Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 29
  1. #1


    Member Since
    Aug 19, 2009
    Posts
    101
    Aperture 3 over iPhoto
    Whatís the benefit of having Aperture over iPhoto?

    Iím not a profession Iím just a hobby type person that likes taking family and fun pictures. I currently own a Nikon D3000 and like taking RAW and Tiff type pictures.

    Tell me why I would want to have Aperture over iPhoto?

    Thanks

  2. #2

    Deckyon's Avatar
    Member Since
    Apr 06, 2011
    Location
    Louisville, KY - USA
    Posts
    1,291
    Specs:
    MBP 17" 2011, 2.3GHz Intel Quad-Core i7, 8GB RAM, MacMini 2011, 2.7GHz Intel Dual-Core i7, 8GB RAM
    There is better management tools with Aperture. Also, the spot editing is a lot more powerfull. However, if you have access to something like Photoshop or Lightroom, they would probably be a better fit overall. I am bootcamping with Win7 and CS3, but when I want to do some spot editing without rebooting, I went ahead and got Aperture.

    First, if there is something you can't, but need, to do in iPhoto, then get Aperture. The $79 version in the Mac App store will do quite a bit for the price.
    MBP 17" 2011, 2.3GHz Intel Quad-Core i7, 8GB RAM, AMD Radeon HD 6750M 1GB RAM
    MacMini 2011, 2.7GHz Intel Dual-Core i7, 8GB RAM, AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256MB RAM
    iPhone 5S 64GB, iPad Air 2 128 GB LTE, iPod Nano Gen6 8GB, Apple TV 3 & 2

  3. #3

    BrianLachoreVPI's Avatar
    Member Since
    Feb 24, 2011
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    3,733
    Specs:
    March 2011 15" MBP 2.3GHz i7 Quad Core 8GB Ram | Mid 2011 27" iMac 3.4 GHz i7 16 GB RAM 2 TB HDD
    Because at $79 it's an absolute steal (I paid $200 for it). At the risk of having Doug B come in here and lambaste me and taking slight issue with Brad's post as IMO it will do everything Lightroom can do for the most part.

    The point is - if you're ready to graduate beyond iPhoto - then the usual candidates are Aperture or Lightroom. There are threads galore on the interwebs debating the differences.

    You also have a couple of other options like Pixelmator or Acorn - which offer a fair amount of editing features but not catalog management.

  4. #4

    BrianLachoreVPI's Avatar
    Member Since
    Feb 24, 2011
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    3,733
    Specs:
    March 2011 15" MBP 2.3GHz i7 Quad Core 8GB Ram | Mid 2011 27" iMac 3.4 GHz i7 16 GB RAM 2 TB HDD
    Doug is writing about 4 paragraphs...I can tell

  5. #5

    RavingMac's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jan 07, 2008
    Location
    In Denial
    Posts
    7,883
    Specs:
    4GB Mac Mini 2012, 13" MBA, 15" MacBook Pro OSX 10.7, 32 GB iPhone 3GS, iPad2 64gb 3G
    I like and use Aperture, and I too paid $200 for it. IMO though you would be better served by using iPhoto (free) and Adobe PSE (I got my copy thru Amazon for $49 after rebate) for additional editing power.
    If you find that you need the additional capabilities offered by Aperture (better Library management and editing) you can always upgrade later.
    I've always wanted to be smart, handsome and modest. But, I guess I'll have to be satisfied with two out of three . . .

  6. #6

    Doug b's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jun 22, 2008
    Location
    Forest Hills, NYC
    Posts
    3,343
    Specs:
    15-inch Early 2008; Processor 2.4 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo; Memory 4 GB 667 MHz DDR2 SDRAM; 10.7.5
    Quote Originally Posted by BrianLachoreVPI View Post
    Doug is writing about 4 paragraphs...I can tell
    hah..I was writing a short bit but then my interest suddenly waned for some reason. Could be the fact that I was poaching a bunch of salmon and then at the last minute screwed up a different part of dinner, causing me to do something rather rash.. chucked the whole thing in a very immature manner. (I know.. ME? Immature? stretch there eh)

    Anyway... You'll get no lambasting from me. You're right that Aperture 3 is an absolute steal at its online/App Store price. BUT... and you've already asked this, so the question needs to be answered: Is the OP finding it really necessary to go beyond what iPhoto is capable of at this point, and why?

    I can give you my own personal reasons for loathing iPhoto, but those reasons may not mean much to someone who doesn't compile thousands upon thousands of RAW images. And the next question is, to fear7950: Why do you care about shooting RAW and what are you doing with tiff files? So why exactly is it fear, that you are looking at something like Aperture? What is iPhoto not doing for you?

    As far as LR vs. Aperture goes, I of course can give good reasons for why I use and prefer the former, but only if fear asks me. I have no agenda and won't push my preferences since he didn't ask about it. I will say however, that I paid $99 for LR, and it's getting to be that one can find it at this price point a LOT, if one looks. Adobe has always had promo codes to pay this price over the years.. but lately I think they've been making those codes a lot more accessible in order to compete with Apple's pricing for Aperture.

    Doug

  7. #7

    bobtomay's Avatar
    Member Since
    Dec 22, 2006
    Location
    Texas, where else?
    Posts
    26,462
    Specs:
    15" MBP '06 2.33 C2D 4GB 10.7; 13" MBA '14 1.8 i7 8GB 10.11; 21" iMac '13 2.9 i5 8GB 10.11; 6S
    Doug, if you run across LR for $99 again without any requirements, let me know. Want it, but I can't justify $150 much less their regular price of $299 to make the jump.
    I cannot be held responsible for the things that come out of my mouth.
    In the Windows world, most everything folks don't understand is called a virus.

  8. #8


    Member Since
    Aug 19, 2009
    Posts
    101
    ok
    Quote Originally Posted by Doug b View Post
    hah..I was writing a short bit but then my interest suddenly waned for some reason. Could be the fact that I was poaching a bunch of salmon and then at the last minute screwed up a different part of dinner, causing me to do something rather rash.. chucked the whole thing in a very immature manner. (I know.. ME? Immature? stretch there eh)

    Anyway... You'll get no lambasting from me. You're right that Aperture 3 is an absolute steal at its online/App Store price. BUT... and you've already asked this, so the question needs to be answered: Is the OP finding it really necessary to go beyond what iPhoto is capable of at this point, and why?

    I can give you my own personal reasons for loathing iPhoto, but those reasons may not mean much to someone who doesn't compile thousands upon thousands of RAW images. And the next question is, to fear7950: Why do you care about shooting RAW and what are you doing with tiff files? So why exactly is it fear, that you are looking at something like Aperture? What is iPhoto not doing for you?

    As far as LR vs. Aperture goes, I of course can give good reasons for why I use and prefer the former, but only if fear asks me. I have no agenda and won't push my preferences since he didn't ask about it. I will say however, that I paid $99 for LR, and it's getting to be that one can find it at this price point a LOT, if one looks. Adobe has always had promo codes to pay this price over the years.. but lately I think they've been making those codes a lot more accessible in order to compete with Apple's pricing for Aperture.

    Doug
    Ok here it goes
    I posted this for a friend that is on the fence of buying a MacBook Air or a MacBook Pro to do some photo storage and some editing and I showed him Aperture which I use on my MacBook Pro which he asked me why I would use Aperture over iPhoto. With my Canon 40D I have always shot in RAW which I feel gives me more editing power over a larger JPG. My friend uses a Nikon D3000 which shoots RAW and TIFF. What is the difference in TIFF over RAW because Nikon can shoot in TIFF or RAW which Canon can only do RAW or JPG. I understand the RAW is the negative in which what the sensor record within the camera.

    Thanks for everyoneís input!!!

  9. #9

    Doug b's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jun 22, 2008
    Location
    Forest Hills, NYC
    Posts
    3,343
    Specs:
    15-inch Early 2008; Processor 2.4 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo; Memory 4 GB 667 MHz DDR2 SDRAM; 10.7.5
    Quote Originally Posted by bobtomay View Post
    Doug, if you run across LR for $99 again without any requirements, let me know. Want it, but I can't justify $150 much less their regular price of $299 to make the jump.
    You got it.

    Quote Originally Posted by fear7950 View Post
    Ok here it goes
    I posted this for a friend that is on the fence of buying a MacBook Air or a MacBook Pro to do some photo storage and some editing and I showed him Aperture which I use on my MacBook Pro which he asked me why I would use Aperture over iPhoto. With my Canon 40D I have always shot in RAW which I feel gives me more editing power over a larger JPG. My friend uses a Nikon D3000 which shoots RAW and TIFF. What is the difference in TIFF over RAW because Nikon can shoot in TIFF or RAW which Canon can only do RAW or JPG. I understand the RAW is the negative in which what the sensor record within the camera.

    Thanks for everyone’s input!!!
    Ok, so this is for your friend and not you. Forget about tiff, it's not something you or your friend want to work with. The file sizes are HUGE and practically useless for average consumers. Most if not all pro labs request jpgs for printing, so it's not a matter of needing a lossless file there.. a common misconception. Where a tiff file is necessary is in the art of high-quality forensics photography combined with image authentication.

    If you shoot NEF and then export to JPEG or TIFF you will invalidate the authentication. In order to maintain the IA with a lossless high-quality photo, you would need to use TIFF from the camera. So now, unless you guys find that relevant to your shooting, I'd suggest forgetting about tiff. Be my guest and do further research if you need more to convince you.

    Furthermore, I'd say that for 98% of the people out there, shooting RAW is kind of a waste of time and money. Waste of time, because shooting RAW means ALWAYS having to fine tune the image. ALWAYS. A RAW file is simply data, nothing more. It is not an image. A RAW file consists of the data directly recorded from the sensor plus.. usually two .jpg images. One for the camera's lcd and one slightly larger file. The larger jpg image is actually processed by your camera's hardware (yes, hardware not software) and utilizes some of the settings that you have defined in the menu system.

    This jpg can even be extracted and used for most things (not for print though I'm thinking) like web publishing or soft proofing. There are a few apps out there which will extract said jpg's from RAW files and are very useful.

    Then of course, there is the jpg file that YOU have set all of the parameters for. In your camera's menu system, you'll see options for how the jpg should render. The resolution, compression rate (fine, extra fine etc..) saturation, contrast, sharpness etc.. Now here's the important part. It's up to the shooter to figure out what combination of these settings is going to produce the look he or she is after. Do you want your images to be true to the scene (most do)? Of course, one can always mess with some of these settings afterwards in post processing BUT.. the point is to try and save time and not have to. So that's why it's important to try and get things right when shooting!

    There's only one setting that is absolutely vital (IMO) and which has a limited amount of play in post processing. That's white balance. It's very important to get the white balance right the first time, and since light is always changing (unless you're in a controlled environment) it's important to remember to tell your camera what is happening lighting wise. Most pro's use a grey card in order to set a custom white balance and they are really handy to have with you. All you do is set the card next to what you're shooting, and then tell your camera that you're testing the white balance and it will do the rest.

    Some camera's do a better job at guessing the lighting than others so YMMV. When outside, it's usually said that the "cloudy" setting is best for most camera's. I find that auto does great for my D300 so again, YMMV.

    There's the waste of time part of it, unless you need me to clarify anything. The waste of money part is pretty obvious. The bigger the file sizes you have, the more storage space will be used up. Obviously then, you'll have to get more external storage space in a shorter amount of time. Now, unless you're a fine art photographer, or are just someone who likes to tinker with individual photos in order to achieve a very specific look (which I'll admit, I do a lot.. I find it fun and creative.), I'd say that shooting RAW is quite unnecessary.

    This isn't always a very popular viewpoint, but it's logical and extremely true. Here's an example of why it's better to get it right in the camera and not have to futz around in post processing:

    You're working for a newspaper and covering a baseball game. The paper needs those shots before any other paper.. and you go to the press box, and start uploading your RAW files to the editor.. Guess what? You're so fired! They don't deal with RAW data. Slow to work with and lack the look which is important to have when printing since the print process already diminishes some of the luster. What the paper needs is small files that are already processed. There are a ton of examples which follow this precept.

    That said, I can see only one reason to ditch iPhoto (which is free) to get Aperture or LR. Ok.. maybe two. The first reason being that the way it handles its database is rather cludgy. It wastes a ton of space with stupid "versions" of each photo. Also, after importing photos, the only sense that the structure makes, is from within the GUI. Take that out of the equation, and you're left with an absolutely nonsensical barrage of stupidly named and placed folders with "versions" all over the place. Not very nice at all, should you have chosen to not back your photos up somewhere in a hierarchical manner.

    I'd say that iPhoto is good for anybody who knows to back up their stuff and doesn't care about the things I mentioned. Now... the thing about Aperture, is that it carries over some of iPhoto's stupid behavior. And that's part of why I don't care for it. (though not the main reason) Aperture also tends to create "versions", though you can turn this "feature off". What you can't turn off (or I can't find where you can if so) is something really weird. When you create masks or layers (such as vignette's) these things are stored as separate tiff files in their own folder. And I really don't understand the purpose of doing this. In LR, what happens is that all data is written to either a side car file (xmp) which is only a set of instructions and takes up no space or can be written directly to a .dng file. The latter method is a ton more efficient.

    Anyway.. Aperture is great if you're looking to go beyond iPhoto.

    Doug

  10. #10


    Member Since
    Apr 20, 2010
    Posts
    472
    Specs:
    21.5 iMac 3.06 ghz 12gb ram 500g HD iPad 2 16G
    I appreciate the heck out of a post like that...for a relative photog. noob ( like myself ). Thanks man.

  11. #11

    Doug b's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jun 22, 2008
    Location
    Forest Hills, NYC
    Posts
    3,343
    Specs:
    15-inch Early 2008; Processor 2.4 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo; Memory 4 GB 667 MHz DDR2 SDRAM; 10.7.5
    Quote Originally Posted by codda View Post
    I appreciate the heck out of a post like that...for a relative photog. noob ( like myself ). Thanks man.
    Ha.. my fingers say thanks for getting something out of it.

    Doug

    P.S. When someone uploads a RAW file to an iPad... the image being seen is not the RAW file. It is the .jpg file which resides IN the RAW file. People argue that the iPad is able to handle RAW files, which is in fact false. If this were true, it would be able to edit any RAW file as well and then extract a separate jpg file. My point being that it's silly to think there's a benefit to shooting RAW when uploading directly to the iPad for viewing purposes. This is a totally different issue than using a RAW file to achieve a specific look later on.

    Soft proofing with a client that you're shooting with on an iPad is great, but my advice would be to shoot BOTH RAW and Jpg in that case. Othewise, if it's just for leisure then I'd say save the time and space and money.

  12. #12

    fleurya's Avatar
    Member Since
    Nov 18, 2006
    Location
    Anytown, USA
    Posts
    4,932
    Specs:
    27" iMac 2.7GHz Core i5, iPhone 6, iPad Air 2, 4th gen Apple TV
    Lots of great info in the thread, Doug. Thanks for sharing!

    BTW, if you happen to come across one of those LR promos, please email me or post to the forum!
    "Give so much time to the improvement of yourself that you have no time to criticize others"

  13. #13

    BrianLachoreVPI's Avatar
    Member Since
    Feb 24, 2011
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    3,733
    Specs:
    March 2011 15" MBP 2.3GHz i7 Quad Core 8GB Ram | Mid 2011 27" iMac 3.4 GHz i7 16 GB RAM 2 TB HDD
    Really nice post!! Your hands must need a rest right now - but then they're not as delicate or beautiful as mine - so not as big a deal

  14. #14

    Doug b's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jun 22, 2008
    Location
    Forest Hills, NYC
    Posts
    3,343
    Specs:
    15-inch Early 2008; Processor 2.4 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo; Memory 4 GB 667 MHz DDR2 SDRAM; 10.7.5
    Quote Originally Posted by BrianLachoreVPI View Post
    Really nice post!! Your hands must need a rest right now - but then they're not as delicate or beautiful as mine - so not as big a deal
    It's all good. Just took another long walk (not 8 miles though ) so I'm properly refreshed.

    And yes. If I come across another LR promo for that price I'll be sure to post a new thread for it in this forum.

    Doug

    Edit: You can get LR3 directly from Adobe for less than $99 if you're a student or an educator. You just need proper ID/proof that you work in a school or are a student.

  15. #15


    Member Since
    May 12, 2011
    Posts
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by bobtomay View Post
    Doug, if you run across LR for $99 again without any requirements, let me know. Want it, but I can't justify $150 much less their regular price of $299 to make the jump.
    see if this works.....

    Dear Amazon.com Customer,

    Customers who have shown an interest in digital imaging software at Amazon.com might like to know about this offer exclusive to Adobe Photoshop Elements owners:

    Now through May 14, 2011, use code AUXG-J9FVFH-BDJBYG to save $200 off the list price on Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 3--that's 67% off the list price of $299. Simply enter the code at checkout to see savings. Limit one redemption per customer.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. iPhoto---->Aperture (?)
    By microsnook in forum Images, Graphic Design, and Digital Photography
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-14-2011, 04:20 AM
  2. iPhoto and Aperture
    By Dilbert123 in forum Images, Graphic Design, and Digital Photography
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-28-2010, 11:41 AM
  3. iphoto to Aperture 3
    By loothapub in forum Images, Graphic Design, and Digital Photography
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-19-2010, 01:21 PM
  4. Aperture 3 from iPhoto
    By CandyManzCuzin in forum OS X - Apps and Games
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-09-2010, 09:30 AM
  5. iPhoto and Aperture
    By (a)ndy in forum Images, Graphic Design, and Digital Photography
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-18-2006, 04:28 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •