for the mac users - lightroom or aperture and/or photoshop

I have Aperture and fell it really slows my MBP down enough to get annoying. I was thinking about getting lightroom. I currently use Bridge to view my pics just because it seems like Aperture really kicks my Macs arse. All the adobe products will room without a glitch. I see that other have issue with Aperture slowing down their mac.

iPhoto and PS/CS2.

JohnJ80 wrote in post #4738137
.... agreed. Until Microsoft bought them. Now, not so much.

J.

I've yet to use Expression media... I tried creating a web gallery with it once, and that gallery didn't work on some versions of Microsoft(!) Internet Explorer

AFAIK nothing changed for the good when iView became Expression Media, so I still use iView.

Ok so mine list is now updated:

Import and Adjust with LightRoom
Captions are done in PhotoMechanic
Final editing is done in Photoshop CS3

René Damkot wrote in post #4742360
I've yet to use Expression media... I tried creating a web gallery with it once, and that gallery didn't work on some versions of Microsoft(!) Internet Explorer

AFAIK nothing changed for the good when iView became Expression Media, so I still use iView.

That was one of the reasons that I just made the break to LR. iView is good, the MS Expression Media version of it was supposed to be fine - I downloaded the free upgrade, it accepted it, and then it promptly forgot it. So, I just continued to use iView until I converted everything over to LR.

iView is good, worked great - I especially liked how it would sync the metadata to the original file, but now - under MS - not so great.

J.

My mac came with a version of aperture on it and decided i would give it a try. At first i was fairly pleased with it considering it definitely did more as far as organization goes that iphoto. I have grown tired of aperture, and in my opinion it doesn't compare to the perfect compatibility between Adobe Bridge and CS3. I could do all of my batch processing and viewing in adobe bridge, and can change file names and organize files and folders however i please (likewise for lightroom). One of the more convenient things for me is that i can run my actions on which ever pictures i desire through bridge. Their are also numerous good videos to watch to get you started on the adobe site.

Hoped this helped
Casp

I use Lightroom for developing and some printing and I use Photoshop for major editing.

I kind of like Lightroom better for my own workflow (mostly for printing). Aperture is nice, though.

In the end, all you really need is Photoshop and Bridge, IMO.

I went from Lightroom>Aperture>Lightroom. I like the develop module on lightroom infinitely more than aperture.

I use LR and CS3. I used the trial of aperture and really liked it however I question Apple's go forward plan as updates have been few and far between.

i just got a mac (kinda) and I was excited to try out aperature... and as it turns out, it totally sucks compared to LR (which I did not expect).

read: sucks = super super slow, and not as intuitive for organizing photos, especially upon import

Both macs run Lightroom and PS3 but my mac that I use for editing and printing runs PSC, Lightroom and Photo mechanic for quick edits. When I am at a motorsports event that i am covering I use Lightroom and CS3. These two programs make my life that much easier when I am on the road. I tried Aperture and I liked some things but my workflow is set up to use Lightroom and for the most part it is pretty fast and easy. You should try each of the programs and decide which works for you. When Lightroom was not available I used Breezebrowzer Pro and I View Media Pro but that was when I was using PCs.

Mike
D&W Images

producerism wrote in post #4872368
i just got a mac (kinda) and I was excited to try out aperature... and as it turns out, it totally sucks compared to LR (which I did not expect).

read: sucks = super super slow, and not as intuitive for organizing photos, especially upon import

I have both Aperture and LR. I only use LR now.

Aperture needs top end graphics engine and it needs tons of memory. If you have both of those, performance is much, much better.

J.

I've been using Aperture since 1.0.2 and, quite frankly, it's been disappointing to see Apple's lack of emphasis on it. When it came out, it was the rave - and Adobe was playing catch-up. Supposedly, Aperture 2 is due in the next few weeks, but I won't be holding my breath.

Feb 26th, along with rumored MBP updates... We'll see.

I too am disappointed at Apple letting Aperture get stale. They're on the right track!