Happily switched from Aperture to Lightroom?

Started Apr 17, 2013 | Discussions thread
Andy Hewitt
Senior MemberPosts: 2,639Gear list
Like?
Re: Not for me
In reply to Jack Frazier, May 4, 2013

Jack Frazier wrote:

Andy Hewitt wrote:

I have to say that I really don't understand how LR got so popular. As far as I'm concerned the UI is simply awful, and seems to have no real flow to it. Adjustments were OK, but on my Mac Mini, not any faster than with Aperture.

And I can't see why anyone wouldn't like LR. The UI is well designed and has a logical flow. I tried Aperture and to me it was clunky and unintuitive.

They certainly have different approaches, and given some time, I know that each can be used to great effect.

However, as I see it, LR has a more rigid workflow, which forces the user along a path to the final image. Aperture has a more open workflow, where the user can choose the path more freely. There are of course pros and cons for each. In a non-destructive workflow though, it shouldn't matter much either way.

Personally I prefer the Aperture system, as it allows me to take control over how I want to edit and organise my photos. It still has a suggested workflow, as I understand it the adjustment bricks are placed in the order in which you should be applying them, and do make sense - such as placing the crop and rotate adjustments first, and so on.

I'll never understand why people bash LR because of the different Modules? Has anyone ever heard of a Context Sensitive menu? Of course you have so what's the difference?

I'm not sure how that relates really. A context sensitive menu removes and adds functions according the tasks being used at that time. If there's no need to remove functions, why bother?

It's certainly possible to create a more fixed workflow in Aperture, as you can hide or show various modules as you desire, and only leave showing the ones you want to work with. But, it's not possible to create a less rigid workflow in LR.

I appreciate that the LR way may well work better for pros, as they'd more likely want a rigid workflow with less distractions at each stage.

I absolutely love LR and it just keeps getting better and better.

That's nice.

But to each his own.

Indeed so.

Of course the other part of this is investment. I spent a lot on Aperture over the years (the original purchase price when it was at its highest, plus a couple of upgrades), and find it hard to justify the cost of dumping it and moving to LR. I suspect that applies the other way round. Certainly as a 'hobbyist' that applies to a great extent. And either way round, you have to think about whether you need the aggravation of re-organising and re-editing your photo collection - which at best could be a few thousand, to many hundreds of thousands (I have 40,000).

So, even if you did have a change of heart, there's much to consider besides just the UI. I could live with LR if I had to, but for what difference it's going to make to me, it's simply not worth it.

-- hide signature --

Andy Hewitt
Using Olympus E-420 and Apple Mac Mini '09.

 Andy Hewitt's gear list:Andy Hewitt's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-S1 Fujifilm X-S1 Apple Aperture Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5 Apple iPhone 4S
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow