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
Forums  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear
Guest
Forums  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing 
Thread started 23 Feb 2012 (Thursday) 20:54
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links (only for non-logged)

Aperture vs. Lightroom

 
sf1
Goldmember
Avatar
2,021 posts
Joined Mar 2007
Location: Calgary, Canada
     
Feb 23, 2012 20:54 |  #1

Well, I have been using Aperture for 4 or 5 years now. I've been a huge fan of the workflow and tried LR2 out but did not care for the workflow pattern. So I stuck with Aperture.

Last weekend I was at a photography workshop and they brought in a professional printer. One of the first things he says is how Apple messes with the cameras data differently than all other programs. I thought sure, what ever.

I went home and decide to try LR3 out. Still hate the layout and workflow, but it produces much better skin tones than Aperture. Both photos below adjusted with the same grey card shot (temp at 5450), then minor adjustments for exposure. Aperture picture has some skin softening added (very little) and the LR photo has the clarity decreased. No matter what I do in Aperture, I cannot reproduce the file that LR is giving me.

Damn, looks like I need to start learning another computer program...I am blown away by the difference - its night and day.


Aperture 3

IMAGE: http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u198/shanef1/IMG_0432-Version2.jpg

LR3
IMAGE: http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u198/shanef1/IMG_0432-2.jpg

Canon 5DII, Canon 1D Mark II N
Canon 24-70 mm f/2.8 L, Canon 85 mm f/1.8, Canon 70 -200 mm f/2.8 IS L, Canon 400 mm f/5.6 L, Canon 50 mm f/1.4, Manfrotto 055XPROB & 488 RC2
Canon Speedlites 580 EX, 430 EX II & 3 PW II, iMac I7, MacBook Pro, Aperture 3, CS5

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tonylong
...winded
Avatar
54,657 posts
Gallery: 60 photos
Likes: 569
Joined Sep 2007
Location: Vancouver, WA USA
     
Feb 23, 2012 22:15 |  #2

Hmm, I'm not an Aperture user, but I'd imagine that it would be fairly simple to tweak those skin tones.

Maybe if you uploaded the Raw file (if you shot this Raw) to a place like YouSendIt.com and posted the link some Aperture users could take a shot.

Basically, if the workflow of Lightroom turns you off, then I don't see a good reason to go for it!


Tony
Two Canon cameras (5DC, 30D), three Canon lenses (24-105, 100-400, 100mm macro)
Tony Long Photos on PBase (external link)
Wildlife project pics here (external link), Biking Photog shoots here (external link), "Suburbia" project here (external link)! Mount St. Helens, Mount Hood pics here (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Seamus69
Senior Member
788 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 48
Joined Nov 2010
Location: Pensacola
     
Feb 24, 2012 07:11 |  #3

I would think that adding a little saturation or vibrancy would give you something very similar to the LR edit.


Canon 60D, 5Diii, 24-105, 24-70ii, 70-200 f2.8 ii is, 580ex, (2)430ex

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mark-B
Goldmember
Avatar
2,248 posts
Likes: 10
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Louisiana
     
Feb 24, 2012 19:08 |  #4

sf1 wrote in post #13955350 (external link)
I went home and decide to try LR3 out. Still hate the layout and workflow, but it produces much better skin tones than Aperture. Both photos below adjusted with the same grey card shot (temp at 5450), then minor adjustments for exposure. Aperture picture has some skin softening added (very little) and the LR photo has the clarity decreased. No matter what I do in Aperture, I cannot reproduce the file that LR is giving me.

I've used both programs for years, so I don't even need to see your examples to know that they render images differently. Aperture favors green & yellow while Lightroom favors brown & red. While I recognize that there are noticeable differences, I have never seen anything so drastic on unedited raw files. If you are working with JPG images, then Lightroom will apply the effects of your camera profile and Aperture will not.

Here's an example of the differences I see in images. The same image was imported into Aperture 3 and Lightroom 4 beta. No adjustments were applied. I exported to my desktop as a 16 bit TIFF, opened them in Photoshop, then saved to JPG. This image is split right down the forehead and nose with LR4 on the left and A3 on the right. You can click it for a 3168 pixel version.

IMAGE: http://www.msbphoto.com/img/s3/v38/p269966556-6.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.msbphoto.co​m/img/s3/v38/p26996655​6.jpg  (external link)


Which converter looks better depends on the specific image, but they can both be made to look nearly identical. You can't rely on the numbers for this though, because 5450 white balance is not going to look the same in Aperture as in Lightroom. It's also hard to compare saturation and other adjustments since Lightroom uses whole numbers on a 1-100 scale for their adjustments and Aperture uses two decimal places from 0.00-1.00 for their adjustments.

My best tip for you is to get the white balance just about where you want it in Aperture, then use the green & red curves and/or levels along with the gray and/or white tint wheels to get the skin tone exactly where you want it. You can also go to the color brick and lower the saturation and/or luminosity in the yellow section.

I do agree with you though - once you get used to the very sensible workflow in Aperture, it can be very difficult to go back to Lightroom's narrow minded way of doing things.

If you want to put your RAW file somewhere that I can download it, I will give it a run through Aperture and see if I can manage to get similar colors to your Lightroom edit.

Mark-B
msbphoto.comexternal link

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tonylong
...winded
Avatar
54,657 posts
Gallery: 60 photos
Likes: 569
Joined Sep 2007
Location: Vancouver, WA USA
     
Feb 25, 2012 00:23 |  #5

I looked at the pic above in a non-color-managed browser and see no right-left difference. Could there be some color-space discrepency here?


Tony
Two Canon cameras (5DC, 30D), three Canon lenses (24-105, 100-400, 100mm macro)
Tony Long Photos on PBase (external link)
Wildlife project pics here (external link), Biking Photog shoots here (external link), "Suburbia" project here (external link)! Mount St. Helens, Mount Hood pics here (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Lloydd
Senior Member
379 posts
Likes: 152
Joined Nov 2010
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
     
Feb 25, 2012 04:28 |  #6

Its a fairly minimal difference, and without seeing the pic together like that you wouldn't notice it




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
46,424 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 4521
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
     
Feb 25, 2012 10:17 |  #7

tonylong wrote in post #13962861 (external link)
I looked at the pic above in a non-color-managed browser and see no right-left difference. Could there be some color-space discrepency here?

Tony, I am on a non-managed PC right now, and there is a definite L-R split visible in the image, right down the centerline of the face. It is not a strongly visible difference, but not overly subtle either.


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tonylong
...winded
Avatar
54,657 posts
Gallery: 60 photos
Likes: 569
Joined Sep 2007
Location: Vancouver, WA USA
     
Feb 25, 2012 10:30 |  #8

Wilt wrote in post #13964402 (external link)
Tony, I am on a non-managed PC right now, and there is a definite L-R split visible in the image, right down the centerline of the face. It is not a strongly visible difference, but not overly subtle either.

Huh, well maybe it is the fact that I'm on a cheap laptop right now.

What browser are you using?


Tony
Two Canon cameras (5DC, 30D), three Canon lenses (24-105, 100-400, 100mm macro)
Tony Long Photos on PBase (external link)
Wildlife project pics here (external link), Biking Photog shoots here (external link), "Suburbia" project here (external link)! Mount St. Helens, Mount Hood pics here (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
46,424 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 4521
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
     
Feb 25, 2012 10:34 |  #9

IE9 on Win7 64-bit desktop


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tonylong
...winded
Avatar
54,657 posts
Gallery: 60 photos
Likes: 569
Joined Sep 2007
Location: Vancouver, WA USA
     
Feb 25, 2012 11:05 |  #10

Hm, well between you having a better monitor and the fact that my 60-year-old eyes just ain't working as well as they once did, you are doubtlessly seeing things better than me:)!


Tony
Two Canon cameras (5DC, 30D), three Canon lenses (24-105, 100-400, 100mm macro)
Tony Long Photos on PBase (external link)
Wildlife project pics here (external link), Biking Photog shoots here (external link), "Suburbia" project here (external link)! Mount St. Helens, Mount Hood pics here (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
chesterjohnphoto
Goldmember
Avatar
1,525 posts
Likes: 97
Joined May 2011
Location: Sydney, Australia
     
Feb 26, 2012 04:27 |  #11

Just like yourself, i have moved from Aperture to LR3 and cant go back, there's many things you can do in Lightroom and i cant wait for the full version of LR4.


Facebook page (since Jan 2010) (external link)
Flickr (since June 2013) (external link)
....I kill ambient light, use Profoto light and control it my way

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mckinleypics
Goldmember
1,809 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Minnesota
     
Feb 28, 2012 18:53 |  #12

I'm thinking about this too. I really love the gradient exposure feature in LR3. I really don't like the idea of switching everything over though.


Dave
7D, 70-200mm 2.8 L IS, 24-70mm 2.8 L, 50mm 1.4, Tokina 11-16mm 2.8, 580EXII
My Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pseudoephedrine
Hatchling
1 post
Joined Jan 2012
     
Feb 29, 2012 05:31 |  #13

hmmm, sf1 just to give my perspective, my monitor is also not calibrated however the Lightroom image seems to be much softer for me. Even to the point that some of the finest hair detail is starting to be lost. If you compare the eye lashes I think, for me, the lightroom image seems to have less detail there.
Also, my eye is quickly drawn to the belly button where in the Aperture image the shadow looks quite natural where there is an absence of light. Compare that to the lightroom image which on my screen seems to have replaced the shadow with some orangey overtone?

Lincoln.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mark-B
Goldmember
Avatar
2,248 posts
Likes: 10
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Louisiana
     
Feb 29, 2012 15:13 |  #14

Frames by Celly & Ches wrote in post #13968624 (external link)
Just like yourself, i have moved from Aperture to LR3 and cant go back, there's many things you can do in Lightroom and i cant wait for the full version of LR4.

There are also many things you can do in Aperture that you can't in Lightroom. Both programs have features that the other does not. You just have to pick the one that best suits your needs.


Mark-B
msbphoto.comexternal link

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
peeaanuut
Goldmember
Avatar
3,560 posts
Gallery: 33 photos
Likes: 708
Joined Feb 2011
     
Feb 29, 2012 15:18 |  #15

is there a way to manage in AP3 and still work in LR? or is the importing a difference maker? Also, I generally import from the onboard memory card reader and not directly from the camera. Not sure if that makes a difference or not.


Stuff
http://joetakesphotos.​com/ (external link) : | : https://www.facebook.c​om/JKlingPhotos (external link) : | : https://twitter.com/jk​lingphotos (external link)
airbutchie - Joe was definitely right about adding contrast...
:)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links (only for non-logged)

19,325 views & 0 likes for this thread, 15 members have posted to it.
Aperture vs. Lightroom
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

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

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 2.58forum software
version 2.58 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Marcsaa
641 guests, 122 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, 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.