Lightroom or Aperture

I am shooting RAW and working with DPP.

I am thinking about stepping up my post processing. I understand that Aperture 2.1 had made a lot upgrades to become competitive.

I checked the reviews. I know that I can test them with 30 days trial.

I would appreciate any valuable info from people that already have some experience or opinions on them.

Thanks.

Other similar questions:

Ford or Chevy?
Windows or Mac?
Emacs or Vim?



Seriously though, for 99% of the people out there both applications are perfectly adequate, and your best bet is to play with the free trials of both and make your own decision as to which fits your own workflow / likes / ways of thinking best. Personally I like lightroom, but I didn't have a mac until recently so I didn't have a choice, others are huge aperture advocates, so whatever works.

--
Alan -=- http://k20dblog.blogspot.com

For RAW workflow you may want to try Capture One Pro + Photoshop.
Work for me perfect.

I have used both for some time now. I favored Lightroom until Aperture 2.1 was released. After numerous comparisons, I am convinced that Aperture handles the 40D RAW files better than Lightroom. The interface has been greatly improved. I find myself spending less time on each photo and getting better results. Apple is working with many third party vendors to add plug-ins, as well. I suspect we will see that with Lightroom, too. The only downside I have found with Aperture 2.1 vs. Lightroom is that Aperture has moments when it is slow. Lightroom is much snappier. I have decided to live with it, though, because of the better finished product. Although I have not had personal experience with printing from Aperture yet, I understand that Canon users are getting better prints.

Everyone knows real men use Vi!! =)

Very insightful comments.

Thank you.

Markintosh said:

For RAW workflow you may want to try Capture One Pro + Photoshop.
Work for me perfect.

Click to expand...

Does Capture One Pro provide a database for Image Management like LR or Aperture?

I think this is the main function of both - although I know LR does great RAW conversions, developing enhancement, batch printing, slideshows, etc. Can't speak for Aperture since I haven't donated my paycheck to Steve Jobs!

Jpegman

I went with LR because I felt like Adobe will be more likely to continue improving and developing this product over the long run. LR, CS3 and a few other Adobe programs define the Adobe line. Aperture is different, a photo program connected to a computer company.

I am an Apple fan, and love my MacBookPro, and I felt like going with LR over Aperture almost made me disloyal. However, LR has been much quicker to be compatible with newer camera releases. A good friend waited a long time before he could run his Nikon D300 images on Aperture, waiting for Aperture to release the updates. I know it was quite frustrating.

I suspect Adobe will continue to keep LR at the top of the pack in similar products. To me, LR was the better investment for the long run.

LR has much more 3rd party support offerings as well such as books and online training, etc.
--
Brad
http://bptwister.smugmug.com/

You are overlooking a very strong alternative: Bibble/Bibble Pro.
See http://www.bibblelabs.com .

I bought Aperture a couple of months ago (before 2.0, admittedly) and consider it to have been a complete waste of money. Although I spent many hours with the training DVD, reading documentation, and practicing, I just cannot get my work done with Aperture as well nor as efficiently as with Bibble Pro.

Literally, after all the above, I spent 2 hours trying to do what should have been a straightforward post-processing of a single shot. With Bibble, my throughput would typically be fully 100 to 200 shots per hour (except for the occasional frame that needs major surgery).

Cost: 129.95 for the pro version
Trial period: 14 Days
Multi-platform: Linux, MacIntosh PPC, MacIntosh Intel, M$ windows
Multi-threaded: see the web site for explanation

I especially like that I can spread the load out over multiple machines. For example, I can do manual edits on my Mac with small batch processing going on in the background, while simultaneously running a huge job on my Linux server creating multiple-size versions of images and storing them directly on my web server. Or I can do the preceding vice versa, etc.

Aperture gets the prize for the slickest interface, but the Bibble interface is "greased lightening" by comparison. Which do you think matters to your clients? Aperture also brought my dual 2.7-GHz PPC to a crawl while Bibble cruised right along.

Bibble also comes with Noise Ninja, a brilliantly executed straightening tool, and all the other things you expect. (Full Ninja functionality costs a little extra. You may not need it, though.)

--
Thomas D. Shepard, Sc.D.