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

JohnJ80 wrote in post #4876648
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.

yup, check and check. I am on a machine built for super high-end gaming. quad core, more than enough ram for most situations, etc. The thing is, even though aperture runs pretty fast... those same specs make LR fly! But really, it has less to do with speed and more to do with workflow (which i guess is another type of speed).

I like the fact you can edit photos without jumping between develop and library and etc, but the storage and importing just sucks (imo).

I used Aperture for a while and thought it was great even though I lacked a machine that could give it full performance at the time, but when the Lightroom beta came out I much preferred it, it was so much easier to use. I could get Aperture to do what I wanted it to but found it complex compared to Lightroom. I didn't buy Lightroom but I will be getting the new version which I'm told is out soon. I've been using Bridge and Photoshop and found it fine but I've sort of missed Lightroom. The new one should be optimized for Intel so I'll wait for that.

col4bin wrote in post #4872171
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 now stand corrected and I am making the move to Aperture. No more clunky LR interface for me.

Double Negative wrote in post #4878146
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!

Apple just released Aperture 2 for $199

Anyone know how Aperture handles DNG files? The DNG standard is that the metadata is written to the file so you don't need to carry the sidecar file along. Aperture 1 did not do a good job (at all - abominable) of DNG support and I gave it up because of that.

Does Aperture 2 write the metadata back to the DNG file or is it stuck in the sidecar file again (or deleted)?

J

Aperture 2 which I just got, but prior to that I used Aperture 1.5. Aperture 2 is much better in my opinion. The only thing I use PSCS3 for is extreme editing on the more creative side.

dugcross wrote in post #4929305
Apple just released Aperture 2 for $199

Early, too.

So far, Aperture 2 is looking very nice indeed. Seems quite responsive, more logical in layout.

I don't use Lightroom that much, very very rarely, and now Aperture, so what is aperture has over LR or PS?

My friend (Sweresy) got aperture and reckons it's not much chop.
I'm looking for a suite that will easily help me edit, enhance, store etc. my pics and he reckons save and go for PS CS3.
Do you guys reckon it's the way to go in terms of learning/playing and future-proofing my software?

There's no such thing as futureproof. There is only what you enjoy using now. Download the trials of all 3 and see which you like. What doesn't work for your mate might work for you.

Now that Lightroom II is out, could we see some updated comparisons please?
Thanks

Doobsy wrote in post #6136613
My friend (Sweresy) got aperture and reckons it's not much chop.
I'm looking for a suite that will easily help me edit, enhance, store etc. my pics and he reckons save and go for PS CS3.
Do you guys reckon it's the way to go in terms of learning/playing and future-proofing my software?

Aperture and CS3 are not competing products, it's either Aperture or Lightroom, and CS3 for major enhancements/edits. It all really depends on what you are looking for. Aperture/Lightroom is really an overall workflow/management system.

From what I gather in all these comments (made almost a year ago!), LR and Aperture are great for handling RAW files, while PS is great for image editing. Is that the gist? I do like that I can work on images right away in LR, without waiting for all my files to download to Bridge in PS (which, after shooting 1800 images for a typical wedding, can take forever).

I actually have both LR2 and Aperture 2.1.2. I have an iBook G4 with 1.5g ram and a 250g 5500rpm hard drive, and I'm running OSX.

Here is my view on Aperture 2: unless you have the absolute top of the line apple tower, once you get more than 1,000 photos its junk. It is just to slow to really use in a time appropriate way.

The also could be said for LR2, but the catch is if you render 1:1 previews you will dramatically speed up your scrolling speed through your previews.

After trying to use both for over a month, i have decided to only use LR2. If you just use the 1:1 previews it works great. It does not have all the features that aperture has but is so much easier to use and i would say on my machine at least 10x faster. LR2 covers all my needs, and more because I really only crop, adjust color, covert to BW.

So if you have any questions ask away.

lightroom all the way. sooo many benefits.