Lightroom vs. Aperture - NR processing?

I've been using LR for about a year and do 90% of my stuff in it, but I want better NR than LR provides.

Since I run an iMac, I'm thinking Aperture may be a better choice since it supports Noise Ninja while LR does not.

I've never used Aperture and I suppose I need to download the trial. I'm assuming Aperture will do pretty much what LR does (Catalog, RAW conversion, spot healing, cropping, rotating, export to JPG with rename).

What say ye?

Aperture will do all of what you listed and more - same as LR, but just a different flow to it. I would suggest that you download the 30 day trial and watch the free videos:
http://www.apple.com/a​perture/tutorials/

The only thing is that the Noise Ninja for Aperture is $79.95 - it is bundled with the photoshop version as well - seems they don't sell it by itself - pity.
http://www.picturecode​.com/purchase.php

Another option is to simply make a Noise Ninja Photoshop droplet (using auto-profile or custom) that you can apply on export within Lightroom. This droplet method works great for many of the instances where people want to extend Lightroom.

Generally though, I want to apply my noise reduction with some selectivity. For these cases, you just choose "edit in Photoshop" in Lightroom and run Noise Ninja like normal on a separate layer in PS and do some layer masking.

Just wanted to throw my 2 cents in, I have used both Lightroom 2 and Aperture 2 and much prefer Aperture, The only think I currently do now in LR is print. As I do any of my prints 13x19 or smaller in my studio, I like the LR print options and flow. Everything else I like Aperture much better, the workflow, the file management, the shortcuts etc etc... Definitely download the trial, I think you will like it, again just my 2 cents.

I downloaded Aperture and a demo version of Noise Ninja and have played with both. Here's what I found

Lightroom's NR is better than Aperture's but LR will give some blocky artifacts if you go too far.

Lightroom's cropping ability is much better. It gives you some rule-of-thirds lines and you turn the background black to better see the effect of your crop.

Lightroom let's you zoom to 1:2. Nice.

Aperture's a smoother application to operate. It has a better interface. It has less modes. You don't switch from "Library" to "Edit". Aperture gives you Levels which I find easier to use than the curves in LR. Aperture gives you 2 types of sharpening tools which seem to give results equal to LR.

But here's the big kicker - Aperture supports Noise Ninja as a plug in and allows you to do batch NR. LR does not. I've configured LR to use NN as an external editor but in doing so I lost my link to Elements. From LR I can send a bunch of images to NN but I have to process them manually in NN once it starts up.

So, for overall processing, I think I like Aperture a bit better. For integration with Noise Ninja, Aperture is the clear winner.

One thing I HATE about aperture is that it doesn't tie nicely to your directory structure. I use folders to create my project hierarchy. Lightroom lets me browse things in a folder view, Aperture forces me to manually duplicate that structure using it's folders & projects. Yuck!

n1as wrote in post #7014955
One thing I HATE about aperture is that it doesn't tie nicely to your directory structure. I use folders to create my project hierarchy. Lightroom lets me browse things in a folder view, Aperture forces me to manually duplicate that structure using it's folders & projects. Yuck!

I actually prefer this. It keeps everything nice and tidy and easy to locate and search. Folders at least to me are a little archaic. Folder upon folder upon folder etc. Thats just my opinion. I prefer a nice tight Project based format that I can use one click to export the entire project then open it in Aperture on any other computer make changes then bring them all back to my main Aperture library. Folders is so...... well... Windows

Another thing that I love about Aperture, is you can tether straight into a project. Lightroom does not support tethering. (without other programs to do it)

Right Cranium Imaging wrote in post #7017626
I actually prefer this. It keeps everything nice and tidy and easy to locate and search. Folders at least to me are a little archaic. Folder upon folder upon folder etc. Thats just my opinion. I prefer a nice tight Project based format that I can use one click to export the entire project then open it in Aperture on any other computer make changes then bring them all back to my main Aperture library. Folders is so...... well... Windows

I'd have to think about this for a while. My issue is that I use several different tools; Aperture, Lightroom, PhotoShop Elements, Bridge and the OS. I want to have the same organization in all of them. When a photo is in the "Sports - Basketball - Jan 17 Harwood" area, I want to be able to find it in that place no matter which tool I start up.

When I first started using photo SW, I was using Elements organizer. I just let it put all my original files into one place and I set up groups and galleries and what-not to give organization to the mass of files in the one place. That was great until I transitioned to Lightroom. Suddenly, I couldn't make any sense of the several thousand images in one folder. All of my organization effort was gone. I had to start over. What a pain.

Like Elements, Aperture seems to prefer hiding all your files in its library and then giving you access through its internal project structure. "Trust me", it says, "I'll take care of these for you". Heaven help you if you want to move from Aperture to Lightroom or any other new tool that comes along down the line. Once you embrace Aperture's full control of your files I think you're locked into Aperture.

So for that reason, I'm trying hard to stick with the OS folder hierarchy method of cataloging and arranging my images.

I did think for a bit about just going with Aperture's model. Dump all my originals into the black abys of the library, let Aperture organize them for me using folders (inside Aperture) and projects. But I have thousands of images and dozens of projects that repeat from year to year. I'd be creating a bunch of folders inside Aperture to keep them all separated by year.

Or maybe, I'm just too stuck in the past and can't get my brain around the new iMethods

Yea, it really just comes down to what works best for you and your workflow. I guess my only question is why so many programs (Aperture, Lightroom, Bridge, Elements) Why not just one or two?

For me I do 90% in Aperture, the other 10% in CS4. If I want to take an image to Photoshop I just right click and "Edit with Photoshop" Aperture automatically creates another "version" of your image, exports it to Photoshop and all the changes you make in PS are automatically saved in Aperture as a second version of the original, you just have to hit Command S to save in PS.

Between Aperture and PS there is no other program you need.

As far as structure within Aperture you can do it however you like, I do it by date, so I do indeed have a Folder for 2008 which has folders for each month of that year. All my projects go into the corresponding month and then Albums, Light Tables, Web Galleries etc. go under the Project.

Again though its just what works best for you.

http://blogs.adobe.com …8/08/noise_ninj​a_for.html

Close