Lightroom 2 VS Apple Aperture?

Discussion in 'Retouching and Post Processing' started by wgilles, Aug 1, 2008.

  1. wgilles

    wgilles

    Apr 25, 2008
    NJ
    There are numerous threads about LR VS Aperture. But seeing as LR2 is out now I was wondering if the new version warrants a change from Aperture to LR2? Any opinions on the issue, new features, etc?
     
  2. wbeem

    wbeem

    Feb 11, 2007
    Sanford, FL
    William Beem
    If LightRoom 2.o has a feature that you can't live without, then go for it. However, most (not all) of LR 2 seems to catch up with some features that Aperture 2.x recently introduced. There are features in both products that are missing in the other. LR 2.0 also has a more structured workflow that may or may not be to your liking.

    My suggestion is to download the trial version and run through it. See if you like the way it works, the feature set, and the 3rd party support for it.

    In my case, there is not enough of a difference between the two products to warrant a $300 price to switch. Also, I have some plugins for Aperture that either do not exist or may require additional purchase to replace them. The value isn't there for me, even if I do like some of the LR 2 feature set.

    So how do you make up your mind if it's worth the upgrade? Here's a list stolen from Scott Kelby's blog:

    http://www.scottkelby.com/blog/2008/archives/1739#more-1739

    1: Are the new features things I can and will really use?
    2: Does it makes me work faster and more efficiently?
    3: Is it a step forward in the evolution of the product?
    4: Is it much better than the previous version?
    5: Is it more fun than the last version (digital imaging is supposed to be fun!)
     
  3. I have both. Aperture is still my main choice
     
  4. jfrancis

    jfrancis

    May 8, 2005
    Orlando, FL
    I have both. LR is still my main choice :smile:
     
  5. wbeem

    wbeem

    Feb 11, 2007
    Sanford, FL
    William Beem

    Yes, but you're British and drive on the wrong side of the road.
     
  6. Micky

    Micky

    190
    Feb 29, 2008
    Vermont
    I have both also. LR2 is my choice, but plug-ins work with Aperture.
     
  7. wgilles

    wgilles

    Apr 25, 2008
    NJ
    I think I'll end up staying with Aperture, simple because all of my modified RAW files are in there and I don't feel like redoing 2000+ pictures.
     
  8. I have both, and i really havent bothered using aperture 2 in quite a while.

    I use LR as a browser and sorting module. I still hate the fact it makes edits of my files if you open them up in cs3 within LR. I dont want LR to clutter up my hd with edit files...
     
  9. jfrancis

    jfrancis

    May 8, 2005
    Orlando, FL
    Version 2 no longer does that unless you save the changes in PS.
     
  10. Ditto
     
  11. Whoohoo!! Your right!(just tried that) i assumed it wasnt changed due to the settings in the preference panel....:rolleyes:

    [​IMG]

    Thanx for that John!

    Looks like the upgrade was more then worth it. And no more "show in finder"
     
  12. I have both and now prefer Lightroom.
     
  13. jfrancis

    jfrancis

    May 8, 2005
    Orlando, FL
    You're welcome. A big plus in this version. Now if Adobe would give us book layout (like Aperture) and greatly enhance the slideshow feature, I would be a very happy camper.
     
  14. Matthias

    Matthias

    300
    Apr 13, 2007
    Central Texas
    I saw David Jay give a presentation on LR2 and it was amazing on how Lightroom makes adjustments to your files on an as need basis. He says that it now takes him 2 hours to edit a wedding (on the computer time). The presets view function by simply moving your cursor over it is simply awesome.

    Just my 2 cents - and yes I still use Aperture.
     
  15. jfrancis

    jfrancis

    May 8, 2005
    Orlando, FL
    The #1 reason I switched to LR.
     
  16. mdirvin

    mdirvin

    230
    Jan 30, 2007
    East TN
    I think if you are satisfied with what you have then don't switch. It will always be tit-for-tat. Next will be Aperture 2.5, then LR 2.5, then Aperture 3, then LR 3.0. Each jumping a little ahead of the other. Jumping back and forth for each incremental improvement will drive you crazy.

    Mike
     
  17. wgilles

    wgilles

    Apr 25, 2008
    NJ
    You are definitely right, I have been using LR2 since I posted this and like the way it works. I started out using Camera RAW a while back and really liked the way it processed my photos, and seeing as LR2 uses a beefed up version of Camera RAW I think I might just migrate over to LR2 all the way. I still am doing some testing with my new pictures, but I will be moving some of the older ones over to see how it works.

    Another thing holding me back from switching back to Aperture is the wide spread support for everything Adobe. I went on Lynda.com to check out some tutorials on CS3 and just wanted to check out the LR and Aperture tutorials. The Aperture tutorial is, for lack of a better word, crap. The LR2 tutorials are much more involved and informative. It just seems to me that everything from books to videos is all Adobe. Because I am new to the Post processing scene, tutorials and help is a big discussing point when deciding what software to use. I will continue my testing and see what works.
     
  18. One plus for LR2 currently is the ability to "paint brush" adjustments (exposure, sharpening and a few others) on selected parts of the image. With Aperture, to do that you have to use an external editor (or plug in), leaving the non-destructive world for the whole export-as-tiff-edit-save-as-new-version thing. Example, "eye pop" to add sharpening just around the eyes on a portrait. Easy in LR2, kludgy in Aperture.

    I'm sure aperture will add more paint-brush editing to compete... as they have a some "regional" edit tools like the healing brush already. Ideally, I'd like to see the ability to apply any edit regionally (noise reduction, sharpening, levels and curves, saturation, etc.) with a paint brush or lasso or other selection tool, in Aperture.... Like you can do now in Capture NX2 (or NX).

    Regards,
    PG
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 20, 2008
  19. wgilles

    wgilles

    Apr 25, 2008
    NJ
    One thing I don't think anyone has brought up yet...does either program have a better "image quality?" By that I mean, if you were to make the same adjustments, as best as they could be made between programs, would they both come out looking the same or would one be better looking than the other?