Aside from the video features, does anybody have experience with both Aperture and Lightroom? I'm curious about the workflow comparisons; I have the feeling you can do more geared specifically towards digital photography in Lightroom, but Aperture may have other neat tools like slideshow/music integration and video.
Matt, I dicked around with Aperture 2 some but I ended up sticking with Lightroom. It's got all Apple polish but at the time I felt like Lightroom was still a bit better, especially in terms of non-destructive editing. However, at the time there were a ton of really cool plugins for Aperture that weren't release on Lightroom for doing things like HDR and panoramic stitching. The biggest reason I stuck with Lightroom though was that it was cross platform and with my MacBook Pro being pretty old it didn't run either very well.
What I really did like about Aperture was that organization and metadata seemed much less clunky compared to Lightroom, and with the new features in 3 it's probably gotten even better, especially for a photographer that does a lot of location shoots or also shoots a lot of friends and family stuff with Faces. The other nice thing is that, being an Apple app, it's got interesting OS integration for connecting to Address Book, iTunes (easy granular iPhone/iPod sync), etc.
Until I get a more powerful Mac I'll stick with Lightroom and I'll re-evaluate Aperture then. I know I saw a ton of photographers on Twitter who were saying they were going to switch after trying Aperture 3 yesterday. Most of them were professional filmmakers though too, so the video features are probably compelling.
There are still problems with Aperture3 the biggest being the inability to push the metadata to the files even if you use DNG. that alone kills A3 for me, besides I would have to move to MAC, which is sub-par for Adobe products until CS5 comes out and gets mac up to speed with 64bit adobe programs, (and mac can't do full 30bit color yet)
We can all hope this is a kick in the pants for Adobe to get video support into lightroom3, a feature that should have been added in LR2.
A3 is mostly now a tool for video organization that just happens to include photos. (and for prosumers/consumers there is the book publishing features)
Also don't forget LR3 is in public beta and will be released soon (rumors suggest it's coming in april)
LR3 will have better slideshows and slideshow to h.264 video export
> without dealing with the distractions of a full UI
pa-lease. can we stop with this reason for having full screen? you want full screen for photos for a few reasons but none of those reasons include... oh wait, I have to deal with this email BRB!"
my point is that full screen is there... dammit. hold on. I gotta take this.
sorry about that, I was saying. full scr... sigh. TXT from the GFC.
now, about that fu.... ring, ring. gads, will this ever get written?!
right then, the worlds is taken care of! full screen is about not about losing distraction but resembles the way a light table works but re-imagined to work better. that is you don't have the bright white blowing your eyes out as you look at photos. contrast is easier to see when it's black to white. or dark gray to white.
but then, who remembers light tables let alone Kodachrome?
Good point John, but I wasn't really meaning detractions of other things going on in the background, I meant the visual UI distractions so you could focus on seeing the contrast and color, perhaps I should have defined what I meant better.
<i>seriously?!? never used a light table? bet you don't know what HC110 is either...</i>
the GTD cowards like to use the words "distraction free" as a means to GTD their day away. they have this belief that a computer really should have a typewriter mode so they can "just write". which is pure bunk. you can either write or you can't.
I think it's behooves us to find a different words to describe what "full screen" does. otherwise the skeptics will dismiss the feature for what it's not.
I am rather confused, as I hesitate between element 8 and aperture 3.
Is there anybody who can help defining the difference between these 2.
Aperture is 100% more expensive than element 8 . Is it worth ?? thanks
Kalle, I highly recommend downloading the Aperture 3 demo to find out for yourself. These two applications are in completely different classes, as the price tips you off. Aperture, like Lightroom, is a professional photo editing and organizing application. Elements is a consumer photo tool similar to Picassa or iPhoto. If you're on a budget, Elements may be the way to go (though I'd suggest trying Picassa and iPhoto too before you buy it), if you're managing thousands of photos or doing professional retouching then Aperture or Lightroom are the way to go.
please don't dismiss Elements as a non-"professional" tool just because it's cheap and doesn't have the word "Pro" any where in it's marketing. Adobe Photoshop Elements 8 (aka Elements) is more than just a "consumer" product. I'd say it falls between the feature limited iPhoto/Picasa and the more expensive "pro" applications. there's lots that this app can do that none of the rest of them do. the "make the best group photo" feature is worth the entire price of the software alone. there's better image processing, stitching a panorama, and adding TEXT/ titles onto a photo are features you want in the other programs to have after you've used them here.
it's nice to know this program is there to bridge the gap.
Interesting, I may have dismissed it unfairly. I haven't used it myself, at least not for a long time, but I was basing that on Adobe's own description of Elements as "The #1 selling consumer photo-editing software."
Thanks Chris & John. In fact, I have already IPhoto and I feel, I need more features to go further on my photo processing. I have the latest IMac with a great resolution, so the time is in to find a more creative program.
Well, in the case the one upside to Aperture is that your iPhoto library can be directly imported and shared features, particularly in regards to metadata, will make it easy to learn.
chrisWhite
Littleton, CO
Comments
What I really did like about Aperture was that organization and metadata seemed much less clunky compared to Lightroom, and with the new features in 3 it's probably gotten even better, especially for a photographer that does a lot of location shoots or also shoots a lot of friends and family stuff with Faces. The other nice thing is that, being an Apple app, it's got interesting OS integration for connecting to Address Book, iTunes (easy granular iPhone/iPod sync), etc.
Until I get a more powerful Mac I'll stick with Lightroom and I'll re-evaluate Aperture then. I know I saw a ton of photographers on Twitter who were saying they were going to switch after trying Aperture 3 yesterday. Most of them were professional filmmakers though too, so the video features are probably compelling.
There are still problems with Aperture3 the biggest being the inability to push the metadata to the files even if you use DNG. that alone kills A3 for me, besides I would have to move to MAC, which is sub-par for Adobe products until CS5 comes out and gets mac up to speed with 64bit adobe programs, (and mac can't do full 30bit color yet)
We can all hope this is a kick in the pants for Adobe to get video support into lightroom3, a feature that should have been added in LR2.
A3 is mostly now a tool for video organization that just happens to include photos. (and for prosumers/consumers there is the book publishing features)
Also don't forget LR3 is in public beta and will be released soon (rumors suggest it's coming in april)
LR3 will have better slideshows and slideshow to h.264 video export
pa-lease. can we stop with this reason for having full screen? you want full screen for photos for a few reasons but none of those reasons include... oh wait, I have to deal with this email BRB!"
my point is that full screen is there... dammit. hold on. I gotta take this.
sorry about that, I was saying. full scr... sigh. TXT from the GFC.
now, about that fu.... ring, ring. gads, will this ever get written?!
right then, the worlds is taken care of! full screen is about not about losing distraction but resembles the way a light table works but re-imagined to work better. that is you don't have the bright white blowing your eyes out as you look at photos. contrast is easier to see when it's black to white. or dark gray to white.
but then, who remembers light tables let alone Kodachrome?
I've actually never used a light table
the GTD cowards like to use the words "distraction free" as a means to GTD their day away. they have this belief that a computer really should have a typewriter mode so they can "just write". which is pure bunk. you can either write or you can't.
I think it's behooves us to find a different words to describe what "full screen" does. otherwise the skeptics will dismiss the feature for what it's not.
Is there anybody who can help defining the difference between these 2.
Aperture is 100% more expensive than element 8 . Is it worth ?? thanks
JohnFoster, now you're just trolling.
it's nice to know this program is there to bridge the gap.