iPhoto replacement - Aperture vs. Lightroom

Joined
Nov 26, 2012
Messages
1,035
Reaction score
22
Points
38
Location
Agusan del Norte, Philippines
Your Mac's Specs
L2012 Mini, i7 2.6Ghz, 8GB RAM, 256GB SSD + 1TB HDD(fusion), BenQ 32" 2.5k QHD Display
About Lr file structure..

It only puts the files in the place you want, it only places them in there the way you want.
You have full and complete control over every aspect of how Lightroom handles files. If you are not happy with the way it stores them, then simply change it I'm the Import Module. You have full control over File Handling, File Renaming, Destination and complete control over how it organizes them under Destination (where, when and how)..

I know everyone has their preference. I just can not see how having options to change something the way you see fit is a bad thing..
 
Joined
Jul 9, 2011
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Points
1
I've been using Aperture for a few years and I must say I don't like it. It is clunky and slow, but then my Mac is old. I used iPhoto but found it frustrating because I would notice photos were missing and when I drilled down to the folder I expected them to be in they would be there. I would re-add them to iphoto and then they would appear in there twice. Aperture behaves similarly
I have just switched to Lightroom and it seems to be far superior. To be fair to Aperture, its image manipulation capabilities are good but its organisational capabilities leave a lot to be desired. I also found the Archive annoying. When I do a backup I want to be able to check that it has been successful. Aperture's archive does not make it easy to do this. It also scares me when I do ask to update the archive and it says "Are you sure? This will replace your existing archive" and I think NO I don't want you to do that, I want you to add to it!
I have always found Aperture to be a bit unstable but despite that, I have bought it twice (v2 and v3) because I couldn't afford the alternative at the time I.E. Photoshop
I think that the best solution if you do choose Aperture is to keep the photo library referenced so you can share it with iPhoto which has much nicer organisational features
 
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
26
Reaction score
4
Points
3
Location
Treasure Valley, ID
Your Mac's Specs
MacBook Pro 14" M3 Pro, iPhone 14 Pro, MacPro 2009
. . . . . The way LR uses their files/folders is just down right BAD, and there is no continuity to it, no logical way of sorting, its a abomination . . .

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Can you explain what you mean by 'no logical way of sorting'? I think with Lightroom you can sort pretty much anyway you want.
 
Joined
May 19, 2009
Messages
8,428
Reaction score
295
Points
83
Location
Waiting for a mate . . .
Your Mac's Specs
21" iMac 2.9Ghz 16GB RAM - 10.11.3, iPhone6s & iPad Air 2 - iOS 9.2.1, ATV 4Th Gen tvOS, ATV3
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Can you explain what you mean by 'no logical way of sorting'? I think with Lightroom you can sort pretty much anyway you want.

To put it simply, Aperture is a Managed Library (or you can choose Referenced). But as a managed Library, all you Photos are in 1 place, in the aperture.lib . . . . Simple and effective.

To expand on this, the organisation of setting a Project and then having a defending file structure Project>Folder>Album . . . And as I said above, being a Managed Library its all in one place, making it easier to look for a image through Finder.
As well :
  • When it comes to storing your original image files (RAW, JPG, TIFF,), Aperture offers two options: referenced and managed. Referenced is similar to Lightroom, where your images live in folders on the hard drive, and the library/catalog simply references their paths. With this approach, you always have direct access to the image files and can browse the folder structure using the Finder.

    Managed, on the other hand, moves your original images into the Aperture library so you don’t have to maintain separate folders. While both approaches have benefits, I prefer the Managed option, which is unique to Aperture. It shields me from doing any file management and the cognitive load of folders cluttering up my hard drive. All I see in the Finder is a single “.aplibrary” file. That “file” (technically a package) contains everything Aperture needs — my original files, edited versions, metadata, post-processing edits, keywords etc. There are no XMP “sidecar” files, versioned JPGs, TIFFs or anything anywhere else on my Mac, which helps keep things simple. It also makes backing up relatively straightforward because there’s only one “file” to worry about.
    .
  • The contents of your Aperture library can be browsed when you’re browsing for photos in any Mac app.
    .
  • This file system integration is automatic and just works. You can directly use your photos in any app (Apple or 3rd party) without exporting them out of Aperture first
    .
  • You can access your photos from the Desktop and Screen Saver System Preferences
    (With Lightroom, you first have to export photos out as JPEGs, and store them into some temporary folder before using them in other apps. This creates clutter and requires file management, which I would rather avoid.)
    .
  • iTunes can automatically sync your Aperture library with an iPad and iPhone. You can either sync the entire library, or selected projects, albums and even smart (dynamic) albums. There are no intermediate steps required.
    (iTunes also does some intelligent RAW to JPG conversion so that a couple hundred gigs of my Aperture library (over 5,500 photos) somehow magically fits comfortably on my 32 GB iPad)
    .
  • I can easily watch any of my images on my TV via Apple TV and Airplay straight from the Photos Widget and is great when your showing a client (They love to see there images on a 55" LED HDTV) or you have the family around for a get together.

All in all, as posted above, I would love the Aperture File system and the LR Develop Module and that would be a perfect App for me. But it says it all in the top most item in the list . . . Managed Library
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
26
Reaction score
4
Points
3
Location
Treasure Valley, ID
Your Mac's Specs
MacBook Pro 14" M3 Pro, iPhone 14 Pro, MacPro 2009
Thank you much for the in-depth explanation, as I've never used Aperture so all this was new information to me.
 
Joined
May 29, 2010
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
Points
1
Photo replacement-Aperure verses Lightroom.

Both programmes run at the same speed. It depends on how you want to process your pictures. I prefer Aperture. I take lots of photos but make very few basic adjustments. If you are really into playing around and altering pictures then Lightroom is a more advanced programme, which is of course easy when you get used to it.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 20, 2013
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Points
1
I prefer Lightroom over iPhoto

kliles,

I too struggled with iPhoto and have recently moved over to Lightroom, with no regrets. Here is my process, I hope it helps you to make an informed decision. I'm a hobbyist photographer, and take the organization of my photo memories very seriously.

Research: I watched lots of free YouTube videos on Lightroom photo importing and organization, BEFORE downloading the program. My favorites are:

Lightroom vs. iPhoto: I think LR is far superior to iPhoto, just in photo organization. Add in all of LR's additional features, and it was a smart move for me.

Importing 70,000 Images: I had over 65,000 images I had organized in a Windows-only program, and have wanted to get away from using any Windows-only programs if I can help it. I exported my images from that program, and keywords were kept intact. Yay! I had also accumulated over 6,000 images from using iPhoto less than a year. I have now imported all of my images into LR, and it was easy work. I downloaded LR's trial just two weeks ago and am grinding away at sorting through my images, deleting duplicates or unwanted photos, adding/changing keywords, etc. I'm a hobbyist photographer, and my photos mean everything to me.

Download Free 30-Day Trial: Download LR for free, and try it out! Make sure it's going to work for you!

How Lightroom Catalogs Work: Adobe Website
"A catalog is a database that stores a record for each of your photos. This record contains three key pieces of information about each photo:
• A reference to where the photo is on your system
• Instructions for how you want to process the photo
• Metadata, such as ratings and keywords that you apply to photos to help you find or organize them"

Database: LR is simply a database that stores a record of your photo's location on your computer. Changes to photo locations, folder changes and creation, and locating duplicates is smooth and simple in LR. This makes the most sense to me. I don't like the way iPhoto put my photos in its own folder structure, which I found out when I went to locate them to move into LR.

I hope this is of some help to you, best of luck!
 
Joined
May 19, 2009
Messages
8,428
Reaction score
295
Points
83
Location
Waiting for a mate . . .
Your Mac's Specs
21" iMac 2.9Ghz 16GB RAM - 10.11.3, iPhone6s & iPad Air 2 - iOS 9.2.1, ATV 4Th Gen tvOS, ATV3
kliles,

Lightroom vs. iPhoto: I think LR is far superior to iPhoto, just in photo organization.

All well and good comparing iPhoto to LR, but the OP was asking for a alternative to iPhoto so you should be comparing LR to Aperture. And as it stands, Aperture and iPhoto, have the exact same way of organising images and thats the way of a Managed Library, keeping them all in one nice compact location.

How Lightroom Catalogs Work:
• Instructions for how you want to process the photo

AND "Destructive". At least Aperture, when making adjustments, is non-destructive, keeping the original image as it is, and making a whole new 'adjustment image'


Database: LR is simply a database that stores a record of your photo's location on your computer.

And there lie's the problem I have with LR, thats all it is, just a "Database", Files and folders everywhere.
 
Joined
Jun 20, 2013
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Points
1
All well and good comparing iPhoto to LR, but the OP was asking for a alternative to iPhoto so you should be comparing LR to Aperture.

As I have never used Aperture, I only offer my opinion on the software that I have used.

AND "Destructive". At least Aperture, when making adjustments, is non-destructive, keeping the original image as it is, and making a whole new 'adjustment image'

Adobe Photoshop Lightroom is a nondestructive editor.

And there lie's the problem I have with LR, thats all it is, just a "Database", Files and folders everywhere.

The files and folders are wherever the user tells them to be, if "everywhere" is where the user wants them, then that is where they shall be.

I am offering my opinion, not yours, as to an option to the O/P, who mentioned LR and Aperture. As I've not used Aperture, I would not share an opinion on it. No need for you to direct me on what to share. Thanks though.
 
Joined
Sep 2, 2011
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Points
1
Photos first version

Just to expand a little on what Tattooed Mac said:

1. As stated, those of you using Aperture don't have to panic anytime soon. It now becomes obvious why Aperture and iPhoto now use the same library format ... it's the format Photos is going to use.

2. Photos is likely to have a blend of consumer and semi-pro features, since the people working on Aperture are now being reallocated to it. Having said that, DON'T EXPECT MUCH FROM VERSION 1. We've all seen this movie before (Apple replaces/completely revamps something to restructure the foundation for various good reasons), and here's how it goes: Apple brings out replacement app. Old app STILL WORKS FINE, but people throw enormous hissy fits and generally set their own hair on fire because replacement app doesn't have EVERY feature and then some from old app, and because it changes their workflow and CHANGE IS BAD.

**Over time**, features get added, stuff gets polished, workflow becomes comfortable and before you know it, the new program is actually better than the old program both under and over the hood. The grumblers subside, people start to appreciate the program/changes, then it gets even better. Then Apple kills it. Lather, rinse, repeat. :)

3. Once Photos comes out, many will want to stay with iPhotos or Aperture for a while longer. Feel free to do so, but check back in with Photos every so often with a fresh perspective. I'll wager that by the time a year after release has rolled round, you'll be willing to make the switch if you haven't already.

4. And if Photos isn't going to meet a professional's or serious semi-pro's needs (and it probably won't), there's Lightroom, there's AfterShot Pro 2, or maybe the people who did Pixelmator will decide to do something else. Or others we're not familiar with now. The Mac universe abhors a vacuum for the most part.

i'm an Aperture devotee and was somewhat disappointed with Apple when I found out Aperture is to be discontinued. I agree that Apples' record for replacement software meeting existing users expectations has been poor. But I'm an optimist...perhaps the the Photos development team will build on what they had in the past with iPhoto and Aperture, and Photos will be brilliant from day one. I can only hope. Meanwhile I'll stay with Aperture as I am currently in the process of reorganising my library. I'm also hoping the new file management system will match what I have with Aperture. I don't intend to pay to store 54gb of images in iCloud as has been suggested will be the case.

KD
 
C

chas_m

Guest
Just to make things clear, iCloud Photo Storage is **an option** for those who would like to have an off-site and secure backup of their photos. It's not mandatory.

Though in fact, if one wanted to pay to store up to 200GB of photos on iCloud Photo Storage, the cost would be ... giving you a moment to sit down and brace yourself ... a whopping $48/year. THE NERVE!! :)

But of course you can also keep your photos stored locally for "free" (well, minus the costs of the hard drives and other incidentals). I plan on doing both, since I like the idea of an encrypted off-site backup and also like having local backups.
 
Joined
Sep 2, 2011
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Points
1
iCloud Photo Storage

Just to make things clear, iCloud Photo Storage is **an option** for those who would like to have an off-site and secure backup of their photos. It's not mandatory.

Though in fact, if one wanted to pay to store up to 200GB of photos on iCloud Photo Storage, the cost would be ... giving you a moment to sit down and brace yourself ... a whopping $48/year. THE NERVE!! :)

But of course you can also keep your photos stored locally for "free" (well, minus the costs of the hard drives and other incidentals). I plan on doing both, since I like the idea of an encrypted off-site backup and also like having local backups.

Well that's good news then. Having a third level of storage (which is offsite) may be worth the $48. I'll still wait and see though. I'm now looking forward to release day.

KD
 
Joined
Jul 28, 2014
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Points
1
Light room all the way. There is some learning to it but once you figure it all out, you won't regret it. I used IPhoto for a while and after switching to light room I find it more convenient, not to mention the expansive editing abilities.
 

smb


Joined
Dec 7, 2013
Messages
41
Reaction score
1
Points
8
Location
Virginia, USA
Your Mac's Specs
iMac 27" 3.5 i7, 24GB. Drobo5D EHD. Mac Book Air. 2010 15" Mac Book Pro. Retired 2008 (3.1) Mac Pro
C

chas_m

Guest
The more I look into Photos, the more I think that it will be an entirely suitable replacement for iPhoto (perhaps on release, perhaps after an update or two), and in fact has great potential to be far superior in many respects. No disrespect intended to Lightroom (which I also own, er rent), but I'm not sure most iPhoto or even Aperture users should be in such a rush to jump ship just yet. Maybe later.
 

smb


Joined
Dec 7, 2013
Messages
41
Reaction score
1
Points
8
Location
Virginia, USA
Your Mac's Specs
iMac 27" 3.5 i7, 24GB. Drobo5D EHD. Mac Book Air. 2010 15" Mac Book Pro. Retired 2008 (3.1) Mac Pro
Not really jumping ship. Just occupying my time while Photos sorts itself out.
The question is will Photos be superior to Aperture. At some point probably so. But in that time Adobe will likely not be standing still.
So in the interim I decided to learn Lr and keep Aperture intact. I don't intend to migrate my files to Lr, but just saw this article and passed it along.
 
Joined
Nov 26, 2012
Messages
1,035
Reaction score
22
Points
38
Location
Agusan del Norte, Philippines
Your Mac's Specs
L2012 Mini, i7 2.6Ghz, 8GB RAM, 256GB SSD + 1TB HDD(fusion), BenQ 32" 2.5k QHD Display
I hope Photos turns out to be great. App competition helps fuel innovation and lower cost for consumers. Which is why I was actually sadden to hear Aperture being X'd..
 

smb


Joined
Dec 7, 2013
Messages
41
Reaction score
1
Points
8
Location
Virginia, USA
Your Mac's Specs
iMac 27" 3.5 i7, 24GB. Drobo5D EHD. Mac Book Air. 2010 15" Mac Book Pro. Retired 2008 (3.1) Mac Pro
I think Photos will be great for the audience that Apple seems to be targeting.
It just seems that the pro and enthusiast photographer have been slowly abandoned by Apple.
The Photo platform may be so different that by adding plug-ins etc all levels will be accommodated. We shall see.
What concerns me most is that over the last ~two years and over the next 12-18 months many hard core Aperture users have/will drift away and find Lr (or whatever) acceptable and the community of support for Aperture will also fade away. Many blogs and Preset gurus are already closing down. Will they come back, that is the gamble that Apple is willing to take. But these supporters are in many ways the people that drive innovation.
The Lr community is large, helpful and full of support/blogs/presets for the high end user. Once someone moves over, the inconveniences fade away and Apple may not get that person back. The critical mass for Apple shrinks and they may just slowly ignore the pros.
You are right, competition fuels innovation; after all Aperture fueled the creation of Lightroom.
Anyway, I am enjoying the challenge of learning Lr.
 
Joined
Mar 19, 2012
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Points
1
Location
Maryland, USA
Your Mac's Specs
 iMac, iPad Mini, MBP, Air
I use Lightroom and have for years. I love being able to batch my photos for sizing and watermarking. I use it in conjunction with Photoshop. I also use iPhoto for things, but, not as much as the other two programs.
 
C

chas_m

Guest
The question is will Photos be superior to Aperture.

That one I can answer right now: no.

In some areas I fully expect Photos to surpass Aperture, but Apple is not designing Photos to be a pro app, its um "focus" (sorry) will be consumer use. Plug-ins may come along and add considerable value to pros (I'd love to see Macphun's pro stuff work with Photos as it does with Photoshop and Lightroom etc) but I think Apple has made it pretty clear that it does not intend to fight Adobe for the serious pro market. On the plus side, it also doesn't seem interested in rent/lease software schemes either. :)

So in the interim I decided to learn Lr and keep Aperture intact. I don't intend to migrate my files to Lr, but just saw this article and passed it along.

Never hurts to be at least passing familiar with market-leading software. I'm essentially doing the same.
 

Shop Amazon


Shop for your Apple, Mac, iPhone and other computer products on Amazon.
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon and affiliated sites.
Top