Adobe Lightroom or Aperture?

[jtnkelly]

Would like to know thoughts on Adobe's Lightroom versus Aperture. The iPhoto product is good, but I want to step up to the next level. Has anyone tried both yet? I am a Photshop Elements user, so I'm wondering if Lightroom might be the better choice from an integration standpoint.

 

[moss918]

There are free trials for both, that's the best way I can think of for you to know which will suit you best...

Aperture

Lightroom

 

[Peakoverload]

Would like to know thoughts on Adobe's Lightroom versus Aperture. The iPhoto product is good, but I want to step up to the next level. Has anyone tried both yet? I am a Photshop Elements user, so I'm wondering if Lightroom might be the better choice from an integration standpoint.

Okay here's the thing, I don't really understand the point of Lightroom. Why are people willing to spend £150 for something that largely does what their software Photoshop/Elements already does?

Just taking a look at what Lightroom has to offer.

Raw Processing
Adobe Camera RAW (ACR) is good enough for most people and let's not forget that CS3 is just around the corner with a much improved ACR which will no doubt get filtered down to Elements either as an update or as a new version. I here a lot of people making a song and dance about how Lightroom leaves all your RAW files unaltered (Name me one RAW editor that does???) and means you can just set-up all the processing settings the way you want them and only process the image when you actually need the file thus saving on disc space. Sorry but I don't buy it. Lightroom can't dodge or burn, it can't work with layer masks and it's sharpening it's pretty useless. These are things that a photographer will want and need to do to a large percentage of his or her photos so if I have to use Photoshop/Elements to make one edit I may as well make 3.

File Management
For the average Joe, the level of file management that both Lightroom and Aperture offer is massive overkill and in fact Bridge is perfectly suitable and usable for this. If you are a serious pro than file management is more important but Adobe have really dropped the ball with this. Aperture's file management is much better and more comprehensive and more suited to both the busy studio photographer, stock photographer and wedding photographer.

Slideshow
This is I think one of the more exciting features of Lightroom, at least it would have been if Adode thought about how it was going to be used. The Slideshow could have been a great way to show clients their photos so they could make print selections. However although the slideshow looks lovely you have no way of recording which photos a client selects. A simple tickbox (and then an option to later show selections) would have fixed this and turned this into a useful marketing tool as it stands it's just a nice bit of eye candy which can be done anyway in OSX

Print Proofing
So Lightroom will sort out your printing for you. Great. No use to me as I send all my photos away to be printed but I could see that it may be of use to others, but then other than a few page templates (which could be dead easily created in Photoshop anyway, what does it have to offer that's not already in Photoshop?

Web Gallery Creation
Umm, all the templates are pretty crap IMHO. That said I'm sure they are fine for some people and admittedly it's very easy to use but then the ones that came with Photoshop were too and there were even a couple that were quite good. That said I design my own websites so coding a better looking gallery is something I would do anyway.


So I'm a big Aperture fan then?

Not really. What Aperture does it does very well. It's file management and shot selection is brilliant and it can also be used as a marketing tool for pro photographers but I really don't like the way it does some things. I've been a Photoshop user since Version 3 and hence I'm probably stuck in my ways or should I say, stuck in the Adobe way and as such I find the controls for RAW processing not very intuitive and not as accurate or as fast to use as those in Lightroom or ACR and most of all I miss Curves! Also I think a visual representation/warning for when colours go out of gamut is needed. That said the way it integrates into other Apple programs is excellent and it is a pleasure to use but where Lightroom is very easy to use Aperture looks and feels complicated.

If I had to buy one of them then on the one hand I would want Lightroom because it's so easy to use and uses controls that I've used for years and years but on the other hand I would want Aperture because it's file management is much better and can be used to generate sales to clients which is very important but I'm not sure I could ever get used to it's interface when, regardless of what program I bought, I would still have and need to use Photoshop.

In fact this does raise another question.

Adobe want people to go out and buy one of the two versions of CS3 that they are about to release at the cost of around £600. Both versions have all the features that a photographer would need, includes the updated and improved Bridge and the much improved ACR. They are also going to release Lightroom with all of the features it has and the latest version of Elements has 99% of all the features a photographer would need so why would any photographer spend £600 on Photoshop CS3 and then £150 on Lightroom when they could buy Elements and Lightroom for a fraction of the price and have all they need to edit photos?

 

[Stretch]

You might want to read this and this

 

[CreativeGuy]

I won't comment on either app because I haven't used either very much, but let me say this:

Unless you're a semi-pro digital photographer, shooting in RAW mode and doing heavy color correction on a regular basis, both programs are overkill for your needs.

I'm going to make an assumption based on the fact that you are using PS Elements rather than Photoshop that you don't fit that category (but I could be wrong).

Personally, I think that if you believe you need Aperture or Lightroom, then you should invest in Photoshop & Bridge first instead. When the time comes that you really do need Lightroom or Aperture, you'll have a better idea of your needs and the choice will be easy for you to make.

 

[Odin_aa]

Okay here's the thing, I don't really understand the point of Lightroom. Why are people willing to spend £150 for something that largely does what their software Photoshop/Elements already does?

I can understand your thought process, and most people do not need it.

Just taking a look at what Lightroom has to offer.

Raw Processing
Adobe Camera RAW (ACR) is good enough for most people and let's not forget that CS3 is just around the corner with a much improved ACR which will no doubt get filtered down to Elements either as an update or as a new version. I here a lot of people making a song and dance about how Lightroom leaves all your RAW files unaltered (Name me one RAW editor that does???) and means you can just set-up all the processing settings the way you want them and only process the image when you actually need the file thus saving on disc space. Sorry but I don't buy it. Lightroom can't dodge or burn, it can't work with layer masks and it's sharpening it's pretty useless. These are things that a photographer will want and need to do to a large percentage of his or her photos so if I have to use Photoshop/Elements to make one edit I may as well make 3.

Very true, unless you are an event shooter or shoot 100's of files per day under the same lighting conditions you will get no benefit in RAW processing from lightroom (or aperture). Using any application if you save changes as a different copy then your RAW files remain intact. CS3 will include ACR 4.0 (or is it 4.1?) which has many of the same great benefits that lightroom has. I would not say its sharpening process is useless, however it is not high on customizing for an image. No, it cannot dodge or burn however it is not meant to be a substitution for a manipulation program.

File Management
For the average Joe, the level of file management that both Lightroom and Aperture offer is massive overkill and in fact Bridge is perfectly suitable and usable for this. If you are a serious pro than file management is more important but Adobe have really dropped the ball with this. Aperture's file management is much better and more comprehensive and more suited to both the busy studio photographer, stock photographer and wedding photographer.

First your assuming that people who own photoshop and elements also own bridge. I also agree here, the photoshop/bridge workflow is great. For me, what lightroom brings is a better raw editor into the mix and the file management is much better than bridge. I have not worked with Aperture, so cannot comment on their asset management capabilities.

Slideshow

Print Proofing

Web Gallery Creation

I have not used, nor do I have any plans on using these features.

In fact this does raise another question.

Adobe want people to go out and buy one of the two versions of CS3 that they are about to release at the cost of around £600. Both versions have all the features that a photographer would need, includes the updated and improved Bridge and the much improved ACR. They are also going to release Lightroom with all of the features it has and the latest version of Elements has 99% of all the features a photographer would need so why would any photographer spend £600 on Photoshop CS3 and then £150 on Lightroom when they could buy Elements and Lightroom for a fraction of the price and have all they need to edit photos?

I have not used Elements in a few years, from what I remember it is a great program for $100 US and normally strongly recommend it to someone wishing to save money. I would assume the ACR for Elements will be very similar to that of CS3 so that should make for a great choice with or without lightroom for the average joe.

 

[jtnkelly]

Let me clarify. Prior to my iMac purchase in December, I used PS Elements 2.0 for Win. I am impatiently waiting on the universal version of Elements to be released.

PS Elements does me fine for pixel-level editing. I could however, use more help in composition/exposure/white balance/tonal control, areas that can be enhanced if you shoot RAW. I'm not very good at getting those things right within the camera, so the Mac is my fall back.

Flash storage is getting cheaper and cheaper, so why not shoot RAW and fine-tune on the Mac? Is iPhoto a robust RAW editor? I'm not convinced.

I will be investing in PS Elements on the next release. CS3 is too much and too expensive. Just trying to decide if Lightroom or Aperture is the best next step.

 

[Peakoverload]

Let me clarify. Prior to my iMac purchase in December, I used PS Elements 2.0 for Win. I am impatiently waiting on the universal version of Elements to be released.

PS Elements does me fine for pixel-level editing. I could however, use more help in composition/exposure/white balance/tonal control, areas that can be enhanced if you shoot RAW. I'm not very good at getting those things right within the camera, so the Mac is my fall back.

Flash storage is getting cheaper and cheaper, so why not shoot RAW and fine-tune on the Mac? Is iPhoto a robust RAW editor? I'm not convinced.

I will be investing in PS Elements on the next release. CS3 is too much and too expensive. Just trying to decide if Lightroom or Aperture is the best next step.

I don't follow the reasoning for jumping to either Lightroom or Aperture? You shoot RAW and have Elements which has ACR so why do you need another RAW processor?

It's fair enough if you want another RAW processor or that you really find ACR too limiting or that you really need much better file management but I can't really think of one thing that you can do in Lightroom/Aperture that you can't already do in ACR & Elements in terms of actual RAW processing/pixel editing.

If your heart is set on buying one of these then I think the sensible choice is probably Lightworks because its cheaper, easier to use and has Adobe behind it but that's not to say it's the right choice.

I personally can't see the justification of either program at their current prices beyond it just being a case of someone just liking using the software and are prepared to pay for it or a pro who needs the kind of cataloguing and file management that these programs offer. It's frustrating because I really like both programs but there is no way I'd pay the money they are asking for them when Photoshop/Elements, ACR and Bridge do all I need and I would think do all that is needed for the vast majority of non pro's out there.

 

[jtnkelly]

I don't follow the reasoning for jumping to either Lightroom or Aperture? You shoot RAW and have Elements which has ACR so why do you need another RAW processor?

It's fair enough if you want another RAW processor or that you really find ACR too limiting or that you really need much better file management but I can't really think of one thing that you can do in Lightroom/Aperture that you can't already do in ACR & Elements in terms of actual RAW processing/pixel editing.

If your heart is set on buying one of these then I think the sensible choice is probably Lightworks because its cheaper, easier to use and has Adobe behind it but that's not to say it's the right choice.

I personally can't see the justification of either program at their current prices beyond it just being a case of someone just liking using the software and are prepared to pay for it or a pro who needs the kind of cataloguing and file management that these programs offer. It's frustrating because I really like both programs but there is no way I'd pay the money they are asking for them when Photoshop/Elements, ACR and Bridge do all I need and I would think do all that is needed for the vast majority of non pro's out there.

I use iPhoto; photo management is OK, but edit tools are weak. To me, photo management/cataloguing and global RAW adjustments would probably get me 90% of what I need. Is PSE for Mac's photo management on par with iPhoto, or even Lightroom or Aperture?

 

[Peakoverload]

Is PSE for Mac's photo management on par with iPhoto, or even Lightroom or Aperture?

Well that all depends on what you need. Without any shadow of a doubt the photo management of Lightroom and Aperture is vastly superior to PSE (or more accurately, Bridge) and I personally think Aperture's management is better than Lightroom.

However Bridge, like Lightroom and Aperture allows you to add Keywords to your photos and of course you can add your own Keywords and Keyword Sets so you aren't restricted by the default sets. Therefore depending on exactly what your requirements are this may well be enough. Where Lightroom and Aperture improve on Bridge is that they allow you to create multiple libraries AND keywords so you can have one photo in any folder you like appear in two or more libraries. You can do something very similar in Bridge just by using Keywords but it isn't as neat and tidy but unless you actually need to do this regularly do you need to pay for it?

I suggest downloading the trial versions of each program and having a good play with them to determine whether the improvements over Bridge warrant the extra expenditure.

 

[Peakoverload]

Well yesterday I spent the day testing four RAW editors comparing only their ability to process RAW files. The programs where.

Adobe Camera RAW (ACR)
Aperture
Capture One Pro
Lightroom

The results where quite interesting and more than a little surprising which I've published on my website Here

To summarise though, I wouldn't be sending any money to Mr. Adobe anytime soon!

 

[Odin_aa]

Peakoverload, in your article you failed to mention which camera RAW file you used. The camera matters as each RAW file is different and each editor will handle them differently. By "Flat" process are you stating that you made no adjustments to the images? With C1, do you have a camera profile that was used? If so that would explain the large difference in renditions between the applications.

 

[Peakoverload]

The RAW file was from a Canon EOS-10D and by flat I mean no adjustments to any setting in the RAW editor that would have changed the image from how it was originally captured by the camera was made. This was achieved by turning off any processing options that I was permitted to in each program and/or by setting each parameter to "as shot" or at it's equivalent unity/1:1 setting and no, no camera profile was used in C1

 

[Odin_aa]

Thanks for the clarification, I meant to say/type that other than that it was a nicely written article. Would you like a RAW file from another camera to play with? I can get you one, if you would like to try it out to see if you get the same results.

 

[Peakoverload]

I want to expand this article a little to include the kind of RAW editor that usually comes with a digital camera. I'm sorted on Canon Software and I assume I can probably download some Nikon software but if anyone has a NEF file (Nikon's RAW format) that they don't mind sending me that would be great as I can then test NEF files in both the Nikon software and all the others.

Incidentally I have a Canon EOS-10D and Canon EOS-30D (the 30D uses a different RAW format) and have found that the results are pretty much the same on all of these programs from these two cameras.

 

[Odin_aa]

I think you may see a bigger difference between manufacturers, I will send you a link to a few NEF files tonight. D200 and D2x, you can play with those.

 

[Peakoverload]

Thanks to Odin_aa I now have some Nef files to try out.

I've only done a very quick test this evening just out of curiosity and rushed through it quite a bit so I will re-do it properly over the next day or so but what was evident was that Lightroom and ACR produce very similar results which although look pretty good do still lack detail which is present in the images produced by Capture One and Aperture. Again I think I just prefer Aperture's results over Capture One but there wasnt much in it.

Like I say I really rushed this and only did it just to have a quick look so don't read too much into this.