could store aperture images the same way after I had bought LR2 but happy with it now. Does Aperture do tethered shooting, can't remember now but that was another thing that kept me with LR when version 3 came out. :shrug:
 
Absolutely appreciate it may not matter for some. Please note that you do not reflect it accurate though. It is EVERY application by virtue of the file open dialogue and also apps like mail etc.
 
dejongj said:
Please note that you do not reflect it accurate though. It is EVERY application by virtue of the file open dialogue and also apps like mail etc.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I don't quite understand you but IF you are saying that the open file dialogue works better with images from Aperture then that only applies if you use that particular view which I don't. I file my images in a hierarchal folder system and the filer previews of each image show what the image is. RAW images are fully integrated into MacOS.
 
cowasaki said:
Sorry, I don't quite understand you but IF you are saying that the open file dialogue works better with images from Aperture then that only applies if you use that particular view which I don't. I file my images in a hierarchal folder system and the filer previews of each image show what the image is. RAW images are fully integrated into MacOS.
Click to expand...

Yes you don't understand :) you could follow a method of where you maintain your own hierarchal folder system. But the drawback of that is that it is a single view. The advantage of tools like Lightroom and Aperture is that you can create many more different views of you images based on their metadata. As such by integration into finder those views are available for view and also the full metadata search without having to launch the application itself.

In addition yes osx itself is raw aware, but say you want to upload to this site or attach as an email. The jpg (or png if you do desire) gets automatically created without having to perform a manual export using the most recent settings in the XML sidecar file. Of course if you prefer to do a manual export for a particular job you can still do that as well.

To me using a tool like this and maintaining a normal old fashioned non meta data base hierarchal folder structure doesn't make much sense. But hey everyone's workflow can be different, me personally doesn't like to do extra work hence my stated preference.
 
dejongj said:
Yes you don't understand :) you could follow a method of where you maintain your own hierarchal folder system. But the drawback of that is that it is a single view. The advantage of tools like Lightroom and Aperture is that you can create many more different views of you images based on their metadata. As such by integration into finder those views are available for view and also the full metadata search without having to launch the application itself.

In addition yes osx itself is raw aware, but say you want to upload to this site or attach as an email. The jpg (or png if you do desire) gets automatically created without having to perform a manual export using the most recent settings in the XML sidecar file. Of course if you prefer to do a manual export for a particular job you can still do that as well.

To me using a tool like this and maintaining a normal old fashioned non meta data base hierarchal folder structure doesn't make much sense. But hey everyone's workflow can be different, me personally doesn't like to do extra work hence my stated preference.
Click to expand...

:shake:

I was having problems with your English not the concept!

I have a hierarchal system with the top levels DSLR, FILM, OTHER broken down into years and then into dates. Within LR EVERY image is then labelled with location, each person, studio, macro etc PLUS LR also does the same with lenses, cameras etc.

So from within LR I can click on a smart view and see every picture of a particular person, a particular event, any image with a particular camera or lens etc.

I can also archive events off very quickly.

As for producing JPG files for a web site. I don't want the OS to just create it for me, I want to choose the image size and quality myself for each image OR if they are for say here I would rather have an image output method saved that I can just use as required.

LR and Aperture are BOTH powerful packages but LR suits me better at the moment, based on my workflow. I can also use the same library across multiple computers without any issues and LR was cheaper until Aperture was added to AppStore. If Aperture 4 comes out and it works better for me AND imports my library I might well switch.
 
Yes as I already highlighted both tools can do the same within, aperture can just also do it outside the tool ;) whatever works for you, not saying there is only one right or wrong merely showing there is another way of working.

And yes Aperture has mutil machine library access as and including splitting and mobile options etc. something I do when I am on the road and merge in with the overall "server" library.
 
dejongj said:
aperture can just also do it outside the tool ;)
Click to expand...

That's part of what I'm talking about.

I only want my image librarian package dealing with the images I tell it to deal with.

I have images on my hard drive for work etc that I don't want becoming part of some other library, indexed or anything else.

With the new budget price for Aperture it will probably fit in well for most people but I would rather use LR in a more advanced way that fits in with what I want. They pretty much do the same but some of the idiosyncrasies of each package suit different people. I, for one, like layers !
 
The only problem I see with Aperture is that you are locked into using Macs. At least with Lightroom you can switch back and forth between PC and Mac with the same catalogue.

Not a problem for most but if I am travelling and need to take a particular laptop, be it Mac one day and Windows the next, I can freely do that without having to carry 2 of them about at the same time.
 
You are still misunderstanding. Probably because you don't use aperture nor how osx media browser and meta data works.

It doesn't index or integrate or anything that you don't want or haven't put in there. It provides access to one or more of your libraries and will show your photos in context of your events, projects, albums which ever way you have chosen to organise.

But hey fine by me, just giving another point of view to the op. after all you've already made your choice and sounds like you are happy with it.
 
dejongj said:
You are still misunderstanding. Probably because you don't use aperture nor how osx media browser and meta data works.
Click to expand...

I understand all about metadata etc. I wrote the photoshop bordering scripts that were widely used on TP until a few years ago and I'm responsible for the 400 tips in the MacOS tips library as well. The "not understanding" part was your English in a particular post. We all find ways to get the most out of the packages that we use and clearly you like doing it your way. LR fits in with doing it my way.

When I want to open an image I know where it is already or it gets opened from within LR. Media Browser is an irrelevance for me not something I don't understand.
 
I bought Aperture 2 with student discount & immediately got 3 as a free upgrade. Tried it for a while then switched to LR and stayed there
 
I've used Lightroom on my PC, and have LR4 beta on my Mac. I like Lightroom but IMO there's no way it's worth what they are charging when Aperture 3 cost me £45.
 
I'm using Aperture on a Mac, and found it easy to use, so stuck with it. One of the initial attractions was the supposed capability to handle video files also. Yet I found it was not well developed, and little reference was made to it in Aperture 'how to' books. I appreciate most folks do not need that feature, but I have hundreds of hours of video that I would like to catalog (I have since found a standalone app to do that - but not had time to evaluate it).

Recently, I had some issues with performance processing around 600 RAW files. I had to 'repair' the database a few times. It might have been due to a system problem, but that was the first ever problem I had using Aperture. Needing to get things processed and out quickly, I used LR and got the job done. That said, it seemed clunky after using Aperture, and I felt I was near the bottom of a learning curve.

At present, I'm toying with the idea to use LR again, mainly because its cross-platform. I'm surprised there is not an obvious way to export/import databases containing all the relevant data. Estimate I have over 100K photos - mostly not catalogued - so I'm trying to decide on the best course of action.

In the end, I think price (Aperture) will be the deciding factor.
 
I have just got a Mac so I am willing to invest in a different work flow and make the jump.

I have always used LR2 to import RAW files from my Nikon, I then use LR as a viewer to see which photos are 'keepers' that I go on to open in CS5 and edit.

I know that I am really not using it to its full potential!

Based on my requirements, which would you say is better, Ap or LR?
 
Doug said:
Based on my requirements, which would you say is better, Ap or LR?
Click to expand...

I would say either Lightroom or Aperture :)

All the LR users would probably say LR and all the Aperture users would probably say Aperture.

Why not try BOTH of them with their 30 day free trials.
 
I think that might be the best route Daz!

I fear I will stick with LR, change is scary :)
 
Your PC license for Lightroom can be carried access to your Mac (asking as you're not selling PC with Lightroom installed etc) so I'd stick with Lightroom, Aperture is cheaper, but if you already have Lightroom there's no point in paying twice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top