iPhoto, Aperture, Lightroom, Elements

Pardon if potential similar question has been inquired - have not found such if it exists.

I shoot RAW w/ Canon 50D and also have many JPG's via couple basic cameras [Fuji and Kodak]. Currently, am using iPhoto9to 'manage' [~10k images total] and some post-processing, and PS Elements 6 for additional processing when / where desired. Have a 24" iMac [10.6.4], and all images are stored on external HD's [one main, one back-up in safe].

So, with that said, which program would be an easier / better transition, to have a more powerful, increased feature application: Ap or Lr or something else? PLUS (goofy question here) what is the best path to actually then use either of these programs - any tricks, tips, hints? Yes, realize that can do trials with either, and have actually dabbled with both somewhat at stores and friends, but I'd rather go deeper into using THE program that is 'best' fit for the other s/w programs that already have [and w/o having extra s/w downloaded on my computer that would then need to be removed if don't want to keep it after trial expires].

Thanks.

Well, one quick and easy bit of advice is to upgrade Elements, first, because you are using a Mac the latest versions of Elements give you the full version of the Camera Raw processor that you can use Bridge to open your Raw files in. And, a plus for that is that Camera Raw shares the processing engine and tools that Lightroom uses. Bridge and Camera Raw are a pretty powerful combo that you can get plenty of use with as you consider your Aperture/Lightroom options.

Although I'm a long-time Lightroom user, I can still encourage you to explore your options. For instance if you like things iPhoto does, Aperture could fit into your workflow nicely.

One other alternative is the Canon software Digital Photo Professional, a very capable Raw processor that some people prefer to others because it produces nice images "automatically" by simulating the Picture Styles that cameras use to create jpegs, and then gives you total control over where things go from there. People like the ability to get some good color and contrast rendering and some like the results they get from DPP better than what they get from the other Raw processors out there.

DPP has a small "footprint" and I have it on both my computers and even though Lightroom is my "serious" Raw processor I like using DPP for quick clean conversions when I want them.

So, those are some options. I don't have a Mac and have never used Aperture, so I can't give an objective Aperture/Lightroom comment. But I would say that many people have in fact used the trials of these programs, seemingly with no regrets. They are not "huge" like Photoshop tends to be so shouldn't be a hassle to try and then uninstall if you prefer. Just my opinion!

What is the gpu in your 24" iMac? That will be the most important feature if you're considering Aperture.

I used to use PS CS to import/post process all my images. Once done processing, I would save them all as jpg's and import into iPhoto to manage my library. That worked pretty good, but was often cumbersome.

I just recently got LR3 and now that is all I use. I do all my importing, processing, and cataloging in LR3. I haven't touched iPhoto since, except to find older photos. LR3 does everything I need, is non-destructive to the images. I can edit them, got back a month later and undo everything and do something new. LR3 keeps all your edits intact. It has a better cataloging system than iPhoto, IMO.

I can't speak for Aperture. I've never used it. But I highly recommend LR3 all the way over iPhoto!

Tony-S wrote in post #11245706
What is the gpu in your 24" iMac? That will be the most important feature if you're considering Aperture.

NVIDIA GeForce 7300GT [VRAM 128MB], have upped the RAM to 3GB, and processor is the 2.16 GHz Core 2 Duo.

@ tonylong: lol - didn't realize that my Elements was already 2 yrs old thanks for the thought there!

So, if Lr3 is powerful enough to do good deep processing, then is Elements really needed? Especially if I've the Canon DPP too [which honestly have not used much at all]?

Would be great to have such a great thread as https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=747194 be updated... unless I've missed it?

tonylong wrote in post #11244091
Well, one quick and easy bit of advice is to upgrade Elements, first, because you are using a Mac the latest versions of Elements give you the full version of the Camera Raw processor that you can use Bridge to open your Raw files in.

PSE8 did, not sure about PSE9...

You don't Aperture with that gpu.

ShadowCaver wrote in post #11250589
@ tonylong: lol - didn't realize that my Elements was already 2 yrs old thanks for the thought there!

So, following the note above, we should find out if Elements 9 continues to support the full Camera Raw -- anyone have Elements 9 on a Mac out there?

The purpose for having Elements or another capable/featured image editor is to use the sophisticated tools that Lightroom and Raw processors as a whole lack. This is because Raw processing is confined to dealing with data that has not been rendered into an actual image and is self-limited to how it works with that data and how the processing done can be preserved in a non-destructive "description". Elements and other image editors that have tools such as advanced cloning, color replacement, compositing, and all the other "fancy" stuff that you can apply directly to an image or through the use of image layers, all use a "model" of processing that is not used by a Raw processor in that they start with a rendered image and manipulate the actual pixels. Using layers you can save a tiff or psd and preserve the original layer as part of that image file, but unless you are using Smart Objects in Photoshop, you can't go back to the Raw file.Once you have gone that image editing route, you can still go to Lightroom and work with either the Raw file or a saved output from the image editor, but they are not the same.

But, the value of having an editor, Elements, Photoshop, Gimp or whatever, is that you can do those fancy image manipulation things! Raw processors have come a long way, for sure, and many of us rarely feel the need to go into an image editor, but it's good to have one and learn how to use it for the times you do want those capabilities.

ShadowCaver wrote in post #11250589
Would be great to have such a great thread as https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=747194 be updated... unless I've missed it?

Well, a new release of Aperture does tend to pack "goodies" and yeah it would be cool to have and updated Aperture 3 -> LR 3 comparison -- in fact I seem to recall seeing some such thing but don't recall details. Maybe PM the author of that post to see, or check one of the Aperture 3 "announcement" threads and ask in there if anyone has done/posted this?

It's kind of pointless because Aperture 3 will bring his current Mac to its knees with that gpu.

Tony-S wrote in post #11253450
It's kind of pointless because Aperture 3 will bring his current Mac to its knees with that gpu.

Tony,

With all due respect (not picking a fight here). Most of the time when I am working in Aperture 3.1 or even PSCS4, I have forgotten to switch to my GPU from the onboard to the PCI and have no issues. Granted even the onboard is pretty powerful:

• Chipset Model: NVIDIA GeForce 9400M
  
• Type: GPU
  
• Bus: PCI
  
• VRAM (Total): 256 MB

• Type: GPU
  
• Bus: PCIe
  
• PCIe Lane Width: x16
  
• VRAM (Total): 512 MB

The OP (ShadowCaver) has a 7300 gpu. It doesn't have CUDA and it doesn't support OpenCL like the 8xxx and 9xxx series NVidia chips do. Aperture uses OpenCL/Grand Central for those tasks and the 7300 just can't do it.

Tony-S wrote in post #11255524
The OP (ShadowCaver) has a 7300 gpu. It doesn't have CUDA and it doesn't support OpenCL like the 8xxx and 9xxx series NVidia chips do. Aperture uses OpenCL/Grand Central for those tasks and the 7300 just can't do it.

I therefore stand down

To all of you - my thanks, am learning quite a bit here.

tonylong - even tho' I've probably read it multiple times before, in many different manners, it has not sunk into this tired hillbilly noggin until now, that the diff between these s/w apps boils down to "Raw processor" vs. "image editor". That paints it clearly - thanks!

Tony-S - interesting there too; bugger that my 2 gen old iMac is so underpowered in regards to its gpu. Fudge. Frustrating also as the Apple Ap min and recommended requirement page does not speak at all about the gpu. And - I wonder if this fact [Slower / older GPU] is why so many complaints are being logged http://store.apple.com …DQ5MDg0MA&mco=M​TY5NzYwODA for example, where Ap2 users w/ older computers upgraded to Ap3 and found processing so much slower.

rest of yas - also, again, thanks.

Still... curious as to when I do install whichever chosen program, what happens to all the folders / albums that iPhoto has? Dumb question I guess, but will there be duplicates created of all my photos per the newly installed s/w, or any other issues that be good to be prepared for occurring? EDIT: http://www.apple.com/a​perture/how-to/ and http://www.apple.com/a​perture/iphoto-to-aperture/

I have a Core 2 Duo iMac (just retired in favor of an i7 iMac) and its 2600 gpu is a bit better than the 7300, and Aperture 3 really struggled with it. Aperture 2 ran just fine, but it did not leverage CUDA like Aperture 3 does. Unfortunately, with innovations in hardware comes new software that renders older hardware antiquated. If I were you, I'd go with Lightroom. It's cpu-only.