Not moving to Aperture 3 as expected
For the past five years I have been using iPhoto to store and organize my thousands of digital images and Photoshop Elements (currently PSE 6 for Mac) exclusively as an external editor for editing my photos. When I bought my new 27” iMac last January I planned to acquire Aperture 3. I even bought two instruction books on Aperture 3. However, I now have serious reservations about making the move to Aperture 3. It seems apparent that Adobe’s Lightroom is winning the battle with Aperture with doubts about whether Aperture will ever catch up. Even Apple-certified trainer Scott Bourne who has been teaching Aperture classes from the beginning days of Aperture is threatening to abandon Aperture for Lightroom, and he has 480,000 images he’ll have to move! He states that with Lightroom 4.0 Adobe has released a RAW converter that does a much better job of converting files than does the current converter from Aperture. I shoot RAW only, so in my estimation that’s a big plus for Lightroom. Unfortunately, I haven’t found an uncomplicated way of moving images out of iPhoto into Lightroom. If there were I would likely have gone with Lightroom by now. If anybody knows of a simple way to move images from iPhoto to Lightroom please let me know!
For the moment, rather than trying to master the Aperture 3 workflow to obtain editing results that may be no better than what I am currently producing, I’m sticking with iPhoto + PSE 6 for Mac while waiting to see if Apple makes a serious attempt with Aperture to match the performance of Lightroom. In the meantime I may use the $79 I was going to use to purchase Aperture to instead upgrade to Adobe’s Photoshop Elements 10.
Comments on this subject are welcome.
#1. "RE: Not moving to Aperture 3 as expected" | In response to Reply # 0JonK Nikonian since 03rd Jul 2004Tue 17-Jul-12 09:54 PM
Speaking as a graphics professional who has always owned all of Adobe's graphic apps: Adobe will always win the war. And when they don't, they buy the competition and either absorb the foreign app or kill it.
That said, I love Lightroom. Aperture and Capture NX2 are very nice, capable products, but at this point in time I think it is ahead of both. And Bob, to the extent that you may wish to avail yourself of support from your fellow Nikonians, there are a heck of a lot more of us using Lightroom than anything else.
A New York City Nikonian and Team Member
Please visit my website and critique the images!
#2. "RE: Not moving to Aperture 3 as expected" | In response to Reply # 0jacsr Registered since 08th Apr 2006Wed 18-Jul-12 07:11 PM
The debate as to which raw converter is best will go on in perpetuity, as do most matters that are subjective. The real question here is what works best for the individual and their workflow. While reviews and user comments are great sources of information they are usually subjective in some degree.
The only way you can really be sure as to which application will meet your specific requirements is to use it, over and over and over until you have a good understanding of the applications strengths and weaknesses and then decide if you can live with them. There are numerous other features to consider, integration with or conversion from existing applications only being one, ease of use and intuitiveness are others.
When deciding between Aperture 3 and Lightroom 3, I downloaded a trial of both and then used them side-by-side. I made a conscious effort to use them both every day of the trial period for at least 2 hours. I imported the same set of photos, over 4K before the trial period ended. I tested everything that was important to me in one and then immediately in the other. I added metadata, keywords, PP, crop, export a photo in LR and then I immediately did the same to the same photo in Aperture. What this did for me was allow me to perform a task in one application experience the ease, difficulties, results and then do the same in the second. I noted what I liked and disliked about both and in the end made my decision based on what worked best for me.
Whether Aperture or LR is best was/is irrelevant to me. After in depth testing Aperture allowed me to work faster and produced the results I expected. I really did not care which application won out I just wanted the one that best fit my needs and it could just have easily been LR. Yes there are things lacking in Aperture like lens correction or the ability to watermark a photo when exporting that I find annoying, however, I can live with those deficiencies. I found the Aperture interface more intuitive than LR’s and to me the ability to go from browser, to metadata and PP was easier in Aperture. LR did seem to PP the raw file better but for me the difference was so slight it was not a major factor. I have not used LR4 so some of the things I found as a negative in LR3 may have been corrected.
IMO to base a purchase decision on which application performs best today in a specific area or feature rather than how the application best fits the person’s needs or workflow is an exercise in futility. These applications change frequently are costly in $$$ and the time it take to become proficient in them to ultimately realize that what a reviewer stated as a plus you strongly find a negative after extended use. LR 4 may be the best today in raw conversion, however, Aperture 4 (when released), DXO, Capture One, Bibble or the highly anticipated NX3 may be better tomorrow or next year.
I am not advocating Aperture over Lightroom doing that would be subjective in nature. I guess what I am trying to say in my long winded way is do not base an important decision as this on someone's opinion but on your own experiences with the application in question. You may be happier in the outcome and save a few $$$ in the process. Of course this is only my opinion and as such everyone should do what is best for their specific needs and requirements. As is often said here YMMV
#3. "RE: Not moving to Aperture 3 as expected" | In response to Reply # 2ecossephoto Registered since 21st Jun 2012Wed 18-Jul-12 07:18 PM
> I guess what I am trying to say
>in my long winded way is do not base an important decision as
>this on someone's opinion but on your own experiences with the
>application in question. You may be happier in the outcome and
>save a few $$$ in the process. Of course this is only my
>opinion and as such everyone should do what is best for their
>specific needs and requirements. As is often said here YMMV
Copy and paste for all equipment threads.
#4. "RE: Not moving to Aperture 3 as expected" | In response to Reply # 2PhotoSpydie Nikonian since 17th Jul 2011Thu 19-Jul-12 05:14 PM
Look at Border FX a free download export plug-in for Aperture 3. I love it Like the rest Aperture, you can create your own export presets including image size, borders text and watermarks and more. will handle large batches.
#5. "RE: Not moving to Aperture 3 as expected" | In response to Reply # 0
The latest update to Aperture 3 brought about the ability to easily switch between iPhoto and Aperture libraries. This means you can open up your entire iPhoto library in Aperture (events become projects). While this is not the equivalent to "moving" your photos, it may meet your needs in that the adjustment tools, metadata (info) and organization are all there as though it were an Aperture library.
You can also open your Aperture library in iPhoto, although it is not quite as easy as the reverse as you have to exit iPhoto each time you switch - not true in Aperture. About the only time this makes sense to do is when you want to use iPhotos more consumer oriented books, calendars and cards.
Lightroom will always have more users than Aperture as it runs on a Microsoft Windows platform as well as a Mac. Aperture only works on a Mac.