Photoshop elements, aperture, or lightroom?

So, I just got a new 17" Mbp, core i5 moving from windows 7. I'm a photo hobbyist, but my image editing has remained in the organizing and basic editing areas of photoshop elements and picasa. I'd like to take my skills to the next level, pick a program and learn to use it in depth. Aperture and lightroom seem to be a matter of preference, but I'm not sure of what they offer in comparison to Photoshop elements. Given their prices, I assume that aperture and lightroom are more capable, but from reading various reviews, I'm not sure of how they're more capable because they're compared to each other typically.

I lean toward lightroom because I've read that aperture is a resource hog. I guess what I'm asking is: what does lightroom offer over Photoshop elements? Or are they fundamentally different programs that should be used in conjunction? I can afford either one, but I would like to focus my time and learning investment in one program for now. I hope that this isn't too confusing of a question.

Thank you!

I've been a photographer for 25+ yrs, Photoshop user for 12+, digital shooter for 10, using RAW exclusively for 7.
I think lightroom is the best software ever. I rarely even use Photoshop anymore. That said if you're not shooting RAW (you should) neither LR nor Aperture is for you.

I have been using Aperture for a few months now and it is working well for me. Can't compare to Lightroom, but from all I've heard I'm sure I could live happily with it as well.

I use Photoshop Elements and Aperture 3.0. Still learning both.
For me the advantage of Aperture over iPhoto is being able to handle multiple libraries. The reason I chose it over Lightroom was personal preference in file handling, and the fact it was $100 cheaper than Lightroom. I am sufficiently gullible in reading othersnposts to believe that Lightroom is a more powerful/better App. It just wasn't what I wanted.
Adobe PSE is relatively cheap and can be used stand-alone or as an accessory to Aperture.

My advice would be to download the free trials for both and see if either is right for you.

Gern Blanston said:

are they fundamentally different programs that should be used in conjunction?

Click to expand...

Yes. They're different programs.

Since you've said you wanna move to the next level, I'm going to assume you'll be shooting in RAW from now on.

Lightroom's image processing is geared towards making your workflow more efficient. If you shoot lots of pictures, LR makes life easier by allowing you to develop one picture and then apply the same settings to a group of them. Now, when I say "shoot lots" I don't mean making pictures of many different subjects, in that case, this particular feature I just mentioned is pretty useless; I mean shooting the same subject more than once, which is common practice in a shoot: I lock onto a subject and then shoot burst, or take several pictures under the same light conditions. Thus, I need work on a picture once and then just do batch processing with the rest.

LR is also better at organising your picture library; being aimed at pros and semi-pros, it's more concerned with an efficient workflow than with E-mail this or that, upload that one, make prints of this other one (it DOES all of those things too, but with better options and capabilities).

Now, Photoshop and its smaller sibling Elements, are not aimed at photo library organising (although Elements comes with a feature that does this, and PS comes with Bridge which can do this and more). These programs are geared towards editing pictures individually, not as a batch. They also go beyond the developing capabilities of LR and let you apply filters, transformations, effects, paint on the picture, blend two or more pictures into one, and the list goes on.

LR and PS are like a man and a woman: they're not designed to compete against each other, but to complement each other, sharing their individual strengths to make up for their individual limitations.

, LR makes life easier by allowing you to develop one picture and then apply the same settings to a group of them

Click to expand...

this isn't LR specific. This is one of the many benefits of RAW in general. Any sw with a file browser & access to RAW should do this.

Yes, such as ACR, which comes with PS and is the same engine that LR uses. LR just provides you with a better interface and, more importantly, a database to store all those changes; along with way more output (print, screen, and web) options that you can get from any of the weaker programs.

Aperture 3 is a resource hog, though, unlike LR. I have a late 2009 MBP with 2.53GHz Intel Core2Duo and 4GB RAM; and I am not a fan of seeing the beachball every time I do exposure adjustments in Aperture. For h/w and s/w from the same company, they should work best together, alas. However, I absolutely love the multiple libraries, smart albums feature and the cool workflow.

ACDSee Pro for Mac (when finished).

I've been using exclusively Photoshop for a few years now and loved the Camera Raw package... but decided to give the trials of Aperture and Lightroom a go. Aperture was ok but a little sluggish and convoluted compared to Lightroom. I've now started using Lightroom to process ALL my photos and then move to Photoshop if I need to do something a bit more than what LR allows (rare...)

So... Lightroom comes highly recommended from me.

I would say both Photoshop AND Lightroom. As Fodge pointed out, LR is a WONDERFUL program, however, there are still some things that LR simply can't do, that are in PS. Healing/Cloning is SO much better in PS than in LR.

However, changing colors, exposure, filtering, is MUCH easier and quicker in LR.

I use both in tandem with each other.

Just my two cents...

Another LR user here. Part because of personal preference, part because of how I have found LR to handle editing and library management better than Aperture and definitely partially because Aperture doesn't seem to play well with the OS it was designed on and for, very well IMO.

However, if I read correctly this past week, iLife 11 has seen to update Aperture a bit and from what I can remember, it might have received a boost in performance because of it. Can anyone confirm whether or not this is true ? I'm specifically aiming this question towards Aperture users who were bold enough to admit that they were experiencing problems and were awaiting fixes. Not those who either weren't experiencing any issues (perhaps those who don't do extensive editing or who have small libraries).

Not that I've any need or want to try Aperture again, I love LR3 to death (noise reduction in general is worth getting it for if you didn't already own or love LR), I'm just curious.

Doug