Comments on: Lightroom pulls further ahead of Aperture

By: Essex Wedding Photographer Just Hitched

Essex Wedding Photographer Just Hitched — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:23:22 +0000

Lightroom for me is the easiest and most efficient tool a photographer could wish for. With the majority of adjustments handled within Lightroom, the need for Photoshop has declined drramatically.

By: Rick

Rick — Tue, 19 Apr 2011 23:04:03 +0000

id’ have to agree with you… aperture organization is better than lightroom. im not also fond of LR user interface but editing wise way much better….

By: Martin

Martin — Sun, 27 Mar 2011 01:26:05 +0000

Beeing used to work with Capture One for years, I first didn’t like this ‘new session/new library’ thing and how storage is organized in LR. But what convinced me was the picture quality with some cameras/digital backs

By: Christian Capitanio photographer

Christian Capitanio photographer — Thu, 10 Feb 2011 09:01:18 +0000

I was looking for a comparison between LR and Aperture market share (the current version is the third for both) but I didn’t find a comparison more recent than this. I compared both software to Capture One months ago and, while the latter has a less productive GUI, it boasts the higher image quality, at least at lower iso settings. In my daily experience as a photographer, my choice is Aperture because of its balance of very good image quality, decent speed and great usability. Speaking frankly, I think that Aperture is underrated because of the bug-filled library conversion routine (that discouraged most pro photographers with their huge libraries) and because of the crazy launch: in fact, they presented a professional tool as a hobbyst piece of junk, packed with useless feature such as geotagging and face recognition that only few professional photographers would use. I hope that the competition is going to be harder between these three major players and that they will provide batter quality and speed for our pictures.

By: Fotograf Klaus Huber

Fotograf Klaus Huber — Sun, 26 Dec 2010 03:03:39 +0000

I have tested Lightroom and I as a Photographer prefer Lightroom because of better Integration to Photoshop. I need tools which can be used together with Photoshop to create good pictures.

By: Dan

Dan — Tue, 14 Dec 2010 18:00:24 +0000

Don’t forget to check out Capture One Pro.
I wrote up a quickstart on what features that I find most useful in Capture One when compared with other tethered or base photo editing applications like Lightroom or Adobe Camera Raw.
vigorotaku.blogspot.com

I hope that you find this helpful.

http://vigorotaku.blogspot.com/2010/12/move-over-lightroom-here-comes-capture.html

By: Luca

Luca — Sat, 09 Oct 2010 09:58:10 +0000

Well, we are in a adobe’s blog… so many user are fan of adobe…
I used LR2.. but when Aperture3 was released, it’s my choice!
I love the way it organizes my library, split it, merge, and have many photo libraries, it’s easy to use, gps, geotagging… and book!
It’s slower than LR, yes, but i look the result.

By: Quintin

Quintin — Wed, 06 Oct 2010 11:03:19 +0000

I have used Aperture and LR extensively and Aperture is definitely my first choice. Anyone that knocks Aperture has obviously not taken the time to learn how to use it properly or read the manual for that matter. Bad craftsmen always blame their tools. If none of these apps can serve your purpose, learn to take decent photographs first.

By: Sheila

Sheila — Tue, 03 Aug 2010 15:39:33 +0000

I am so frustrated with Aperture and want to switch to Lightroom. Does anyone know how to transfer my Aperture Library seamlessly into Lightroom? If it can’t be done seamlessly, what are the steps required to recreate the Aperture library in Lightroom?

By: william Mack

william Mack — Tue, 25 May 2010 12:23:22 +0000

I use Lightroom, Aperture and Adobe CS4 on a Mac Pro. They all have their merits the only thing I have given up on is a windows based system. Anything that improves the workflow and the enjoyment of photography is fine with me.

By: Mark Alan Thomas

Mark Alan Thomas — Thu, 29 Apr 2010 20:44:34 +0000

You guys are freaky defensive. I'm not defending Aperture. I use Lightroom. I'm just pointing out that, regardless of Lightroom's obvious success in the market, Aperture can never achieve similar success due to the footing not being even, therefore to brag about it is disingenuous because it implies that Aperture is inferior technology. [I pointed out that Lightroom is whomping Aperture *on the Mac*, with the Windows market completely out of the equation. You suggested that I'm a liar (er, "disingenuous"), comparing LR on Win+Mac to Aperture on Mac only. I don't appreciate that. --J.] It's like PC users mocking Macs for having a smaller share of the market. [Do you simply not understand that I'm comparing the share of the apps on the Mac, as clearly stated in the data to which I linked repeatedly? --J.] The main reason I and the people I know use Lightroom is because we used Camera Raw first, and it was a cinch to move over. It's a form of monopoly lock-in. Most of us also bought Aperture because it has the appearance of a more professional, refined app, which in many ways it is. But Apple's support is poor, and that barrier to entry eventually catches up to you. Lightroom has a lot of merits. Great technology. Good performance. Nice image quality. If it were non-modal and had an Aperture-class GUI it would be one of my favorite apps.

By: Phil Brown

Phil Brown — Thu, 29 Apr 2010 14:48:36 +0000

John’s already pointed out the fatal flaw in your argument but I’ll add another piece. Macs have increased their market share a little in the last few years, but in that time use of Aperture on Macs declined and LR increased.
The new Aperture has both good and bad going around about it. Some people are switching in both directions.
You talk about barriers for swapping but if Aperture was truly compelling, people would (and do, when they feel it is) change.
If Apple wants to take a bite from this market it is up to them to either provide the tools for users to move across or provide other incentives – complaining about it is pointless.
There are clearly some nice features in Aperture, but the widespread feedback I see on forums is that Apple’s support for users is terrible (if it even exists). It’s the typical “SJ’s way or no way” approach to changes and updates and support.
I remember watching a demo of Aperture at a trade show here in Sydney before it went to final release, and I was blown away by it – thought it was awesome and actually considered whether I would need to look at a Mac to take advantage of it. It’s never lived up to that hype, though.

By: Mark Alan Thomas

Mark Alan Thomas — Thu, 29 Apr 2010 06:48:53 +0000

Regardless of how much merit Aperture has, Lightroom will always have more users than Aperture for two reasons: First, Lightroom runs on Macs and PCs instead of just Macs as Aperture does. Second, there is no barrier to entry for users of Camera Raw since its adjustments carry over into Lightroom. The barrier to entry for moving from Camera Raw to Aperture is huge since it means losing all of your adjustments. So bragging about Lightroom "mopping the floor" with Aperture is disingenuous since it falsely implies that Lightroom and Aperture are competing on even footing. [No, Mark, what's disingenuous is to keep ignoring the data to which I linked. Lightroom is crushing Aperture among pros *on the Mac platform*. Go take another look. --J.]

By: Len

Len — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 18:38:18 +0000

I edited five images in Lightroom and then I edited the same images in Aperture 3. It took 12 minutes in Lightroom and 15 minutes in Aperture 3. I videoed the tests and you can see the videos by going to my website http://www.lenspoden.com/photo-topics.
I also updated my Aperture 3 review. Aperture’s performance is its biggest problem. Having to wait for the screen to catch up to your changes is just frustrating. Lightroom, for the most part, keeps pace with my brush strokes and slider changes. Aperture’s PROCESSING spinning wheel is on way to much to allow me to be productive. As I mentioned before, I will be using Aperture 3 for my personal photographs and videos. It has some great features that Lightroom doesn’t have.

By: Steph

Steph — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 09:48:34 +0000

I’m an aspiring graduate/semi pro photographer and have used Photoshop for 11 years. I have also used Lightroom 2 for the last year. I hated Aperture 1 and 2 and thought it lacked loads of features and wasn’t as intuitive as LR2. Then I downloaded the Aperture 3 trial and have really changed my mind. It’s like everything I wanted iphoto to be, having all the customisation I wanted and I like the way I can search my library and edit my work in the same window and the live previews of adjustments as well as how it integrates with social media sites and iweb, which my site is done in on my Macbook Pro. I’m seriously considering buying Ap3 as a result, as I love iphoto for its workflow and cataloguing and have found it really hard migrating to Lightroom with the thousands of images I have accrued over the years. I’m trying to use Bridge with LR2 for workflow but I don’t know where to start organising my ‘un keyworded’ work, some of which has lost key EXIF data with destructive editing in PS. Probably a futile hope getting that sorted! Referencing files to Ap3 from my ex HD works beautifully though, leaving tons of space on my int HD for scratch disk space. I can preview my work without connecting the drive and dip back into iphoto if I want to make a card or calendar for family presents (NB can do referencing in LR3 too). Oh and the big thing is speed! I desperately need to upgrade my RAM to 4GB from 2GB but I can use Ap3 much better than LR3 beta. On using LR3 Beta, the fans come on and are really noisy, not so with Ap3. (This was a prob with LR2 also). I will say LR3 does look the more professional if showing work to clients from within it and so I wish I could afford both programs. Finally I saw the new package customisation tool on LR3 and thought “At last!… Fitting different images on one page” and was a bit scared as I couldn’t find a print feature in Ap3… then I clicked the simple print icon on Ap3 and this amazing interface came up with intuitive and customisable settings + it just looks cleaner than LR3′s attempt. Brilliant! I can see why Pro Photographers would use LR3 but I also think Ap3 is good, it’s just, I agree, a bit too late for many users. Not me though.