Just now, I don’t!

If Apple ever start supporting Raw files from my X-Pro 1, I might.

They also released a RAW update today that supports at least 2 cameras you cannot even buy yet in NZ - but 9 months on, Fujifilm X-Pro (and the new XE-1) remain unsupported.

Lightroom supports them.

Organisation and the interface might sound like weak things to pick on but they are the reason I simply could not get on with LR. Maybe I never gave LR a real go, but I didn’t find myself enjoying the experience when I tried it a few months ago.

To pick a few other things specifically - I like the new WB adjustments (especially skin), the curves brick, the cloning/repair I prefer to LR, the ease with which you can toggle between organising and editing, as well as full screen view. And of course, there is the integration with the rest of OSX.

I’ll refrain from going off topic on the wish list items, but suffice to say I’m an Aperture user and stayed that way despite trying out LR.

I’m actually one of the weird people who use both. I also shoot Canon & Nikon. Never really understood taking sides and slating the other unless it’s Mac vs PC ;)

Both Ap & LR are amazing programs and in this day and age we (the consumer) are incredibly lucky to have the options of cheap powerful software computing.

I too am one of those that use both, sort of. I started with Aperture1 as well with the first Lightroom. I bounced between better/faster features of both. Well after using the latest Lightroom I think I finally am just going to settle down and ust Aperture. For me it is better for me and gives me the results that I want. I never bought a true instruction manual for either but I think it is time I learn what some perceive to be the right way to use it. Oh and by the way, the finally I said earlier, we all know there really is no such thing when it comes to software decisions.

Currently I am being forced to utilize both Aperture and Lightroom. I am all for these new paradigms that allow photographers to utilize RAW images in a complete workflow from capture to delivery. Both fall short in accomplishing this task in many ways. For me, neither has a distinct advantage over the other in this respect. In my goal to have a workflow with the minimum amount of derivative files along the way.

What I prefer about Lr is the Print module … it is printing done right … in the Develop Module, the ability to create custom Camera Calibration profiles so I get the color I want and not the color some software engineer thinks I want is very handy … secondly in Develop the combination of Sharpening, Noise Reduction and Export Sharpening is about as good as it gets without the need to create a derivative file to employ PS or plugins. Thirdly, when I want to brush in local adjustments I am able to invoke more adjustments in a single mask than can be done in Aperture … for example I can soften the skin, make slight tonal and even color adjustments with a single mask … in Aperture, I have to brush in the same mask multiple times.

Aperture is simply amazing when it comes to Slideshows … they got it right the first time … The Lr Slideshow option is a complete failure by comparison. Ditto for books … while both only offer the option of a single vendor to purchase books from within the app (though there are a few plugins for other vendors) … Lr is a complete miss in the fact there is no way to create custom page sizes for other vendors and much more limited export options.

Lastly, Aperture should have had a built-in FTP option long ago. It’s absence to me is very unApple like … While Lr doesn’t have FTP “built-in” … it has a free FTP plugin included with the SDK that works extremely well …

What troubles me more about Lr is many changes Adobe has made in upgrade policies … After Dec. 31, 2012 … you may no longer skip a generation and receive upgrade pricing. So if you are more than a generation out with Ps, ID, Illustrator, etc. … you can no longer upgrade but are forced to pay full price for the new version. This hasn’t yet been applied to Lr, though I can’t see how they can avoid doing this in the long term.

Similarly, I am waiting to see if or when Apple is going to allow for upgrade pathways in the App Store … though if customers can purchase the full app for the next iteration of Aperture for $80 … it really wouldn’t matter much … still though, I’m interested to see what they do in this respect.

Soon I will be choosing which app I will be working with and abandon the other … for I am tiring of bouncing back and forth between the two … this is why I am growing increasingly impatient with Apple in dragging their feet with Aperture. I think I know what Adobe’s intentions for the future are, but with Apple, I’m waiting to see their next step before making a decision. Though they should be aware that I am not willing to wait forever.

Interesting comments Butch.

FWIW, I think that Aperture’s printing is one of its biggest strengths. In fact, I came to Aperture (from the Finder) many years ago, because I had a project involving 90 large format (24X36”) prints. For me, the big thing was Books. I worked through understanding the tools etc., and forcing them into my workflow for LF prints and once I’d understood 2 or 3 tech issues, it was just brilliant. The wonderful thing is that you make a ‘book’ with the layout you want and you always have it. I”m talking about 1 image per page. In fact, my books usually only have 1 page. You can come back anytime, drag in a different image or images, press ‘go’ and come back the following day to find your 90 prints sitting waiting for you. The issues were understanding how Aperture works with the gutter etc. (because the books module is intended for books not prints) and dealing with one or two small bugs (can’t ‘fit to left’ on rotated images).

I have a good friend and colleague, who in fact introduced me to HP’s LF Printing division. He is extremely knowledgeable about printing (analogue and digital) and has written several books on PS and a couple on LR. He always did all his printing out of PS until I showed him how cool it is in Aperture … if you’re already using Aperture for image management that is. He is like many … flitting between the two, but leaning more towards Aperture because of its superior database system.

Grant

For me it is a matter of workflow.
Aperture is very clear and logical for me, While I’m always lost in the layers of Lightroom (and Photoshop).

Regards,
Martin

I wouldn’t get too bogged down in comparing Aperture with Lightroom feature by feature. Both do things that the other cannot (or does them better). If you are buying based purely on features, you will become disappointed as soon as the competitor comes out with a new version that does a few new tricks. I’ve read accounts of users switching from the Aperture to Lightroom or Lightroom to Aperture because the other did something they just had to have. I think this is crazy. They will continue to leapfrog each other and it seems risky to be changing photo management software platforms every eighteen months in a futile attempt to stay on the cutting-edge. It is better to make the decision based on which software you are most comfortable with and with which you can be the most productive.

That said, I have been using Macs continuously since 1985 and Adobe products beginning with Illustrator shortly thereafter. I think Adobe is great and I use Photoshop extensively, but no matter how powerful their software is, it always seems to me a bit clunky and ill fitted to the operating system, whether on Macintosh or Windows. Aperture and Lightroom overlap on the vast majority of featured capabilities, so the decision on which software to use could simply be left to the personal preference of the user. I initially purchased Aperture because of the high degree of integration with OS X and the refinement of the interface. Beyond that, each has its comparative advantages and disadvantages. In addition to the advantages you listed I would add:
• Aperture’s skin softening tool is as effective as the best Photoshop 15-step techniques that require multiple layers, masks, blending and brushing. The results are natural and do a great job at preserving skin’s natural texture.
• I finally upgraded to Mountain Lion and Aperture 3.4 about three weeks ago and I’ve fallen in love with Shared Photo Streams. I have used them to share photos with family, friends and clients. Although Shared Photo Streams has limitations, it is hands-down the easiest way to share photos I’ve seen.
• Aperture’s book layout is fantastic. I haven’t used Lightroom 4’s book creating module, but I understand that despite its improvements over LR3 that it still isn’t as good as Apple’s. Books are an important part of what I do, so this is a big deal for me.
• Working speed. I know Lightroom is technically faster at some things, but Aperture is faster where it counts, such as on import, which makes my workflow faster.

One was $80, the other was $200. Simple as that.

I have to agree that the pricing of Adobe stuff in general is barking.

PS 6 Extended costs over US$2000 in New Zealand!

I own them both and I think that Lightroom, particularly now in version 4, has better development module tools.

But it seems like every time I actually try to do something in Lightroom, I find the interface is aggravating and modal. So I switch over to Aperture and do the same task. And I invariably find it easier to do and far more “Mac-like” in its execution. And I really like Apple’s “pro” interface - smaller fonts in pop-up menus, gray accents, etc.

So I waver back and forth. Should I go with the superior development tools or the superior use and work flow? In the end, I find that I can almost aways get an excellent result from Aperture’s development tools as I’ve learned to use them better and perhaps more creatively. But I shoot a Nikon D3 (with good noise control) and Nikon’s pro lenses (with less distortion and aberration) - both noise reduction and lens corrections are Lightroom advantages over Aperture. But you’re milage may vary.

Having gone gone back and forth enough between the two to have learned a lot about how to apply techniques I’ve learned in Lightroom to Aperture’s tools, I’ve written up several posts in my “Translating Lightroom” category over on my blog at www.bobrockefeller.com.

Bob

P.S.

I you find a Lightroom technique documented on the web somewhere that you think might be something to be done in Aperture, point me to it and I’ll attempt to “translate” and put up a post to document it.

Bob

I like a number of folks on this forum go back and and forth between Aperture and Lightroom. They are both excellent programs and they both have their pros and cons. If you have a chance you may like to listen to Derrick Story of the The Digital Story Website podcast “Aperture 3.4 vs Lightroom 4.2” - Digital Photography Podcast 345 that he posted on October 9th. He goes over the strengths of each application. I feel Derrick does a good job pointing out the strengths of both of these programs. But as he states it all depends on which program best fits your image editing (workflow) needs.

Best,

Stu