[SCHMEGGA]

Stats:
1. Shoot exclusively in RAW
2. Nikon D70
3. Amateur with a little skill
4. Shoot lots of pics and batch some stuff
5. Have used Photoshop and CS for years now

So here goes. I have been a long time Mac guy since I bought my first Centris 650 in college. Have had several at one time and been through a bunch. I have always also had a handbuilt PC as well (used to be big-time Quake competitor). So I am now moving everything I do on my PC (including photos) to my new Mac. I was all set to buy Aperture and then I saw the release of Adobe's Lightroom. Why should I spend $100 extra for Aperture? PS: I am hearing that lightroom is significantly faster than Aperture. So tell me why I should choose one over the other.

Thanks in advance.

[mduell]

Straight from ArsTechnica's review of Lightroom:

Pros for Lightroom

* More responsive interface
* Faster feedback for edits
* More color correction options
* Much better spot removal and cloning (Aperture's is still comically bad):
* Plug-in architecture
* Works well on older hardware/doesn't rely on a fast video card
* Cross-compatibility with Photoshop via updated Camera RAW
* Multiple filters and adjustments don't slow down processing
* Better quality non-RAW image adjustment
* History is better than multiple undos

Pros for Aperture

* More control over sharpen
* More color profile and rendering intent options
* Loupe tool is more powerful than just zooming and provides easier quick navigation of image
* Area average settings for white/neutral/black point tool
* Light Table mode
* Vault for one-click backups
* Book printing
* Separate black, gray and white point settings
* Makes a good demo for selling your wife/husband on why you need a new computer when you already have seven

[SCHMEGGA]

Thanks I appreciate the link. How about you other mac users?

[slpdLoad]

Make sure your Mac completely fulfulls Aperture's minimum requirements. It's VERY demanding, especially with RAW.