Oh my. I wish I could tell you that Aperture loaded library's faster than LR. This is so not the case however. Aperture has only one thing going for it that LR doesn't, but you have Photoshop, so this is a moot point. Cloning, and that's it. Aperture uses a seemingly similar algorithm to what is found in Photoshop Elements, kind of a smart cloning, using the pixels closest to the object desired to be cloned out.
But please do yourself a favor unless you absolutely hate LR, and that is save yourself the headache. I always re-try Aperture every 6 months or so, just to see if there are any improvements, but there are never enough to sway me.
Lightroom may not have the same cloning tool, but I have both CS6 (which I really never use) as well as Elements. You can export your LR edits as smart objects in Photoshop and this makes management very easy. You can not do this with Aperture.
I also am very biased towards the LR workflow. I hate Aperture's file management, and the whole "master file" nonsense. It's a wasteful mess, and not necessary IMO. But of course you have to yield to the whole iPhoto/Aperture database management theme, so little choice on the users part, I'm afraid.
I love that in LR I can just tell it where my photos reside (external drive) and it simply sees the folder hierarchy and doesn't try to impose a silly "album" or "project" label to anything. I create the parent folders (in OR out of LR) and it just works as I see fit.
Technically speaking, LR also has MUCH better noise reduction and sharpening algorithm than Aperture. These things are very important IMO. Also, Aperture doesn't have lens correction profiles which can be a very big deal for a lot of photographers.
You show me any photograph that has been edited with Aperture, and I guarantee that I can get it to look exactly as it does using LR to edit instead. Minus any smart cloning of course, unless you tell me I can use Elements, which I would anyway.
I do still love Apertures interface. That's the one thing I've always thought it had an edge over LR with. I don't care about full screen editing though, it's not as big a deal as you'd think, since you're still working on the same amount of pixels. It's not as if the photo will encompass the entire screen at once...
But hey, like has been said. Aperture is cheap as heck, so if you'd like to try it, why not? If you don't have a lot invested with your LR/PS workflow, go for it.
Doug
Edit: Mistook loading photos for library's. I've got an late 2008 15" MacBook Pro with 4 gigs of RAM. Import using a cruddy ol' Sandisk multi card reader and it goes straight to my main external HD. It's not the most speedy way to do things, but I don't find it dog slow, either. I import to medium quality previews at 1440 pixels. I allocate 10 gigs of HD space on my Mac for pre caching. This makes a big difference depending upon the system you're on. I honestly can't wait until I get my new iMac. 27" i7 most likely and will start with 16 gigs of RAM and a Fusion drive. I'll probably also save for an external Thunder Bolt drive. Ooooh will that be sweet!
