[iomatic]

I am a former Aperture user, who fires up 1.x from time to time to locate my archives (on an external drive, and backed up on multiple DVDs). Currently my workflow is all Lightroom-- straight files, again backed up onto DVDs. I'd like to consider Aperture 2.0, but wanted to know if others have gone through this process of consolidating the two different libraries, and how painful, and detailed this process was?

Thanks.

[MacosNerd]

Well you can always download the trial and see if aperture 2.0 has the features that you'd want. Personally I'd have to be blow away before going through a conversion.

I tried both applications and I went the aperture route, one reason is that I preferred the workflow of aperture and the advantages of LR did not outweigh the pain and time of switching my library over.

[art_director]

I went the opposite way -- Lightroom. For my needs it's the best solution.

[mydog8mymac]

I went the Lightroom route as well, but would be interested to know if there are any major reasons to switch.

[iomatic]

*tap* *tap*

Anyone?

[Demonhood]

i use Aperture 2 at home and Lightroom at work. i much prefer Aperture 2. the new quick preview, more advanced raw tuning, and speed are huge improvements over 1.x. Lightroom's interface, while "compact", feels a bit light to me. i've never, however, had to consolidate the libraries between the two. but if everything is referenced on both sides, i imagine the biggest headache would be recreating the post-processing and categorization of the images.

[Veltliner]

I'm getting out of Lightroom, as its RAW conversions got so bad they are pracitcally unuseable for quality work.

Aperture 1.x had the worst conversions, but got better.

Don't forget to take a look at Capture One Pro. That seems to be the best at the moment, and its workflow is pretty good.

Current workflow tools sacrifice image quality over ease of use, and it will take years to develop this new kind of software.

Canon and Nikon camera owners can bet their Canon and Nikon RAW processors beat Lightroom and Aperture in conversion quality hands down.

[OreoCookie]

I use Aperture since version 1.5 (I currently run 2.1). I tried Lightroom and immediately `strongly disliked' the interface (having to switch modes for doing things made it useless for me), although I immediately caution that this is a matter of personal preference. Since 2.0, it has become a lot speedier, especially in Preview mode which works very well (don't forget to enable it while importing RAW files ). Unfortunately, there is no simple way to migrate your data (I'm talking about metadata -- which is what consumes most of your time), moving the raw files (pun intended) is a breeze. Usually, you would like to move your annotations tags and such as well, though.

The quality of the RAW converter is very good, although I'm not someone who spends one hour tweaking all parameters.

[Veltliner]

To the OP: What camera are you shooting with?

Check out this free RAW processor.

http://mac.softpedia.com/get/Graphic...rocessor.shtml

Usually, free things aren't good. Not so in RAW processors. I haven't tested RPP yet, but heard good things about it. It's a man's passion project. And will beat Adobe Camera Raw/Lightroom definitely.

I currently use DPP (after ditching Lightroom. Oreo Cookie, the user interface is the best of it. You should see the RAW conversions. Getting worse with every "upgrade").

[Veltliner]

Generally, the need of workflow tools for photography is overstated.

A bit exercise in using your computer, and you can do the same thing. I actually am must faster with DPP as with Lightroom, and get better results.

I guess we'll have to wait a few more years until this new kind of software (Aperture came out - if I'm not mistaken - less than two years ago)

[Veltliner]

Adding: there is specific DAM software like "Expressions Media" and "Photo Mechanic", which stands heads and shoulders over what Aperture and Lightroom can do.

[forumhound]

I was an aperture user too and went to lightroom, and now lightroom 2, which is bit better then the first version. both programs seemed like bloatware at first, but i now see the light when juggling libraries with tens of thousands of photos. my big beef with all of this is that i would like one program to handle all media, whether it's a film clip, a podcast, a png or gif, or anything else in between. if u have an a/v studio then these segmented programs can be maddening, as projects will invariably have an audio component, a video component, a graphics component, an animation component, and photography. Right now there's Spotlight and rigorous file organization to keep things accessible, in addition to using Bridge, Aperture/Lightroom, iTunes, and iDive or equal. That's lot to ask from a developer on a tight schedule. If anyone knows of an all-in-one solution, please speak up! Looking for some project tracking and billing thrown in too
cheers,
coocoo

[Veltliner]

Lightroom's library is proprietary. I don't know about Aperture's.

There are many, real DAM applications out there (Expressions Media, QPict, Photo Mechanic is to come) and in combination with a standalone RAW converter you have the best of all worlds.

Why?

Imagine you want to switch applications.

Or - in Lightroom the edits are stored in a separate database, and not in sidecar files to the image files. The larger the library, the more devastating a problem will be. Also, RAW technology is developing. It is not sure, that such a database is future proof.

[Yagami Raito]

hi guys !!

is there a way to get aperture for free !?

-Raito

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

Imagine you want to switch applications.

It's no different from other apps. When I switched from iView Media Pro to Aperture, Ive lost all my annotations, tags, etc. -- which are also stored in the proprietary database file.

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

The larger the library, the more devastating a problem will be. Also, RAW technology is developing. It is not sure, that such a database is future proof.

At least in case of Aperture (I figure Lightroom can do the same) you can easily export either the sidecar files and the (untouched) masters separately or have Aperture write your tags into the image file.

If you are working with RAW files, you will always lose all tweaks and settings if you switch from one RAW processor to the other. So no matter what you do, you will always have to work to switch from one solution to the other.

@Yagami Light
We don't support privacy on these forums. Unless your university hass a special licensing agreement or your boss pays for this, you have to pay for Aperture.

[Veltliner]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

If you are working with RAW files, you will always lose all tweaks and settings if you switch from one RAW processor to the other. So no matter what you do, you will always have to work to switch from one solution to the other.
.

Of course you will.

But you will not for switching database programs that are not soldered to a RAW processor.

The advantage of a good database program is that you can use different RAW converters, and each file has a path to the converter it has been processed with. So, in the case of an export to a different cataloguing software one would export the image with the sidecar file containing the edits of that particular RAW processor.

I'm eyeing Expressions Media, the same software you just left (bought by Microsoft, and that's the reason why I'm still eyeing, and not yet buying).

But there's not much else there for the Mac.

[OreoCookie]

That's no different from Aperture or Lightroom where you can export masters (= RAW when shot in RAW) with siecar files, too.

BTW, the reason I gave up on iView was its constant silent database corruption: it claimed that the image fies had been moved, although they were still at the location I've pointed to. I had to manually reconnect thousands of pictures, talking about hours wasted. Not sure if that's still an issue, though.
Aperture never gave me this kind of trouble. Even if Aperture were some cataloging software on steroids (it's not), even then I'd keep it, because it hasn't given me the same kind of trouble so far.

[Veltliner]

I never heard about corruption with the iView database.

I guess this all is still so new that there is no real viable standard.

I just know, that I want to keep my options open regarding RAW processing software. There are some interesting developments. Looks like we'll get something like layers in a RAW software. I read about Bibble introducing that. It was looking like a rumor, had a poor quality screen shot. But, as image processing moves to non-destructive editing, one never knows what will come over the horizon.

If I'm in Lightroom, I can only use Lightroom. That was the reason I left it, as Adobe Camera Raw was not for me.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

If I'm in Lightroom, I can only use Lightroom. That was the reason I left it, as Adobe Camera Raw was not for me.

Why don't you export the few picks you have and convert them with your RAW converter of choice? That's what some people do.

[Maflynn]

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

If I'm in Lightroom, I can only use Lightroom. That was the reason I left it, as Adobe Camera Raw was not for me.

Why don't you use your camera's software and use a database then? You were expounding the benefits of such a setup in the other Aperture/LR thread?

by the way the corruption that Oero was speaking of was a real problem. Before Aperture, I was using iView and had this bug bite me. In some ways this was a large reason why I originally went with Aperture and chose to say with them. I had so many issues with this bug, that I decided Aperture's use of a fully managed library was superior then having images stored on your hard drive that the catalog read/synced. I no longer have to worry about sync issues since the images are stored inside an aperture library.

Just my $.03

[OreoCookie]

Ditto. Although database corruption with Aperture is not unheard of, it's been rock solid in that respect. I don't even want to think of managing my pics by hand -- not if it can be helped. If push comes to shove, I can choose to restore my Library from one of four (!) sources

[Maflynn]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

. If push comes to shove, I can choose to restore my Library from one of four (!) sources

3 for me, two vaults and Time Machine. The single click backup to multiple locations is a big plus, makes life easier and provides a great peace of mind.

[iomatic]

REALLY. Hmm. If multiple location backups is a possibility with Aperture 2.0; I may have to switch. Though it would probably be good to have some sort of easy way of converting.