Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Post-processing & Printing | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       end
  

Archive 2013 · Aperture vs Lightroom on OS X
  
 
Alan321
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #1 · Aperture vs Lightroom on OS X


Dave_EP wrote:
While the main library has certainly slowed 'a little' over the years, probably due to the ever increasing size, it's actually still faster to use than a similar number of files in LR. I tried it. Bad mistake. LR fell apart and took forever to find things.


Dave you might well be right (I'm not sure) but Lr would certainly struggle until it had built up the necessary ACR and Lr preview caches and the index data in its catalog. You would have to allow sufficient capacity for those caches. My library is about half that size and has shown no sign of falling apart.

Note that I always reference my original raw files in Lr, just as I did in Aperture. I don't want any program gobbling up my files and making it harder for other applications to find them. I use Lr most of the time but occasionally I still want to use Nikon or Canon software to access features or data that Lr does not give me. The same applied with Aperture 2, which was the last version I used.

- Alan



May 14, 2013 at 04:42 PM
matthewbmedia
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #2 · Aperture vs Lightroom on OS X


For Aperture users - beware that library fragmentation is the single biggest issue that can cause speed problems.

Libraires are heavily susceptible to fragmentation -

The combination of multi-threading imports and writing ALL of the thumbnails to a single file in the library can easily make a single 1GB file of thumbnails in a library of only 2000 images. And that file gets re-written to constantly. It gets worse when you import and write masters to the same drive as they concurrently write alongside this thumbnail file.

In almost all cases, It's too big for the HFS auto-defrag of files 20MB and under.

Put the library on the fastest internal drive you have, and use referenced masters and you can mitigate this issue quite a bit.

If you use "managed masters" it is SUPER EASY to use File->Relocate masters and move your images out to another folder structure, complete with subfolder categorization by year/date if that's what you want.

Since version 3 came out, most of my projects all use their own library. It's easier to pass around a 60MB library between machines and just store masters on a separate drive.



May 15, 2013 at 03:58 AM
Patrick Cox
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #3 · Aperture vs Lightroom on OS X


Thanks for all of the great replies. I have been using LR for quite awhile and my experience is that it is fairly slow with only a modest amount of images. I may not have all of the settings right though, but I am not sure. I appreciate the tips on setting up Aperture, I will make sure to consider these when setting up my first database. I have been playing around with Aperture over the past few days and so far I discovered a number of features that I really like and then I also like the general look and feel of it. I can see though that I do have some learning ahead of me. But that just makes it more of an adventure!


May 15, 2013 at 12:07 PM
paparazzinick
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #4 · Aperture vs Lightroom on OS X


LR5 is just around the corner and is pretty freaking awesome. if apple doesnt launch aperture 4 soon, they will lose.

I am a huge apple fan and this hurts.



May 15, 2013 at 01:55 PM
Patrick Cox
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #5 · Aperture vs Lightroom on OS X


paparazzinick wrote:
LR5 is just around the corner and is pretty freaking awesome. if apple doesnt launch aperture 4 soon, they will lose.

I am a huge apple fan and this hurts.


What are the improvements over LR4?



May 15, 2013 at 01:57 PM
rattymouse
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #6 · Aperture vs Lightroom on OS X


How many more months will it take for everyone to conclude that Apple has ceased development of Aperture? 3 months? If there is no news at the upcoming developer conference, what does that mean for Aperture?

Aperture 4 was supposed to arrive in 2012. If there is no news in 2013, does that mean Aperture is cooked?

I am REALLY hoping for an Aperture 4 so that I can drop my LAST Adobe product.




May 16, 2013 at 07:25 AM
Dave_EP
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #7 · Aperture vs Lightroom on OS X


Alan321 wrote:
Dave you might well be right (I'm not sure) but Lr would certainly struggle until it had built up the necessary ACR and Lr preview caches and the index data in its catalog. You would have to allow sufficient capacity for those caches. My library is about half that size and has shown no sign of falling apart.


You are right, but I think a 1TB library on a 3TB HDD (nothing else on it) with all the previews etc generated was enough of a trial (it took days to generate the previews etc).

Don't get me wrong. There are things I love in lightroom. I specifically love the lens corrections and vignetting options so I'm hoping Apple add those to Aperture.

I also like the WB brush. That's my other big would like.




May 16, 2013 at 08:57 AM
Sami Ruusunen
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #8 · Aperture vs Lightroom on OS X


paparazzinick wrote:
LR5 is just around the corner and is pretty freaking awesome. if apple doesnt launch aperture 4 soon, they will lose.

I am a huge apple fan and this hurts.


Am I the only one who think the LR5 has nothing interesting new compared to LR4? Freaking awesome? LR3 was awesome when it was introduced, ever since it's just been small improvements and slower code.



May 16, 2013 at 09:42 AM
Dave_EP
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #9 · Aperture vs Lightroom on OS X


Sami Ruusunen wrote:
Am I the only one who think the LR5 has nothing interesting new compared to LR4? Freaking awesome? LR3 was awesome when it was introduced, ever since it's just been small improvements and slower code.


If Apple just included what is in LR4 lens corrections and adjustment brushes (white balance) I'd be extremely happy and totally dump LR.

I'm not so happy with the new 3 way colour correctors though. Am I the only one that thinks they are too small to deal with?

Give me the color brick from FCPX in Aperture, including the masks etc and I'd be a really happy camper!



May 16, 2013 at 11:32 AM
rattymouse
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #10 · Aperture vs Lightroom on OS X


Dave_EP wrote:
If Apple just included what is in LR4 lens corrections and adjustment brushes (white balance) I'd be extremely happy and totally dump LR.

I'm not so happy with the new 3 way colour correctors though. Am I the only one that thinks they are too small to deal with?

Give me the color brick from FCPX in Aperture, including the masks etc and I'd be a really happy camper!


Likewise. Yet there is no sign at all that a new Aperture is even coming.



May 16, 2013 at 11:34 AM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



Danny Michael
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #11 · Aperture vs Lightroom on OS X




snip

Likewise. Yet there is no sign at all that a new Aperture is even coming.



There never is until it comes. That's just the way it works at Apple.



May 17, 2013 at 01:33 AM
zylan
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #12 · Aperture vs Lightroom on OS X


are they going to have Aperture for Windows 7 eventually? or soon?


May 24, 2013 at 11:01 PM
Patrick Cox
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #13 · Aperture vs Lightroom on OS X


OK, I have been working with Aperture on some images I shot yesterday and I have noticed that Aperture seems to take longer to load selected images. (after they are imported and previews have been generated.) I made sure I am generating large enough previews but when I select an image to display in the "viewer", I get "loading..." for longer than it seems I should. And I have just started to build a library so there are very few images in the library. Any thoughts on this? Are there settings I need to consider to speed this up? Thanks.


May 25, 2013 at 12:56 PM
Dave_EP
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #14 · Aperture vs Lightroom on OS X


zylan wrote:
are they going to have Aperture for Windows 7 eventually? or soon?


I would think "Not a Chance", just like there is no iMovie, iPhoto etc for Windows.



May 26, 2013 at 10:48 AM
Patrick Cox
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #15 · Aperture vs Lightroom on OS X


Any suggestions for getting images to load faster in Aperture? Thanks.


May 26, 2013 at 08:25 PM
Chris Dees
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #16 · Aperture vs Lightroom on OS X


I'm thinking of changing too but still hesitate as I think there's not much difference between Apple and Adobe as a company. Both demonstrated they're only interested in how to get the most out of the customer.

I think we all have to adapt to cloud subscriptions as I think that's the way big companies will go. There're a lot of advantages for them.
For me the Adobe subscription is too expensive (about 25,00 per month) and I'm convinced LR will follow the subscription model.

BTW is there a way to convert a LR catalog to an Aperture catalog (I have a little under 100K images in my LR catalog)



Jun 03, 2013 at 09:26 AM
Larry Williams
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #17 · Aperture vs Lightroom on OS X


Greetings,

Thank you for asking the question, as it has generated numerous points of views.

I have recently transitioned to an Apple environment and have been using Adobe PS CS6. I am so angry with Adobe for their going into a cloud format, and I too, am looking at alternatives. Adobe's greed will surely drive away many current users and it will spark interest in other companies to upgrade their products for those leaving Adobe.

Larry



Jun 03, 2013 at 04:01 PM
bboule
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #18 · Aperture vs Lightroom on OS X


I used Aperture from 2006 when it first came out till January of last year. I now use Lightroom although I continue to maintain my Mac/Aperture environment and do use it occasionally.

I had built a Mac Pro specifically for running Aperture. For a long long time Aperture was REALLY slow compared to lightroom and had lots of painful things. Apple has always been more forward looking than Adobe when it comes to offloading processing to the GPU but this was a 2-edged sword most of the time as there was always going to be a combination of adjustments you could put on your image which would completely destroy performance. (Seemed to vary based on camera, ISO speed, and combination of adjustments)

I also had major problems with Aperture creating hard drive fragmentation. Apple claims their filesystem doesn't fragment but they are basically lying. Their definition of "doesn't fragment" is a typical home non-serious user using the machine for a year or two before upgrading to a mac. Under that scenario those users will never see degradation of performance from fragmentation.. but heavy Aperture use will really fragment the drive due to the way it stores the library. (As a software engineer, Apple's library design of XML files is terrible compared to Adobe's use of an embedded SQL database.)

They both have their plusses and minuses... for me I have found Lightrooms keywording to be much better. So much better I actually keyworded like 60,000 images in it relatively painlessly when I switched, and I now keyword everything on import. I could never get myself to be good at this with Aperture. But Aperture's import & preview generation is considerably faster. (I have lightroom generate 1:1 previews just like Aperture does, so once they are done it is fast, but it does seem slow to do it.)

For my purposes I prefer ACR over Apple's raw conversion. Apple's is not bad at all, and does some things very nicely, but Adobe's does a much nicer job of eliminating noise while retaining detail, and Apple doesn't have Camera calibration profiles.

In terms of community, Aperture doesn't really have much of one. There is far less documentation, training, books, presets, plugins, etc.. available for Aperture, partly because who wants to build anything on top of an Apple product when Apple gives no clue whether the product has any future? Adobe may be obnoxious with forcing people to use the cloud but I would find it very hard to believe Lightroom is in danger of being cancelled or won't have continuing development.

Aperture also has some color management issues.. they don't have printing quite right, and there have been a lot of bugs on the way to it getting soft proofing working. When I stopped using it last year I believe there was no way to specify the rendering intent in a print preview, even though you could pick the rendering intent when soft proofing. There were also bugs in the saving/loading of presets that would ruin prints when they hit you. Things like that were pretty annoying. With Aperture I ended up printing from Photoshop for anything critical, with Lightroom I have been able to avoid using Photoshop for print, and I have built up a great set of presets that save tons of time.

I ordered quite a few hard cover books through Apple's service, they do a good job with that. I haven't had the opportunity to do that through Lightroom.

Integration with websites, services, etc.. works much better in Lightroom in my opinion. I have used the Smugmug and facebook uploaders in both products and have had much better luck in Lightroom. That can save a lot of time.

Personally I also feel like there is a big risk with Aperture in terms of completely tying yourself to Apple as well, they are very prone to dropping support for hardware that is still very powerful, etc.. if you are locked into the Mac you may lock yourself into a relatively fast upgrade path on expensive hardware. My PC lightroom setup is about 1/3 the cost of my Apple/Aperture setup, and if I was to try and setup a new Apple/Aperture environment today the cost differential would be even larger. My Mac pro is 4-core, 2.66ghz, $400 video card, 4TB of disk space, 16GB ram, etc.., and yet apple dropped support for the machine entirely in Mountain Lion. Not exactly a good way to get me to drop $3000-5000 on a new Mac Pro to continue to stay on a supported path.



Jun 04, 2013 at 02:38 PM
OntheRez
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #19 · Aperture vs Lightroom on OS X


I used AP since ver. 1.5 until about 4 months ago when I switched to LR. (That was a major task.) I have "heavy iron" to throw at the program (and all graphics related work): a 2010 dual quad 2.4 GHz MacPro, 32 GB RAM, a reasonably good graphics card - Radeon HD 5770 with 1GB VRAM and about 4 TB of storage spread among multiple devices. Currently my image database is ~320GB.

I use this machine for heavy lifting, intense image work but also as a CAD device. I found AP to do 90% of the work necessary to meet my newspaper deadlines (I'm the sports photographer/reporter for a small town newspaper). When needing or wanting to do more intensive work (for my "art" photos), I move to PS.

I had three concerns with AP: (1) From v1.5 forward the program would VERY rarely actually corrupt an image file. It was certainly well less than 1/10 of 1%, but troubling particularly because version after version this bug remained. (2) For undetermined reasons AP on occasion would become unstable either freezing or showing bizarre behavior like a tool being unable to select or not allowing an expanded view on import. Again this was relatively rare but troubling. (LR will also on occasion lose functionality of just disappear. System level problem? Maybe, but don't see it in other programs.) (3) The biggest reason was that I concluded that Apple was going to once again abandon an excellent program. They have a history of doing this and their current move to "make everything like an iPad" seemed to support this feeling. (I have used Macs since 1984. I've also used everything else available in the same time frame.) I concluded that at least Adobe would keep LR alive and making incremental improvements. We now know that Adobe may well keep LR alive but no doubt that we will be shoved into the "protection racket" always paying scheme of the cloud. Sure they say they won't do it to LR, but out of the other side of their mouth they're already taking about things that will only be available in the cloud version of LR5.

In comparing LR and AP on the above noted hardware, I was surprised to find that AP is faster at almost every action. I'm amazed at how LR spins its wheels every time I switch modes/panels. AP's brushes and adjustments are near instantaneous whereas LR always lags. AP is vastly superior to LR in the entire metadata, naming, keywording area. I can't believe how difficult it is to change EXIF schema with LR relative to AP. AP's interface is several light years better than LR. Frankly LR looks like a badly hacked window's version shoved grumpily into a sort of Mac interface. AP's ability to switch libraries and particularly its built in backup system (via the vault) makes one wonder if any LR designers are photographers. A simple thing: In AP moving the cursor over an icon in the metadata panel allows me to see where the focus points were in the image. This is also a snap to do in DXO. LR? I heard some mumbling about it being too difficult to do. What?? As for file size, I had AP reference rather than manage my images, thus the disk space is the same between the two programs. The AP reference database is significantly larger than LR's catalog but neither are large enough to worry about.

On the LR plus side I think it imports faster though I never really timed it. I prefer the select/reject tools. LR is easier to print from and actually does quite a nice job printing. I have utterly no interest in posting anything to online social media whatever so can't comment on that. My web work is handled via FTP from within a development environment so can't say what differences might exist between the two programs.

I think Mac users are in a real lousy state of suspended horror wondering which of the programs will continue and what they will do. Certainly Apple could step up and really hammer Adobe at this point by expanding/updating AP and continue to sell perpetual licenses. Will they? Absolutely no clue. Apple does its professional clients a real disfavor by continuing to hide behind the "Great Wall of Cupertino."

I'm continuing to use LR for now but if Apple moves in a strongly positive way, then I'm likely to return. Also no matter which program you choose there is a real learning curve. Both are deeply capable and take real effort to completely master. I think AP actually is more fully featured, but you have to work at learning either. Depending on how far into "developing" your images you are, it is quite possible that either program can do everything you need. Unfortunately for my work, I'm always going to need photoshop like capacity. Don't know what I'm going to do with that.

Robert




Jun 05, 2013 at 05:00 PM
butchM
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #20 · Aperture vs Lightroom on OS X


I didn't use Aperture until it went on sale in the App Store for $80 ... I bought it primarily as a slideshow creator ... as I had been using Lr since the very first public beta of v1, at the time I was very happy with Lr, though the Slideshow module was extremely lacking.

I had also been using InDesign to lay out my wedding and portrait albums for my own clients as well as designed albums/books for other photographers. I had high hopes for the Lr Book module. I have never been more disappointed with an offering from Adobe than I was with the Book module. It totally lacks and type of custom design, or the ability to create custom page sizes for any other printer besides Blurb. I have no issue or complaint with Blurb other than they do not offer the cover/paper/materials that I offer my clients. After all, if I can only use the module to order books that anyone else on the planet can order ... why would my customers need me? How are you to separate yourself from your competition, if we all offer the same product? While I am well aware that you can export books from Lr in PDF and JPEG ... you are still limited to the Blurb page dimensions and margins ... thus making it nearly impossible for the layouts to "fit" with other printers. So I discovered that in Aperture, I could create completely custom page sizes, templates/layouts and export books from Aperture in PDF, TIFF or JPEG ... while working directly with my RAW image files thus eliminating the need to create thousands of exported files to work with InDesign. It was a win-win.

I became somewhat annoyed with Adobe's new upgrade policy (this was before the May 6 CC only route announcement) where we were expected to upgrade each and every cycle or be forced to pay full price for CS apps .. While I am fully aware this policy doesn't apply to Lr currently ... I had, and still have, grave concerns that it too will come to either forced upgrades or CC at some point in the not to distant future.

With that consideration, I decided to perform a test this spring. At the end of the local high school and college winter sports season, which coincides with a break in the senior portrait season, I planned a six week endeavor to use Aperture for my entire workflow in lieu of Lightroom.

While it took a bit of time to to get up to speed and become more familiar with the extended nuances of the Aperture workflow to be able to process a shoot with the same ease and speed as I was accustomed to in Lr, It wasn't long before I realized that I could use Aperture without sacrificing my finished product ... I even processed a group of four images in both Lr and Aperture without using Ps or any plugins ... had 20x30 prints made of each attempt to compare output ... unless you scrutinize the prints with a 10x loupe ... at normal viewing distance ... there is little to no perceived difference ... I even had a small group of other shooters try and pick out which print was which ... no one had better than a 50% accuracy rate ...

So, after my test ... and the Adobe CC only announcement ... I am no longer using Lightroom for any new work. Everything is being done in Aperture.

I too, have concerns about Aperture's future though there has been news in recent months that Apple has made hires specifically for engineers to work on Aperture ... and they have been pretty good at supporting Aperture 3 ... in fact there was an update released earlier today to address some bugs ... so I will ride along for a bit to what transpires ... as well as take a look around for a second option ... Adobe has taught me that it isn't very wise to put all our eggs into one software basket ...

What is sad ... if Adobe had put any effort into improving the Slideshow module ... or not ham-string the Book module to a single vendor ... I would have never even given Aperture any consideration ...



Jun 05, 2013 at 07:41 PM
1      
2
       end




FM Forums | Post-processing & Printing | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Retrive password