[Maflynn]

I'm now finally start to compare which application to use. I'm a current aperture user but I'm taking a serious look at LR.

To that end, I've downloaded the trial and I'm working with it but I've also read on the net that some people are dealing with performance issues and/or stabilty issues.

Any LR2 users here who wish to chime in on the performance and stability?

The great things I like about Aperture is its ease of management of my photos (I have about 14k). The vault for backing up my images is also great. I wonder if LR2 has comparable features.

[OreoCookie]

What version of Aperture do you have? 2.1?

Concerning Lightroom, it does not have a vault feature, you have to do backups manually. Concerning performance and stability, I can't really say anything, I'm an Aperture guy. Aperture 2 is a lot speedier than Aperture 1, especially if you use the new preview mode (which uses the rendered previews instead of rendering each RAW file) -- great when all you want to do is browsing your pics.

[Maflynn]

I have the latest version of Aperture. I'm considering jumping ship for a couple of reasons, RAW handling, image editing and photoshop integration.

I've found when using ACR to load a RAW image into PS I get a slightly better result then Aperture. I can manually tweak the image after loading in Aperture so the issue is not huge but with Adobe's experience with image processing I'm wondering if I'd be better off.

If you asked me last year, what was most important, it was the DAM aspect of Aperture and at the time Aperture was better then LR in that department. Now LR has caught up and my priorities also include image editing tools and integration with PS, yes aperture allows it, how much better is LR with the integration?

Depending what site you visit will dictate which application is lauded. I have seen to many that state that LR is hands down superior to Aperture in many ways and the majority of photographers choose that over aperture. Likewise I can visit other sites and that states the opposite.

I understand this has a lot to do with personal preference but at some point technical differences, such as speed, stability work flow, RAW processing comes into play as well.

To be honest since I'm already using Aperture, I will need to be blown away by LR and seeing some reports of speed/stability issues is not a good sign. I just don't know if those issues are limited to the windows or if the OSX version is experiencing it.

I've been searching for some sites that provide a fairly unbiased review of LR2 and Aperture 2.

Edit: I really leverage the vault functionality and I'm not sure I'm willing to live without that. Sure, TimeMachine helps a bit in that endeavor but I have a vault on my iPod and with a push of a button it syncs my images. A manual copy every time I want to back up my images will be painful.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Maflynn 

I have the latest version of Aperture. I'm considering jumping ship for a couple of reasons, RAW handling, image editing and photoshop integration.

What's wrong with Aperture's Photoshop integration?

Originally Posted by Maflynn 

I've found when using ACR to load a RAW image into PS I get a slightly better result then Aperture. I can manually tweak the image after loading in Aperture so the issue is not huge but with Adobe's experience with image processing I'm wondering if I'd be better off.

From what I've read and seen, it's a matter of taste these days what is and isn't a better RAW converter. They all have their strengths and weaknesses.

Originally Posted by Maflynn 

Now LR has caught up and my priorities also include image editing tools and integration with PS, yes aperture allows it, how much better is LR with the integration?

That depends on where you think Aperture lacks, for me Aperture (and Lightroom) do just as I expect them to: they generate a file, launch Photoshop (or your image editor of choice), when you hit save in the image editor, the library is automatically updated.

Originally Posted by Maflynn 

Depending what site you visit will dictate which application is lauded. I have seen to many that state that LR is hands down superior to Aperture in many ways and the majority of photographers choose that over aperture.

It's a very heated subject, kinda like Canon vs. Nikon.
Both apps have some features the other one doesn't have. Period. The rest (read: the user interface) is a matter of taste. No review can provide you with the answer, this is completely personal. Even if Lightroom were 20 % `better' than Aperture, I still would hate to use it, because I hate, hate, hate the user interface (it completely gets in my way). But I know it's a personal thing and people should use what they prefer.

So download the demo and play with it. If you like/can live with the user interface, then you know you can go for it. If you don't like the UI, all advantages of Lighroom are irrelevant. (Ditto for Aperture, of course.)

Here's a short (and incomplete) list of things that give one app an edge over the other. I try to leave out things that are a matter of taste (GUI-related things, for example).

Some things that Aperture has over Lightroom

• Vaults. Enough said, very important to me.
• Plugins. The Noise Ninja plugin is awesome. Verveza is too expensive for me. There are plenty of them that can do a lot that Aperture is missing (good lens correction tools, stupid effects, etc.)
• Better multi monitor support. Lightroom 1 didn't know how to handle multiple screens, this is a new feature of Lightroom 2.
• Books. Enough said.

Some things that Lightroom has over Aperture

• Non-destructive, localized edits (which saves a little harddrive space and allows you to take back some edits. (Aperture has this, too, for some, but not for Dodge & Burn, for instance.) This is important if you prefer to not use Photoshop for these kinds of things.
• Lightroom is a 64 bit app and can use more RAM than Aperture.
• Ability to send DNG files to Photoshop instead of tifs or psds. Because Photoshop uses the same RAW converter, you can tweak the image in Photoshop which will recognize the settings from Lightroom. (You need to ensure that Photoshop and Lightroom use the same version of the RAW engine.)
• Adobe claims that Plugins aren't needed and external apps should be used instead. Follow the link for an official explanation by Adobe why. (Note that Aperture has plugins that have nothing to do with image editing, e. g. geo tagging or flicker plugins.) The link contains some discussion in the comments on features/problems of Lightroom with respect to plugins, this may be interesting for you.
  
  My personal take on this is: why doesn't Adobe allow Photoshop plugins (well, maybe because less people would use Photoshop then )? They'd immediately have access to a vast number of tested and tried plugins.

Originally Posted by Maflynn 

I understand this has a lot to do with personal preference but at some point technical differences, such as speed, stability work flow, RAW processing comes into play as well.

Sorry, I can't help you much here. I've read a pretty bad review in a good photography magazine (e. g. they have used an 8-core Mac Pro with 2 GB RAM and claimed that according to their tests, it was about as fast as a 3 GB Core 2 Duo PC, commenting that the Macs were still more expensive ). Since they haven't used the same machine (which they could have done, the Mac Pro runs Windows), I haven't really seen much measurements. Anecdotal evidence suggests that Lightroom `feels' faster, especially on slower machines, but that was partly due to Aperture's habit of rendering all RAW files, even if they were thumbnails.

I can't comment on Lightroom's stability.

Originally Posted by Maflynn 

To be honest since I'm already using Aperture, I will need to be blown away by LR and seeing some reports of speed/stability issues is not a good sign.

There's only one way to find out … 

Originally Posted by Maflynn 

Edit: I really leverage the vault functionality and I'm not sure I'm willing to live without that. Sure, TimeMachine helps a bit in that endeavor but I have a vault on my iPod and with a push of a button it syncs my images. A manual copy every time I want to back up my images will be painful.

I couldn't either, but it's up to you.

[Maflynn]

Localized edits and presets that LR offers is tempting, and I already mentioned RAW handing. I'll look into the Noise Ninja. I knew of this plugin but have not tried it. The idea of destructive plugins in Aperture vs. non-destructive plugins LR is an interesting debate but I'm not sure which is better. Clearly Aperture has more plugins available.

I agree with the books also.

I was working with LR last night for a few hours and I want to get over the learning curve enough to properly gauge the work flow and editing capabilities that it offers to discern whether its in my best interest to jump ship. Right now, I'm not sure hwere things are and how it works sufficiently to say I like or hate the interface. I do like the darker color of the interface so that my pictures stand out.

I agree it is a heated debate but I'm trying to gauge both applications strengths and weaknesses and see how they align themselves with my requirements.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Maflynn 

Localized edits and presets that LR offers is tempting, and I already mentioned RAW handing.

Just a quick note: Aperture can do localized non-destructive edits (e. g. repair tools), plugins do not offer this feature (Dodge & Burn is an `example plugin' provided by Apple. Clearly it would be great if non-destructive plugins were possible.

Originally Posted by Maflynn 

I'll look into the Noise Ninja. I knew of this plugin but have not tried it.

It produces great results and does some things that it can't do when used `the Lightroom way' (e. g. autodetect the ISO setting).

Originally Posted by Maflynn 

The idea of destructive plugins in Aperture vs. non-destructive plugins LR is an interesting debate but I'm not sure which is better. Clearly Aperture has more plugins available.

Lightroom doesn't have plugins in the usual sense of the word. It simply launches external apps and that function is (apparently) more powerful compared to Aperture (which Aperture can do, too). The story would completely change if Adobe found a way to integrate Photoshop plugins in Aperture.

[quietjim]

I've been using Lightroom since it's early beta days, through version 1, now using version 2. Periodically I've tried Aperture out, including Aperture 2. I shoot almost exclusively RAW with a Nikon D300, some events, some food, some miscellaneous street stuff, calendars and for a magazine. I use a stock MacBook Pro, 2.5 Mghz and various external hard disks for backup. I also us an Apple 23" screen. I have about 16K photos online in my main catalogue.

The best thing about LIghtroom is that it is so easy and fast to get from 300 or so pictures from a shoot to the 5 or 6 standout photos. My usual procedure is to dump the card in with minimal previews. A preset automatically sets copyright notice. The poster above who said Lightroom doesn't automatically backup is wrong; it does and you can set the backup location each time.

Once the photos are in, Lightrooms flag and reject is a matter of hitting a key. By setting a filter to select untagged photos, both picks and rejects disappear and I can focus on making decisions on what to keep. At the end of the process, a simple menu item to refine photos rejects anything other than picks; another one deletes the rejets if I wish. Often I go through this process again.

Lightroom's RAW conversion is often compared unfavorably with Capture NX 2 for Nikon; I myself can't see the problem. The addition of profiling capability has really made it easy to get results quickly. Finally, it's easy to move a picture back and forth with Photoshop for those shots that really are going to be nitpicked.

I'm sure Aperture can produce great results but this thread seemed to suggest it was considerably superior to Lightroom. I don't see that. I think the programs will go back and forth as to features, speed, etc. but definitely anyone who is checking out one should check out the other.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

What's wrong with Aperture's Photoshop integration?

Your own link answered this one, in negative:
If what you're after is Photoshop integration, the Lightroom-Photoshop story is unmatched:
* The jump is faster and doesn't require creation of an intermediate TIFF/PSD just to open a file in PS. (Instead the raw file goes through the Camera Raw pipeline, preserving your LR edits.)
* You can open your raw file as a Smart Object and apply filters to it, preserving the editability of your raw settings and of the filters.
* You can pass multiple files to Photoshop at once to create panoramas, HDR merges, or multi-layer PSDs. This works especially well with virtual copies of the same image, making it possible to composite together multiple raw renderings. Lightroom + Photoshop is the ultimate 1-2 punch.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Your own link answered this one, in negative:

You're aware that this is an official Adobe site, right? I would hardly call this objective. Plus, I've mentioned these points in the list.

Practically, you encounter quite a few limitations: most importantly, the version of your RAW processor has to be the same. Hence you need to work with the latest version of Photoshop and the latest version of Lightroom. That's the reason why you can't (easily) duplicate this functionality with Aperture, unless there is a way to teach Photoshop to use Apple's RAW processor. Plus, even then, I don't see the immediate use: Aperture creates 16 bit tifs by default, so you don't lose any detail or information.

Also, I've mentioned in the list that Lightroom creates DNG files for round tripping, but this is only an advantage if you want to continue `developing in RAW.' The workflow in Aperture is a bit different in that respect: you develop first in Aperture and then do other edits in, say, Photoshop.

@quietjim
Concerning backups (and I'm not sure if you mean backup when you say backup, it sounds as if you describe where the pictures are stored): vaults are much more powerful than what you describe. Although I don't claim I know Lightroom well, I know that Lightroom doesn't give you the same functionality. I have three vaults located on three different harddrives (one is offsite, two are at home). This is in addition to my internal harddrive where my Aperture Library resides. You can recover pictures you have deleted in your Library from your vault if you have updated the vault between importing the picture and deleting it. In principle you can have arbitrarily many vaults and update them separately (my offsite vault is obviously offsite ).

The workflow of sorting pictures sounds very similar. You first import pictures. You can add tags/etc. directly when you import the pictures. You rate pictures with stars by pressing 1-5 or you reject them with 9. If you reject them, they disappear from your viewer by default. You can filter pictures by rating (e. g. 1 star or 1 star and above) or view the rejects.

[Maflynn]

Originally Posted by quietjim 

The poster above who said Lightroom doesn't automatically backup is wrong; it does and you can set the backup location each time.

Myself and Oreo mentioned the superiority of thje Vault. It does not automatically back up your photos you're importing but rather it backs up your library. Quite a difference because I'm backing up my masters and versions not just what I'm importing at the moment.

I started this thread because I wanted to see if LR2 had any performance and stability issues related to version 2. There's enough threads/posts/blogs out there in the intarweb about this subject but the vast majority seem to be related to the pc and not the Mac, hence this thread.

I'm trying to weight Apertures strength with DAM over Lightroom's strength of editing and presets.

Aperture has great integration with Apple products, as you would expect and Lightroom has great integration with Adobe products, like PS - as you would expect. That doesn't mean Aperture does not interface with PS. I'm just to figure out now if my work flow fits better with the LR model then the aperture model. I have a 30 day trial of LR and I'm playing with a couple months worth of images to see if the interface, workflow and editing capabilities will fit my needs.

I'm hoping to install the noise ninja plugin for Aperture tonight and play with that. I'd actually like to compare the two plugins (PS vs Apertures) since it looks like when I buy the Aperture pluging I get PS.

Admittedly going to the apple site and looking at the plugins, there's quite a number of them available. I really never noticed this and that may make my work flow even easier. I'm giving LR a fair shake though.

If you or anyone else has any opinions on LR2's features don't hold back

[OreoCookie]

Mayflinn, as an Aperture user, can you give us your impressions after you've finished evaluating Lightroom 2? Most of us know only one app very well (in my case Aperture, obviously), so it'd be helpful to have some feedback for posterity from someone who knows both.

[Maflynn]

Definitely because I'm finding a dearth of information over LR2 and Aperture2. There's plenty of reviews on Aperture vs. LR but they're from version 1 or Aperture 2 and LR 1 which isn't a fair or current comparison.

I'm starting to build a spreadsheet of features and weighting them to see which app does them better.

[OreoCookie]

Cool. If you need a place to upload the spreadsheet to, feel free to pm me

[Veltliner]

I can't see why someone would exchange Aperture with Lightroom.

You are getting practically the same thing, only with a different flavor.

There has been a lot of discussion about the quality of Lightroom's RAW conversion quality.

As for me, I own Lightroom, but stopped using it because of those poor conversions.

If you own a Canon or a Nikon, you are far better off to use the software that comes with the camera (free with Canon, but I guess Nikon charges).

You don't need to decide only between Aperture and Lightroom.

There are many RAW converters out there, and also database software, that will do far better than Lightroom.

[Maflynn]

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

I can't see why someone would exchange Aperture with Lightroom.

Because I'm looking for the best tool to suite my needs

You are getting practically the same thing, only with a different flavor.

While there are similarities. The products are quite different. The same argument can be made between mac and pc. Your practically getting the same thing why change over to a mac.

There has been a lot of discussion about the quality of Lightroom's RAW conversion quality.

I was not aware of any such discussion regarding LR's RAW processing

If you own a Canon or a Nikon, you are far better off to use the software that comes with the camera (free with Canon, but I guess Nikon charges).

You're right, I've heard positive things about Nikon's RAW conversion but I diagree that I'll be better off. I've tried it and it fails to fullfill my needs

You don't need to decide only between Aperture and Lightroom.
There are many RAW converters out there, and also database software, that will do far better than Lightroom.

Now that's a wacky idea. I'd rather not be spending my time creating a database, with all of attributes/metadata fields that will give me almost what the same level of DAM but absolutely no image editting capabilty.

Two reasons for using Aperture/LR over a database is that it enhances my workflow and provides great DAM. Both of which take a major hit with using a generic database manager that I must spend considerable time with to customize to make it work.

To be honest it makes more sense to use a tool that is specialized in what I'm looking for then try to use two or three programs that get almost get me there.

[Skarpowsky]

I'm no expert in anyway, but I definitely found LR to be more stable and quicker in response. I don't do RAW much, and am doing basic things. Seems like Aperture takes quite some time to catch up to what you have done.

[spiff72]

Originally Posted by Skarpowsky 

I'm no expert in anyway, but I definitely found LR to be more stable and quicker in response. I don't do RAW much, and am doing basic things. Seems like Aperture takes quite some time to catch up to what you have done.

I have to offer the opposite viewpoint. I consider myself a casual photographer, and shoot only in RAW. I use a MBP 2.5Ghz 17" with 4GB of RAM.

I have been using Aperture for about 4 months, and thought I would try the trial of Lightroom. I exported my entire RAW library (2300 images) from Aperture and imported into Lightroom. I find that Lightroom beachballs frequently, and after about an hour of playing with it, I dragged it to the trash. I think I am sticking with Aperture.

[Dead Raw Fish]

I too have been looking at both Aperture and Lightroom. I started with Lightroom 1.x and am in the midst of evaluating LR2 and Aperture2.

I can't say as I notice a huge difference in stability or performance between the two. Neither have crashed on me (yet). Performace, while I have not timed either one for specific tasks, I can't say as I notice any real different with speed (I know that others have different experiences). (Mac Pro, 2x2.8Ghz Xeon with 10GB RAM)

I shoot RAW (Canon, FWIW) and I have noticed that the RAW processor in LR1 and LR2 is much better (to my eye) than Aperture2. The Aperture processed photo's look much more washed out and overall not what I expected them to look like. In LR1 and 2 the photos look much more as I expect. I did this with a calibrated monitor (actually, before and after) and while with calibration things are generally better, LR was always better. I understand there may be 3rd party alternatives here but I am talking strictly about the differences I see between the two.

As for "workflow", while I am not expert for sure, I find both similar enough that I find I could use either and be "good" at one or the other. (Good defined by knowing enough about the tool to spend the bulk of my time doing what I want to do with the pictures and not thinking about the SW)

There are plenty of things I find annoying about LR but they don't change the stability or performance. The biggest annoyance is if you use "spaces". Switching back to LR (with command - tab) does not always bring the LR window to the top. Other issues are lack of "Email this photo" or any integration with .Mac (if you use that). Other missing features or deficiencies have also been noted in the thread.

There are some interesting notes on previous versions of LR and Aperture at O'Reily (linked by "OreoCookie" above).

While not a definitive review, these are my experiences so far.

[Veltliner]

deleted.

[Maflynn]

Originally Posted by Dead Raw Fish 

I too have been looking at both Aperture and Lightroom. I started with Lightroom 1.x and am in the midst of evaluating LR2 and Aperture2.

I shoot RAW (Canon, FWIW) and I have noticed that the RAW processor in LR1 and LR2 is much better (to my eye) than Aperture2. The Aperture processed photo's look much more washed out and overall not what I expected them to look like. In LR1 and 2 the photos look much more as I expect. I did this with a calibrated monitor (actually, before and after) and while with calibration things are generally better, LR was always better. I understand there may be 3rd party alternatives here but I am talking strictly about the differences I see between the two.

That RAW processing is where I'm focusing my attention at the moment. I'm definitely in a quandary
There's a lot of stuff I like about each product and conversely some things I'm displeased with in both.

As for "workflow", while I am not expert for sure, I find both similar enough that I find I could use either and be "good" at one or the other. (Good defined by knowing enough about the tool to spend the bulk of my time doing what I want to do with the pictures and not thinking about the SW)

I'm not expert as well, but I want a tool that allows my workflow to be handled effortlessly and efficiently. Right now Aperture allows me to do that because LR's forces me to use use the "modules", so I need to finish my work in one, move on the to the next and not bounce around.

There are plenty of things I find annoying about LR but they don't change the stability or performance. The biggest annoyance is if you use "spaces". Switching back to LR (with command - tab) does not always bring the LR window to the top. Other issues are lack of "Email this photo" or any integration with .Mac (if you use that). Other missing features or deficiencies have also been noted in the thread.

Agreed, I found rapidweaver to have the same problem with spaces and its frustrating.


All in all, I'm leaning towards of Aperture but I keep coming back and seeing what LR has to offer. I've only done two months worth of images. I think I'll export my entire library and import it into LR and see how the performance is on my MBP.

[OreoCookie]

Concerning RAW converters, which RAW processor you prefer is usually a matter of taste and either RAW processor will have strengths or weaknesses. Ideally the big camera manufacturers (or independent RAW processor software companies) would work with Adobe and Apple so that users can choose to use the manufacturer's RAW processor instead.

That would create problems at other points (e. g. because integration of Lightroom and Photoshop would only work if Photoshop would use the same RAW processor.

@Veltiner
You've mentioned your disdain of Aperture, Lightroom & Co. in the past (which is fine), and I believe you when you say that you're happier/better off with a different solution.

For most people, the RAW converter + database program cannot substitute Aperture et al, and for them, their workflow is sped up using these programs. There are some that use a combination of some or all of these (e. g. they use Aperture to manage their library, find their favorites within a certain project and then process the handful of picks with a RAW processor of choice).

[Maflynn]

I completed my analysis and comparison of both products. I did a write up on my new blog at http://www.syslog.me I'm happy to do the analysis because it gave me the where with all to start a personal blog. I've been doing my blogging on theologynow.net but that blog is focused on Christian living and the Bible, so technology stuff did not fit the intended purpose, syslog.me, catchy name too, I might add

I think its fairly indepth and I tried to make it fairly objective. Basically I found that Aperture excelled in all of the major areas that I found important and was good in the other areas. LightRoom's editing capability, such as the adjustment paintbrush, is a great tool and its tight integration with PS is also a plus but Its advantages could not come close to that advantages that aperture has.

Thanks everyone for all the input.

The last test that I did was to import my entire library and interact with the application to see if the performance was better/same/worse then Aperture's. All in all, I found it about the same as Apertures.