Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing 
Thread started 05 Mar 2015 (Thursday) 18:04
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Should I switch to LR from Aperture?

 
Davevw3
Member
Avatar
173 posts
Gallery: 11 photos
Likes: 7
Joined Feb 2014
     
Mar 05, 2015 18:04 |  #1

So I have just received the following message from Apple, Which is worrying.

Dear Aperture customer,

Last June, we introduced the new Photos apps for iOS 8 and OS X Yosemite, along with
iCloud Photo Library, which lets you safely store all your photos in iCloud and access them
from anywhere.

When Photos for OS X launches this spring, Aperture will no longer be available for purchase
from the Mac App Store. You can continue to use Aperture on OS X Yosemite, but you will not
be able to buy additional copies of the app.

You can migrate your Aperture library to Photos for OS X, including your photos, adjustments,
albums and keywords. After migrating, your Aperture library remains intact. However, Aperture
and Photos do not share a unified library, so any changes made after the migration will not be
shared between the apps.

To learn more about Photos for OS X, click here. If you’re interested in trying the OS X 10.10.3 Public Beta, which includes Photos for OS X, click here.
We thank you for using Aperture and hope you will enjoy the new Photos for OS X app.
Sincerely,

Apple

My fear is that if my computer should crash I could lose the app for good, without having to try and find a torrent. Should I be thinking about moving to LR? I have never used it, and do not know how it is for photo viewing and presentation. Overall I am pretty disappointed I could potentially lose this app and think it might be best to move everyone now, versus later. Lastly while I'm thinking about it, is it simple to back up a LR library?

Thanks for your help guys, I am not very comfortable with any sort of post processing, so to think about moving systems is a little overwhelming for me, Dave.


"Smile, nod, and back away."

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
FarmerTed1971
fondling the 5D4
Avatar
6,204 posts
Gallery: 66 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 3554
Joined Sep 2013
Location: Portland, OR
Post edited over 4 years ago by FarmerTed1971.
     
Mar 05, 2015 18:33 |  #2

I suppose you will have to at some point. Adobe has made a tool to transfer your photos from what I hear...

http://landing.adobe.c​om …11-aperture-switcher.html (external link)


Getting better at this - Fuji Xt-2 - Fuji X-Pro2 - Laowa 9mm - 18-55 - 23/35/50/90 f2 WR - 50-140 - flickr (external link) - www.scottaticephoto.co​m (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ThreeHounds
Senior Member
Avatar
841 posts
Gallery: 77 photos
Likes: 494
Joined Mar 2014
Location: Tallahassee, Florida, USA
     
Mar 05, 2015 18:35 |  #3

I went from Aperture to Capture One to Lightroom. Very comfortable with LR. Yes, backing up catalogs is a snap especially if you import the images leaving the original image files in their location on your drive(s).

A good backup plan is essential no matter what editing software you use. If you stick with Aperture and you crash, a restore from disk and you're back in business.

One thing to keep in mind is you are living on borrowed time with Aperture. Eventually, after upgrades and updates, your OS won't run the outdated application.


5D MkIII | 7D | Bronica ETRS
EF 24-105 f/4 L | EF 85mm f/1.8 USM | EF 17-40 f/4 L | EF 70-300 f/4 L | 105 f/3.5 Zenzanon | Tamron SP90 f/2.8 Di Macro VC USM
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
elrey2375
Thinks it's irresponsible
Avatar
4,992 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 275
Joined Nov 2011
     
Mar 05, 2015 18:37 |  #4

I'm going to stay with aperture for now. I have all my libraries backed up and I have a copy of the app backed up in several places. I really hate that they're doing this. I use PS as well and I never really used Aperture itself for a lot of editing, but I liked the organizational structure of it. I've used LR and I just don't like it. I've tried all the different iterations and it's more trouble than it's worth for organization. Since I mainly use it for organization and the beginning of my workflow, I'm considering something like photo mechanic.


http://emjfotografi.co​m/ (external link)
http://500px.com/EMJFo​tografi (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Reservoir ­ Dog
A Band Apart
Avatar
3,279 posts
Gallery: 469 photos
Best ofs: 9
Likes: 435
Joined Jan 2013
Location: Out of the pack
Post edited over 4 years ago by Reservoir Dog. (3 edits in all)
     
Mar 05, 2015 18:50 |  #5

I did the switch 2-3 years ago, not a big deal ;)
just wait few month for LR 6 instead to switch immediately (no need to pay for the upgrade in 3 to 5 month)
The only thing it's all your post processing done with Aperture will not be taken in count with LR, so export all post processed pics in JPG if not yet done
At the end, now i prefer LR than Aperture
Also you have plenty of tutorial video on youtube and Adobe website which will help you to learn it fast, very fast ... and they are not so different, may be more similar than different ;)

You have also some free solutions if interested > http://patricelaborda.​jimdo.com …e-to-photoshop-lightroom/ (external link) (My favorite are Lightzone, Darktable and RawTherapee)


150 Free online photos editing application (external link) / 100 Free Desktop Photo Editor Software (external link) / Free Photography eBooks (external link) / My photography blog (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Todd ­ Lambert
I don't like titles
Avatar
12,625 posts
Gallery: 9 photos
Likes: 123
Joined May 2009
Location: On The Roads Across America
     
Mar 05, 2015 19:43 as a reply to  @ Reservoir Dog's post |  #6

I will be keeping Aperture for the foreseeable future. I do everything in Aperture and I have no plans on changing. I've beta tested the upcoming Photo.app and it sucks. Big time.

I will use Aperture until it doesn't work, and then I will quit photography if there isn't something suitable to replace it by then. I loathe Adobe.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Avatar
13,703 posts
Gallery: 146 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 3844
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
     
Mar 05, 2015 20:45 |  #7

I don't have an answer to your question. But, as an Apple user, I can certainly emphasize with you.

I use iPhoto, and have been waiting for an update for years. Can you believe - the latest version was put out in 2011???!!! They seem to have abandoned this extremely popular program, even though it still comes on every new Apple compute (at least as of last year it did).

So, I bought Aperture, but struggled mightily with it because Apple offered no phone-in support for it. Then I heard that they were going to abandon Aperture all together. No phone support. No updates.

As much as I like Apple, it does seem that they have trouble committing to a photo management & editing program and sticking with it.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FarmerTed1971
fondling the 5D4
Avatar
6,204 posts
Gallery: 66 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 3554
Joined Sep 2013
Location: Portland, OR
     
Mar 05, 2015 21:07 |  #8

Imagine your surprise when you find out iPhoto is being completely revamped. LOL


Getting better at this - Fuji Xt-2 - Fuji X-Pro2 - Laowa 9mm - 18-55 - 23/35/50/90 f2 WR - 50-140 - flickr (external link) - www.scottaticephoto.co​m (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kirkt
Cream of the Crop
5,829 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 638
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Philadelphia, PA USA
     
Mar 06, 2015 07:37 |  #9

Remember that Aperture creates "Libraries" to store your "Projects" - when you create a new Library with new Projects, you are given the option to specify how the files you import into your new Project are referenced. Specifically, do you keep your imported files in their location and just reference those files in the project, or do you import your new files into the Aperture library for the Project.

My point is, when you are backing up your Aperture application, make sure you also back up your Aperture libraries, especially if you import your files into the libraries you have created. Aperture works in Yosemite, and Apple's raw support is built in to the OS (not Aperture) but I understand your desire to figure out a plan for the future.

Luckily for you, you have choices when it comes to raw converters for Mac. If you are the type of person that needs to organize and keyword and tag and GPS and IPTC all of your image files, then you will also need a strategy for DAM (I use Photo Mechanic when I need to, and I also use XNViewMP [free] but I do not do tagging and key wording, etc.). That aside, there are several raw converters that I would suggest you look at purely for raw conversion quality, which is more important for my needs than DAM.

Iridient Digital just released v3 of its raw converter, Iridient Developer. It is top notch and builds on a long history of high-quality raw conversion. Unlike most third-party raw converters, it supports both ICC and DCP camera profiles (so you can use custom profiles that you have built with practically any profiling software) as well as camera-lens profiles that are part of Adobe Camera Raw. It also has adopted the use of the ACES color space as its internal working space, and offers L*a*b* curves, specialized mono demosaicing for black and white conversion and a specialized sharpening algorithm to accompany multiple levels of conversion quality algorithms. You can link it to pretty much any external editor to make workflow connections a snap and it handles batch jobs with a dedicated batch mode. You also have explicit control over conversion output color space - including no color conversion during output if you need to produce an RGB image for profiling with no color conversion. There is a free trial: http://www.iridientdig​ital.com (external link)

Raw Photo Processor (RPP) is a high-precision raw converter that aims to produce the highest quality conversion with no frills. The application is free, but you can unlock several features with a donation (multi-core processing, built-in camera profiling, workflow helpers). At first the process seems a little quirky but once you get it, you will appreciate the quality of the conversions RPP produces. This application is suited for folks who work with raw conversion as a first step in the image processing chain, and who routinely take their images into photoshop or other pixel editor. This raw converter is superb at what it is intended to do: http://www.raw-photo-processor.com/RPP/Over​view.html (external link)

Of course there are the other commercial solutions, like DXO and Capture One, as well as open, free solutions like Raw Therapee. They are all very good.

I'm not sure how you work, and how much processing you do on a raw file in Aperture, so some alternatives might be better suited for your workflow than others. For context - I use many different raw converters for many different reasons. I do not prefer Adobe Camera Raw, but it has its place sometimes. I, personally, work with images in Photoshop after raw conversion and I find Lightroom to be redundant to ACR and the LR workflow is a waste of time for me. The local adjustment tools are clumsy and can slow the editing process down if your machine is not capable of handling the demands that they put on the process. That said, I know that many here who use Lightroom swear by it and do practically all of their processing and printing from it. I find the Adobe raw conversion to be average to good for most images, although the Adobe Standard color profile tends to be over the top for many conversions.

Bottom line - you have choices. If you are going to reevaluate your workflow and change applications, I would suggest you look at Iridient Developer for starters.

Best of luck,

kirk


Kirk
---
images: http://kirkt.smugmug.c​om (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jc1350
Member
158 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Apr 2006
Location: Maryland
     
Mar 06, 2015 09:12 |  #10

Lightroom 5.7 now includes the Aperture import functionality as a built-in plug-in. There are caveats since the two programs do not work the same way.

http://lightroomkiller​tips.com …ow-built-right-lightroom/ (external link)

I manually made the switch, project by project, a few months ago. It was a chore, but I don't miss Aperture and it helped me clean up some messed-up projects. The one feature in Aperture that I think shines above LR is the slideshow thing. I make the typical slideshows on DVD for my son't baseball team each year. But I have since found that I can do the same thing with just as much ease (if not more) using iMovie and Roxio Toast Titanium. Even better, with Toast I can put HD video on DVD disks (only viewable on Blu-ray players). If that was possible the old way I did it, it wasn't apparent to me.

There are two ways to mange files with LR. You can use folders which ARE the folders/dirs in Finder or you can just let LR handle that automatically and do everything in Collections and Collection Sets. There are pros and cons to either. I have LR import to folders automatically by date and I don't touch them. I use a combination of Collections, Collection Sets and Smart Collections for organization. There is no right or wrong way. The right way is the one that works best for you.


--
John

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
whiteflyer
Goldmember
Avatar
1,703 posts
Gallery: 212 photos
Likes: 712
Joined Jun 2006
Location: Lancashire, England
     
Mar 06, 2015 14:47 |  #11

Todd Lambert wrote in post #17462503 (external link)
I will be keeping Aperture for the foreseeable future. I do everything in Aperture and I have no plans on changing. I've beta tested the upcoming Photo.app and it sucks. Big time.

I will use Aperture until it doesn't work, and then I will quit photography if there isn't something suitable to replace it by then. I loathe Adobe.

Todd are you a mind reader by any chance, as this is exactly how I feel.


Whiteflyer Photography (external link) | Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Davevw3
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
173 posts
Gallery: 11 photos
Likes: 7
Joined Feb 2014
     
Mar 06, 2015 21:22 |  #12

kirkt wrote in post #17463121 (external link)
Remember that Aperture creates "Libraries" to store your "Projects" - when you create a new Library with new Projects, you are given the option to specify how the files you import into your new Project are referenced. Specifically, do you keep your imported files in their location and just reference those files in the project, or do you import your new files into the Aperture library for the Project.

My point is, when you are backing up your Aperture application, make sure you also back up your Aperture libraries, especially if you import your files into the libraries you have created. Aperture works in Yosemite, and Apple's raw support is built in to the OS (not Aperture) but I understand your desire to figure out a plan for the future.

Luckily for you, you have choices when it comes to raw converters for Mac. If you are the type of person that needs to organize and keyword and tag and GPS and IPTC all of your image files, then you will also need a strategy for DAM (I use Photo Mechanic when I need to, and I also use XNViewMP [free] but I do not do tagging and key wording, etc.). That aside, there are several raw converters that I would suggest you look at purely for raw conversion quality, which is more important for my needs than DAM.

Iridient Digital just released v3 of its raw converter, Iridient Developer. It is top notch and builds on a long history of high-quality raw conversion. Unlike most third-party raw converters, it supports both ICC and DCP camera profiles (so you can use custom profiles that you have built with practically any profiling software) as well as camera-lens profiles that are part of Adobe Camera Raw. It also has adopted the use of the ACES color space as its internal working space, and offers L*a*b* curves, specialized mono demosaicing for black and white conversion and a specialized sharpening algorithm to accompany multiple levels of conversion quality algorithms. You can link it to pretty much any external editor to make workflow connections a snap and it handles batch jobs with a dedicated batch mode. You also have explicit control over conversion output color space - including no color conversion during output if you need to produce an RGB image for profiling with no color conversion. There is a free trial: http://www.iridientdig​ital.com (external link)

Raw Photo Processor (RPP) is a high-precision raw converter that aims to produce the highest quality conversion with no frills. The application is free, but you can unlock several features with a donation (multi-core processing, built-in camera profiling, workflow helpers). At first the process seems a little quirky but once you get it, you will appreciate the quality of the conversions RPP produces. This application is suited for folks who work with raw conversion as a first step in the image processing chain, and who routinely take their images into photoshop or other pixel editor. This raw converter is superb at what it is intended to do: http://www.raw-photo-processor.com/RPP/Over​view.html (external link)

Of course there are the other commercial solutions, like DXO and Capture One, as well as open, free solutions like Raw Therapee. They are all very good.

I'm not sure how you work, and how much processing you do on a raw file in Aperture, so some alternatives might be better suited for your workflow than others. For context - I use many different raw converters for many different reasons. I do not prefer Adobe Camera Raw, but it has its place sometimes. I, personally, work with images in Photoshop after raw conversion and I find Lightroom to be redundant to ACR and the LR workflow is a waste of time for me. The local adjustment tools are clumsy and can slow the editing process down if your machine is not capable of handling the demands that they put on the process. That said, I know that many here who use Lightroom swear by it and do practically all of their processing and printing from it. I find the Adobe raw conversion to be average to good for most images, although the Adobe Standard color profile tends to be over the top for many conversions.

Bottom line - you have choices. If you are going to reevaluate your workflow and change applications, I would suggest you look at Iridient Developer for starters.

Best of luck,

kirk

I am sorry but much, if not all of this went well over my head. Does LR reference the files only?


"Smile, nod, and back away."

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BigAl007
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,999 posts
Gallery: 542 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 1615
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Repps cum Bastwick, Gt Yarmouth, Norfolk, UK.
     
Mar 07, 2015 05:44 |  #13

Davevw3 wrote in post #17463994 (external link)
I am sorry but much, if not all of this went well over my head. Does LR reference the files only?


Yes LR only references files, It does not store them as data within the library file. Personally I think that is a much better option. With the all the image data held within the library file, it only needs a fatal file error in one file to lose all of the data. At least with referencing files, they exist on the HDD independently of the library. Now a file error may only hose one image. It also makes regular backing up simpler too, well quicker anyway. You only have to back up the much smaller Library file each time, and not the unchanging image files each time.

Referenced file also make it much easier to open the RAW image in a different application if necessary. You do not have to extract the RAW file data first. It disappoints me that Apples default for both Aperture and iPhoto is to hold the data within the library file. Although it seems to fit Apples do it our way or not at all philosophy.

Alan


My Flickr (external link)
My new Aviation images blog site (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jc1350
Member
158 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Apr 2006
Location: Maryland
Post edited over 4 years ago by jc1350.
     
Mar 07, 2015 07:03 |  #14

The Aperture managed database file isn't a file. It's a directory/folder that is presented by the Mac OS GUI as a single file. You can right-click (control click) it and "show package contents" which will show you the actual sub-directories and files and using the command line it will always show as a directory. So losing one file won't destroy the whole thing unless that one file is the actual "database" file. The actual photo files are there as normal files in sub-directories to the "Masters" sub-directory.

Native programs in Mac OS are the say way. They appear as single files, but are really directories with a special naming convention in the underlying file/directory structure.

EDIT: "content-aware" backup programs will copy only the deltas. I believe Time Machine is content-aware and rsync definitely is. Copying by drag-and-click will copy everything every time.


--
John

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BigAl007
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,999 posts
Gallery: 542 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 1615
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Repps cum Bastwick, Gt Yarmouth, Norfolk, UK.
     
Mar 07, 2015 09:30 as a reply to  @ jc1350's post |  #15

But that is a referenced system. Just forcing the use of a fixed directory structure. Exactly the sotrt of thing that gets thrown at LR. Which is a truly refernced system. So what your saying is that Aperture and iPhoto do not have an option to hold the images in a single database file? Being able to use a file manager to explore the structure held within a single is not unusual. Windows file manager has for example for many years allowed the display of the "folder structure" of zip files. It dosen't stop them being a single file on the disc.

Alan


My Flickr (external link)
My new Aviation images blog site (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

2,729 views & 2 likes for this thread
Should I switch to LR from Aperture?
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is le bleu
630 guests, 337 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.