I did a side by side comparison last night, editing the same images in both Aperture 3.3, and also in LR 4.1 (yeah…I did go out and buy it - detect a slight bit of buyers remorse there).
First, I think one of Aperture's main advantages over LR is its organization. A LOT easier and definitely a lot more logical than how LR is set up. Organizing by project (which I think was one of Chase Jarvis' main features) makes a lot more sense than the mess that LR4 creates. Beyond that, the retouching brushes in Aperture are easier to use vs. LR (which basically requires going into PS to do any real retouching). Also, I personally have concerns about the quality of the books produced by Blurb (I've read a number of posts and reviews regarding this).
As to the side by side comparison, overall, I could produce the same results in Aperture as I could in LR4. However, images that had deep shadows with blown highlights (I used the image on page 175 of Scott Kelby's LR4 book for this), Aperture couldn't achieve the same results. For kicks, I opened the same file in PS CS6, and could achieve the same results as I did in LR4.
LR4 has lots more available presets, and lots of available instruction (perhaps 'cuz it has a steeper learning curve than Aperture?), but overall, Aperture just seems to be a whole bunch more user friendly.
Anyone else running into similar observations, or the temptation to switch because everyone else is doing it? Yeah…I'm waffling a bit. Appreciate any thoughts/guidance.
Thank you for the review. I agree with you the interface of Aperture is way better. And that is a big deal for me. For me its Aperture and PS. I don’t need LR
davidbmoore@mac.com
Twitter= @davidbmoore
Scottsdale AZ
Charles,
I am on the opposite end of this Aperture vs Lightroom spectrum ….
I have been using Lr as my main workflow solution since the very first public beta … overall I like Lr, I am very familiar with how it works and have been pleased with the results … When Aperture was offered for $80 on the Mac App Store … I could not resist but there are issues with Adobe products as much as there is with Apple products …
I have been studying, practicing with Aperture since I purchased it about a year ago … but I still use Lr for 90% of my client based workflow … I use Aperture mostly for books and slideshows … I’ve been waiting for the other shoe to drop since Lr 4 was offered (I used the public beta and trial of the final release for Lr4 … but have not yet purchased the upgrade) … I’m still holding out hopes that Apple is going to offer more than v3.3 … hopefully soon … I really want to move to Aperture, just waiting to see if something more is headed our way before I take the plunge …
Lightroom has always offered a pretty good RAW processing pipeline … I have no issue there … I love the idea I can create custom color profiles for all of my cameras … but to have to create a tiff or psd file EVERY time I need to retouch a stray hair in a portrait or wedding photo is ridiculous … Aperture is FAR superior in that respect … Also Lr was claimed to be developed as a “complete workflow solution” … while I don’t mind going to Ps for some heavy lifting … Lightroom lacks considerably much from a smooth workflow solution …
The Slideshow module is a complete joke compared to Aperture … no timeline, one transition style, only a single audio track can be used … and the Book module is so limited and bug ridden that it can be a total exercise in futility … while I have no issues with Blurb or their business model, Why would I want a tool to create books that any of my clients can do for themselves? At least with Aperture, I can create custom page sizes on the fly, export to jpeg or pdf and have my books printed by ANY vendor I choose … can’t do that in Lr … sure they just now offered save page to jpeg, and have always been able to export books to pdf … only problem is … the pages are in the Blurb page dimensions … not what YOUR vendor may need … Now there has been word that there will be a method to create custom templates and custom page sizes … but the user will have to do all that leg work themselves, using application outside of Lightroom!
Want to shoot tethered in Lr? It’s more akin to Russian Roulette … it’s a constant moving target as to what will work, for how long and with what combination of camera, hardware and OS … even when Adobe lists your combination as supported … I’ve only shot tethered with Aperture three jobs … not one glitch …
As I have said before … when leaning on the fence the grass can always look greener on the other side … but once you have mown that other lawn and pulled the weeds a few times … you soon discover some imperfections and problem spots … though unlike Scott Bourne … I’m not going to make any ultimatums and hold my breath until my face turns blue just to get what I want … I’ll just bide my time and adjust as needed based upon what transpires …
Now if we could just pull all the best features and designs from both and combine them in one tool … ahhh nirvana …
Butch =- some great points that I forgot (i.e. Slideshow). A friend went to the Kelby Training seminar for LR4, and Matt admits that the Slideshow and Web modules…basically suck. They apparently haven’t been updated since they were introduced.
Appreciated your insights on the book issues too. Didn’t realize the lack of customization with LR4 and Blub.
And…your point on the retouching brushes is something I forgot to mention. I’ve actually found that Aperture’s retouching abilities can even surpass what can be done in Photoshop.
Over on the Lr forums … every time you complain about Slideshow, Web or Book modules falling short of expectations … you get a litany of responses from other users about how they don’t ever use them and we should stop complaining as it takes away resources for the Develop module (ACR) … I look at it this way … Adobe included the modules, I paid for ALL the modules … I would expect having done so that they live up to useful worthiness to take up my precious HD space to have them on hand … for if all I needed was a RAW processor … I would only actually need Adobe Camera RAW and Ps … Lr is overkill if all you do is RAW conversions …
Butch, you made some good points. I am not going to make a comparison between LR4.1 and Aperture 3.3 because I have not used LR4 other than a quick try of LR4 Beta.
One of the main reasons I have not looked closely at LR4 is because it just does not have the Retouch Repair and Clone brush that Aperture has. I do not often edit outside of Aperture and PS only gets used when I get into some heavy editing. This means that nearly all my files remain as the original RAW file and that I do not have to create extra files that take up even more space on my hard drive.
I also recently created a slideshow in Aperture for a client. They were very happy with it and I managed to do it with no previous experience of creating slideshows. Glad I had Aperture for that job!
Having said all of that, If I ever decide to drop Aperture I would have to export all my RAW files to another format to keep the edits. I shudder at the thought.
As I have said here before, we all use these things in different ways. I have never produced a book or a print from Aperture and I have had it since the original release.
But then, I have never produced a book or a print from any other software either. All photographers have different needs. I shoot commercial work and my clients never want prints - just digital files. A portrait or wedding photographer on the other hand would probably want that facility.
Horses for courses. Mind you - I am still awaiting RAW support for my excellent Fujifilm X-Pro 1 in Aperture, which ACR has now got.
Marcus,
it’s a workaround, but not necessarily a bad one.
Grant
What I’m finding so far, is that for about 90-95% of the images, I can achieve the same results in both Aperture and LR. For those 5-10%, which are usually either very high contrast images (deep shadows, almost totally blown highlights), LR’s updated Develop module excels with these. Here’s the thing - the same controls that are in LR4, are also in ACR in PS CS6. The potential workflow that I’m looking at is, for these tough images, do the initial work in ACR, save it as a PSD, and then reimport it into Aperture.
Where I’m finding Aperture excels is in the organization, retouching, things noted above. I’m also finding that LR4 is EXTREMELY dependent upon PS CS6. Yeah - I do really like some of LR’s features - updated Develop module, lens correction, ability to create custom camera profiles (that’s a discussion in and of itself as to how worthwhile camera profiles are). Yes, I do have the PTLens plug-in for lens correction (or…flip the image to PS CS6 and fix it there).
My plan is to continue to compare both until Mountain Lion is release and then choose. My bent is to stick with Aperture mostly because its image organization (i.e. Projects) just kick’s LR4’s behind all over the place.
I too absolutely love Aperture. I do 100% of my single stills workflow on Aperture. I download to it, do all editing all sharing with friends or clients and send to storage from one app, its amazing.
My only complaint is the lack of support from the photography community. It’s sooo much easier to get help with LR. This one thing and because I can’t include a color checker passport into my workflow, and because I got LR free now with creative cloud are the only reasons I’m considering LR seriously for the first time.
Wonderful news. Have been waiting a long, long time for iPhoto/Aperture library sharing to be able to use the best of both programs!! LR will seem clunky by comparison.
Just waiting for the kinks to be worked out.
Only problem right now is the lack of ‘community support’ mentioned above. Would love to be able to hire additional post help but most photo grads are only trained in LR. Hopefully, as more grads buy their own MACS they’ll fall in love with Aperture.