Aperture or Lightroom? Both at 3.

Both Aperture and Lightroom have been updated to ver­sions 3 since my dis­cus­sion of their dif­fer­ences back at ver­sion 2. The recent upgrades have been kind to both, although I would say that the changes to Lightroom were more evo­lu­tionary than those of Aperture. To update my old post, let me point out the impor­tant changes I see in the two pow­er­house photo work­flow applications.

Aperture

Quick Brushes — but all adjust­ment bricks can be brushed either in or out.

The most sig­nif­i­cant change to Aperture, in my view, is the addi­tion of brushes to make local­ized, instead of image-wide, adjust­ments. Yes, Lightroom fans, this is mostly a “catch up” fea­ture for Aperture since Lightroom added brushes in ver­sion 2. Happily, Aperture has taken it a little far­ther with the ability to brush in or brush out effects and the choice of more effects (even curves) than the set pro­vided by Lightroom. But still, its mostly catch up.

Yes, curves. Aperture added another “catch up” fea­ture in a flex­ible imple­men­ta­tion of the curves adjust­ment brick. Along with brushes, cer­tainly one of the most requested fea­tures and one of the biggest gap in fea­tures with Lightroom.

In another move to match Lightroom, Aperture now also has adjust­ment pre­sets. Once you find adjust­ment set­tings that you like enough to use over and over, you can save them as a preset And, in Aperture, those pre­sets are added to the existing adjust­ments rather than replacing them as Lightroom does.

The Curves Adjustment Brick — many have been waiting for this

I may be going against the grain here, but I don’t see much value in the iPhoto-like addi­tions of faces and places to Aperture. But I know lots of people like both fea­tures, so I’ll simply say that “auto­matic” facial recog­ni­tion is here along with a map based method for geo-tagging your images. If those are impor­tant to you, Lightroom has nei­ther (although you can add geo-tagging with a plug-in).

Aperture has always had a very nice full screen editing envi­ron­ment. Version 3 adds full screen imple­men­ta­tions of the image browser and project views.

The import dialog was always a favorite of mine in Aperture and it has gotten better with many more import set­tings such as meta­data pre­sets, adjust­ment pre­sets, RAW+JPEG han­dling and more.

In an odd move that seems to add more com­plexity than its worth is Aperture’s new trash can. If you delete an image, it goes there, instead of the system’s trash can. So deleting images is now a multi-step process: delete, empty Aperture’s trash and then empty the system trash. Why?

Aperture’s Own Trash

Did I miss a few of your favorite fea­tures? Probably. Apple says they added over 200 new fea­tures in this upgrade and I’ve only touched the ones that most interest me in my per­sonal photo workflow.

One thing that did not change with Aperture 3 is its insa­tiable demand for CPU, GPU and RAM. Woe be it to anyone expecting stellar per­for­mance on any­thing less than the top end class of Macintosh. I’m run­ning it on a Mac Pro with eight 2.8 GHz CPU cores, an NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT video card, and 8 GB of RAM and it runs fine. Your mileage may vary.

In closing com­ments on Aperture 3, I’ve got to men­tion all the bugs, some severe and sev­eral effecting me, that Apple allowed to ship with ver­sion 3.0. That’s not good; many depend on Aperture for their pro­fes­sional work­flows. Granted, if Aperture is a key part of your busi­ness, you prob­ably didn’t just upgrade and go instead of sticking with ver­sion 2 until your testing of ver­sion 3 proved it ready. But still, this is a pro­fes­sional tool and Apple did not do a pro­fes­sional job of deliv­ering the upgrade. The good news, at least for me, is that ver­sion 3.0.3 and sev­eral small OS updates have made Aperture reliable.

Lightroom

The phi­los­ophy of the Lightroom upgrade bares some resem­blance to the upgrade from Mac OS X Leopard (10.5) to Snow Leopard (10.6). Both focused mostly on the under­pin­nings and basic struc­ture. And it that regard, many of Lightroom’s updates for ver­sion 3 are more under the hood.

Lens Correction Options

The RAW image decoding pipeline has seen a near com­plete over­haul, but the user will see nothing but the improved results. Most sig­nif­i­cant of these is vastly better dig­ital image noise sup­pres­sion (which may now be best in class). This is not good news for noise reduc­tion plug-in developers.

A con­tro­ver­sial change is the very new import dialog. It has gained a number of new fea­tures bringing it to near fea­ture parity with Aperture, but in the result has aggra­vated many Lightroom users.

Lens cor­rec­tion is a big deal to lots of pho­tog­ra­phers. Lightroom now has auto­matic geo­metric dis­tor­tion, chro­matic aber­ra­tion, and vignetting cor­rec­tion built in. Profiles are included for most common lenses, but pro­files can also be cre­ated for any lens with an addi­tional free utility. Its sur­prising to see the dif­fer­ence this makes to an image, even one made with good glass.

Oddly, Lightroom still does not have onscreen proofing using ICC pro­files, although it was widely rumored to be get­ting that fea­ture and Photoshop has had it for what seems like forever.

So?

I’m guessing that few people who are invested in Aperture or Lightroom will be changing pro­grams based on the fea­tures in this upgrade. Aperture has closed the gap with Lightroom in all the key image man­age­ment and editing fea­tures. Lightroom has added some impor­tant refine­ments. But the basic nature of the two has remained the same. If you didn’t like Lightroom before, you still won’t.

Lightroom still has its modal struc­ture sep­a­rating the Library from the Develop and Print mod­ules. And it is still a pow­erful image editor with a won­der­fully flex­ible print package for single sheets. But I don’t see its image man­age­ment fea­tures as its strong point and that hasn’t changed with the upgrade.

For Aperture, the story is very good. It retains its “Apple-like” user inter­face and power book printing tools while adding the image adjust­ment tools that have long been missing. The fea­tures gap between Aperture and Lightroom is, for all intents and pur­poses, gone.

The last sev­eral weeks have seen a number of new RAW image for­mats sup­ported by Aperture. Lightroom has done a gen­er­ally better job of keeping up with new cam­eras, but per­haps we’ll now see Apple doing a faster. This will surely be impor­tant to folks who upgrade camera bodies often.

For me? While I have been using both pro­grams for dif­ferent things, the improve­ments to Aperture move it to the top of my list and I’ll be doing all my new work in Aperture alone.

Other Resources

If you’d like to find out more about the improve­ments in both appli­ca­tions, take a look at these sites:

Aperture

Lightroom

Comments

  1. dirk says:

    Hi Bob,

    Thanks for the sug­ges­tion. I did what he described, but still, exporting the Test file takes ages. Looking at the snap­shot (sample) for aper­ture during the export shows plenty of threads waiting for sem­a­phore access. And Apple con­firming the issue lets one think there might be some­thing more than just some old cache files.

    Nevertheless, thanks for the link.

    Cheers,
    dirk

  2. KBeat says:

    I’ve used Aperture and Lightroom to varying degrees since both prod­ucts were launched. With ver­sion 3, both have finally reached matu­rity and are ready for prime time. Although I’m an avid Photoshop user, I find Aperture 3 to be the better rounded DAM and photo editor over Lightroom. Both are superb apps frankly, and if you’ve got a machine with lim­ited horse­power Ligthroom will def­i­nitely per­form better, but Aperture 3 has orga­ni­za­tional tools and a work­flow that are unmatched.

    Additionally, I shoot mostly with a 5D Mark II, and I find I prefer the con­ver­sions in Aperture 3 to those in ACR/Lightroom. They are more nat­ural. This is a change from Aperture 2 in which I pre­ferred the ACR conversion.

  3. Mark says:

    If you work on mul­tiple machines, Aperture has some great fea­tures such as library merging. Lightroom doesn’t have any­thing like this.

  4. Bob says:

    Mark,

    Lightroom can export and import cat­a­logs, which works just like Aperture’s export and import of projects.

    Bob

  5. JonathanJK says:

    I use both, there is some overlap in fea­tures but then some unique abil­i­ties within each app that makes me keep them.

    I use Lightroom for its speed and amazing noise reduc­tion but I don’t under­stand its filing system. I tend to use it like Photoshop.

    I use Aperture because I under­stand its filing system and the new brushes but its per­for­mance is ter­rible on my laptop.

  6. Karl Bratby says:

    thanks for sharing, will give aper­ture another try, have both but found aper­ture slow and clumsy but time for another play i think.…

Trackbacks

  1. […] Aperture or LightRoom? Both at 3. […]

Speak Your Mind

*