Alan R
Enthusiast
Mar 12, 2008, 10:48 AM
Post #14 of 15
(868 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Re: [GmElliott] Aperture vs Lightroom
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I've been using LightRoom for over a week now. I think I like it better than Aperture. Aperture has got some slick features and awesome presentation, but at the expense of performance. I can care less about the flashiness of the interface, performance when dealing with hundreds/thousands of images is of paramount importance.
I say...
Lightroom > Aperture.
I haven't even installed Aperture on Leopard yet, probably never will. You might want to give Aperture 2.0 a try. I downloaded the trial version on Sunday and started playing with it.
Performance is WAY better than 1.5. Now I am not really comparing apples (no pun intended) to oranges here, as I tried ver 1 on a G5, and am running ver 2 on a MacPro, but I saw none of the slowness that you were seeing with a large number of photos (I currently have around 7000). If I really look closely, I would say that Lightroom still has a slight speed advantage, but it isn't (at least for me) significant. The only place where Apple still needs to make a speed improvement is when making sharpness adjustments while using the loupe. The result of an adjustment in the loupe lags behind the slider adjustment by about 1 sec. Still this is a huge improvement over ver 1.
The interface is really good. I always felt that Lightroom was a bit clunky. There were a lot of things that I didn't like about it like the way that they handled stacks and other things, but with the slowness of Aperture, I could live with it.
I love the file management capabilities in Aperture, but most of all I like the way that I can set it up for multiple monitors. Lightroom doesn't allow me to divide thing up, where with Aperture I can have all the panels, and the browser on the left monitor, and a full screen image of the photo that I am working on displayed on the right monitor.
I had no problem importing my entire library into Aperture. I am not storing any photos in the Aperture Library, so everything is where it was on the disk. The only problem was that not all metadata was copied over. Some items like keywords that are stored in the database wouldn't be copied anyway, but there was some metadata that should have been in each file that I couldn't find. This was all stuff that I had added in Lightroom, not camera metadata.
So to summarize, Aperture > Lightroom, at least for me.
Alan Robinson
Bonnie Blink Productions
(This post was edited by Alan R on Mar 12, 2008, 10:59 AM)
|
