Lightroom or Aperature?

[splitfyre]

While I'll be doing a majority of my post processing in Photoshop, I'm looking at Lightroom for my workflow and RAW processing. I've not looked into it ALOT as of yet as I was originally just using the RAW conversion tool that Photoshop CS2 includes on my PC.

Recently I've moved to a MacBook Pro and will be doing all my photography on it. Suggestions/Advice/Comments?

Thanks in advance.

[coreypolis]

try them both out.

I and many others prefer Lightroom. Its an amzing tool and will continue to get better.

Aperture is more refined in a few areas, but also lacks a lot of important things. Adobe has proven they are trying to create teh best possible product for photographers, while Apple handed back $200 checks for all the people that originally bought into it.

[gonzophoto]

I have yet to use Lightroom but I am using Aperture for organizing my pictures. I noticed that Without a good chunk of ram it runs slow. (I am running 7 gigs and its pretty peppy now).

I do all my adjustments in PS just because thats what I am used to, and I can do a better job I feel.

[squashed]

Ive just switched over to Lightroom for my PP work and I must say I'm pretty amazed.

[bcap]

As much as I am absolutely in love with Apple and anything Apple (i.e. iWork > Office), LightRoom by far outperforms Aperture in so many ways.

Get used to LR you'll never go back. I have GREATLY reduced the amount of time I spend in PS with LR.

[sfaust]

Lightroom no question in my mind!

What makes it perfect for me is the very tight integration with Photoshop CS3. When selecting, processing, and creating my final images, I run most of my stuff through Photoshop for tweaks. But say 75% of that work only requires RAW processing, and no real editing or retouching. Lightroom allows me to use the RAW processing in PS directly within Lightroom itself. I don't need to open up PS to do those tweaks. Even better. If say 15 need color tweaks, 25 need color and sat tweaks, another all of them need white balance tweaks, I can do these as a batch, and never open PS at all.

For example, I'd select all the images and do the color balance, then select the 15 that need color changes, then select the 25 that need saturation changes. Thats 3 operations, rather than a couple dozen single operations. And when Lightroom processes the batch, its very fast. So it's saved me tons of time with that feature alone.

You may find that since Lightroom uses the Photoshop CS raw processing, you may reduce your actual time in Photoshop processing images, and let Lightroom batch process it much faster while you continue to work in PS doing retouching on images that need it.

The best thing I can recommend, is that you get a demo copy of Lightroom and take the time to see what it can do. I'd load up a small group of images to play with, and use them to explore all the program has to offer. Then once you feel comfortable with the feature set, load up a test workflow and process it. I think you see a significant increase in productivity.

If only Lightroom had a great capture front end for tethered studio shooting, I'd be in heaven workflow wise :)

[bcap]

I can't wait for LR to release the SDK for 3rd party developers.

Once LR can do what Noise NInja can do (in Photoshop) and a few other things, we've got ourselves next to a perfect beginning to end workflow :)

[basroil]

I can't wait for LR to release the SDK for 3rd party developers.

Once LR can do what Noise NInja can do (in Photoshop) and a few other things, we've got ourselves next to a perfect beginning to end workflow :)
i hope that day will never come... that way photos wont look like plastic:rolleyes:

[sfaust]

i hope that day will never come... that way photos wont look like plastic:rolleyes:

I agree 100%. Can you imagine film without grain? Yeech

[bcap]

You guys don't use a noise removal program?

[forkball]

You guys don't use a noise removal program?

noise removal is one thing... but there are many people who take it way too far and produce fairly unrealistic looking skin. I personally like the nice clean look, but I also think that it can be overdone.

[splitfyre]

I've since installed Light Room. Now I am awaiting CS3 availability. What I find interesting is how many people don't realize the amount of work that goes into the post production of a photo shoot. I'm hoping that with using LR in conjunction with PS, it will make my pp alot easier. :D

[Honeybee]

I've heard LR works faster on Mac's. I'm satisfied w/DPP and ACR. If I was going to buy something it would be BibblePro; the 30-day trial was real sweet.

[coreypolis]

I've heard LR works faster on Mac's. I'm satisfied w/DPP and ACR. If I was going to buy something it would be BibblePro; the 30-day trial was real sweet.
completely different things. LR is far more than a RAW converter ;)

[sfaust]

You guys don't use a noise removal program?

I see no reason to with what I get out of the camera. If I shoot high ISO I'll use it, but 98% of the images I shoot use no noise reduction at all. Perhpaps its the cameras I use (1DsMkII, 1DMkII, and 1Ds), but I don't remember feeling the need to use noise reduction when I had a Nikon D70 either.

The less processing you do, the better your images will hold up. So if its not broke, I don't try to fix it.

completely different things. LR is far more than a RAW converter

I agree 110%. It is a workflow tool that has IMHO one of the best RAW converters built in. Image management, selection, culling, rating, keywording, batch operations, raw conversions, Photoshop intergration, exporting, print interface, web gallerys, slideshows, ftup uploads, and with a 3rd party developer application interface. If someone comes up with a good capture module, I'd be set for 95% of what I do.

Far more than even if DPP, ACR, and BibblePro were wrapped into one app.

[bcap]

Oh yeah normally (depending on shooting type) I don't use Noise reduction. I jsut do a lot of indoor sports photography - i.e. ISO 3200 1/320th, so noise reductino is a must to make an 8x10 print look nice.

I also agree that it can be overdone though.

[August 15 Photography]

I have not use LR yet, but I am very happy with Aperture so far. I would be curious to hear what people like better about LR that Aperture

[Curtis N]

I would be curious to hear what people like better about LR that ApertureIt works on a Windows PC. ;)

[August 15 Photography]

It works on a Windows PC. ;)
Ha, that would be a downfall to me :) :) lol

[Honeybee]

completely different things. LR is far more than a RAW converter ;)

Corey,

Please enlighten me as to what I'm missing in liking Bibble better than LR. I'm not being sarcastic, either, just really want to know because I can get LR for $95 vs BibblePro for $130, but most of what I'm hearing is that LR Is really slow on some PCs.

Thanks, in advance.

Honeybee

[sfaust]

Your best bet is to download both and try them side by side and see for yourself. You can do a cursory pass on the features from each products website, but only when you try them side by side can you see the speed differences, feature benefits, and how it impacts your workflow.

I find that LR is very fast on my PC, much more than all the other browsers ad raw converters I've used. And since it also does more, it was an instant sale for me.

Give them both a try side by side and see how it works for you. Thats the best comparison you can get. They both have trial versions available.

[ohtoberich]

Honeybee,

I didn't see a way to undo in Bibble. Lightroom is a non-destructive editor. It keeps a history of all changes to a photo, and in fact you can take snapshots of a point in history. I also preferred the black and white conversion in LR using a channel mixer and split toning, and being able to save the preset for the processing. The targeted adjustment tool is cool too... you can click on a point and make it brighter or darker in the B&W conversion or tone curve. And you can also create multiple versions of the same photo (B&W, color, different crop) too. I don't remember it being easy to search within bibble either; LR has a metadata browser and you can search by location, keyword, lens, etc.

Bibble did have a nicer noise reduction (built-in Noise ninja) and I liked the way it processed some of the pictures though.

Regarding aperture: it wouldn't run on my old G4 powerbook :( I think it does better sharpening than LR and you can softproof prints in custom color spaces, which LR can't do.

[sfaust]

There is an article in the latest PDN which has a review of Lightroom. Just another data point.

Also, I found out something very cool from that review. LR has a built in healing tool for dust spots, blemishes, etc, also non-destructive. That most of us already knew. But I never thought of how it might be useful in a batch of images. If you are doing a studio still life with the camera on a tripod, can can do basic retouching with those tools, and since the image and camera never move, you can apply the retouching to a batch of images. Thats a great time saver. This can also apply to a shoot where you have taken 50 images, and they all have dust on the sensor. You can use the healing tool to fix the dust on one image, and since the dust spot is in the same spot on all the images, you can apply it as a batch process and fix the dust on all the images in a minute or two. Another big time savings.

Worth mentioning also that the virtual copies are just that, virtual. It won't duplicate the image, but only the adjustments to the image which requires very little space (like a text file). But it shows up in your library like a new image with a tag that shows it virtual. Otherwise you'd never know its virtual when working with it like any other image. When you go to export it, thats when it will create the actual image file. A very nice feature iMO.

And thanks ohtoberich for mentioning the snapshots on history. I wasn't aware of that.

[PuR HART]

so can i ask a novice ?
after you guys do ur adjusting in LR and lets just say you did not need anything else how do u get the pic to be saved do u jsut export it as a jpeg is that the same as opening a RAW file doing your thing and then hitting open and saving as a jpeg in PS.
Hope this makes sense thanks

[hannaxt]

You guys don't use a noise removal program?

Absolutely not.
Other than getting best exposure and making the most of what a RAW converter offers + Photoshop - no I don't and no none of the handful of pro's in this area do (not the ones i work with)

[bcap]

Typically, like I said, I don't use one either. But, when I'm shooting in a very poorly lit gym at ISO 3200 (in order to get a 1/320 shutter) at 2.8, it is almost necessary. Considering I am printing 8x10s.

[sfaust]

so can i ask a novice ?
after you guys do ur adjusting in LR and lets just say you did not need anything else how do u get the pic to be saved do u jsut export it as a jpeg is that the same as opening a RAW file doing your thing and then hitting open and saving as a jpeg in PS.
Hope this makes sense thanks

Basically, yes. Photoshop and LR use the same camera raw processor. If all you need to do is adjust colors, levels, exposure, and so on, doing it in LR and exporting to a JPEG will give you the sames results as opening it in PS, doing the same adjustments, and saving it to a JPEG file.

[on time]

when you guys mention photoshop, I was wondering is anyone using adobe bridge?

[sfaust]

I don't use Bridge. I used to use Photo Mechanic because it was faster. Then Lightroom came along and I switched to that because it was faster and fit my work flow better. So for me, no.

[splitfyre]

Loving Lightroom.