Aperture 3 or Lightroom 4

Discussion in 'Image Processing' started by retroglide, Apr 17, 2012.

  1. retroglide

    retroglide Mu-43 Regular

    Apr 8, 2012
    My new iMac is arriving today and after the purchase of my GX1 last week I would like to purchase some editing software. My first choices are Lightroom 4 and Aperture 3. I know both these offer organisational qualities as well as editing capabilities which would also come in handy. I'm not really looking into massively editing photos as in removing/adding items or objects, just something to be able to add the normal post processing options.

    What's everybody on here using?
  2. ripleys baby

    ripleys baby Straw clutcher

    Aug 10, 2011
    Tried both. Picked Aperture for being easier and more intuitive . IMO
  3. dixeyk

    dixeyk Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 9, 2010
    I am a Lightroom user but to be honest with the next rev of Aperture I will likely switch to Aperture because I find I prefer the Aperture UI.
  4. starlabs

    starlabs Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Sep 30, 2010
    Los Angeles
    Apple recently pulled the demo of Aperture, but you may be still able to find it. Download trials for both and try them out.

    I really wanted to like LR4 but am sticking with Aperture 3 for now.
    • Like Like x 1
  5. dixeyk

    dixeyk Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 9, 2010
    I suspect the new Aperture is close. I read somewhere I'll be Aperture X. If its like the rewrite of Final Cut Pro (despite all the complaining) it will be worth looking at. I'd bet they are going to mve it toward even more user friendly and likely very media friendly (video) and better support for uploading to services like Flickr etc.
  6. retroglide

    retroglide Mu-43 Regular

    Apr 8, 2012
    Thanks for the replies everyone, I've read that LR4 is slightly slower than LR3 not that that means anything to me. Think I'll try Aperture 3 trial first if its available
  7. GaryAyala

    GaryAyala Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 2, 2011
    Either one is good and you'll end up with similar images using either one. Try both trial versions and see which matches the way you think.


    PS- I just read Starlabs ... lol ... do what he stated.
  8. WT21

    WT21 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 19, 2010
    I read on 9to5 Mac that apple had pulled the aperture trial from apple.com.
  9. dhazeghi

    dhazeghi Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 6, 2010
    San Jose, CA
    Real Name:
    Lightroom. Tried Aperture some time ago and was not really pleased. It has improved, but I've been very impressed with the rendering engine in LR 4. Auto CA removal and the new exposure/tone adjustment panel have been a great help.

    Try the demo.

  10. gsciorio

    gsciorio Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Dec 29, 2011
    Miami, FL
    I owned both LR and Aperture since they first came out and Aperture was garbage at 1.0 got decent at 2.0 then steadily got better over time. Aperture 3 is really not bad for the money and I want to like it but its slower on both my computers then LR 4 and I find the rendering engine better with LR 4 for my tastes.

    I would love if Aperture 4 was tightly integrated in FCPX since that's what I use mostly for video even though I own a the CS5.5 suite.

    Download a demo of both and try them out. If you google it I'm sure you could easily find both demos.
  11. slith

    slith Mu-43 Regular

    Apr 4, 2012
    Dublin, Ireland
    Real Name:
    I got LR3 for 'free' when I got my GX1, I'm completely new to PP (just enough to know PP stands for post-processing) so I wouldn't know how to use even a fraction of what LR can do, question is, is the latest Aperture worth buying considering I have LR3 already?

    I guess Aperture is easier to use, thus better for me a noob in the matter of PP, but it is hard to beat free!
  12. everythingsablur

    everythingsablur Mu-43 Veteran

    Aug 4, 2010
    Toronto, ON
    I used Aperture 2 and 3 for years, but last year I switched to LR3. I found LR3 was just SOOOO much faster and used up less room than Aperture did on my hardware (a first generation Intel MacBook Pro, when they weren't even 64-bit Core 2 Duos, just 32-bit Core Duos!). I probably didn't look hard enough, but I found more general 3rd-party support for LR.

    The other big deciding factor was my aging MBP needed replacement and I didn't want to get another Mac. As a loooong time Mac user, the MBP line has really gotten watered down over the years. Anyway, Mac vs. PC religious war aside, LR at least gave me the much easier transition option of going back to a PC (and/or back to a Mac in future). Straight copy of my catalog and away I went onto my new PC gaming laptop (which has a matte 1080p 95% NTSC gamut display, which is something I could never get out of Apple).
  13. downy_ball

    downy_ball Mu-43 Regular

    I went through exactly the same dilemma just a month ago.
    I have a newish 27" iMac, and up until buying my 4/3's camera I was using Photoshop Elements to do simple PP.
    I tried both and ended up using Aperture more as I like the user interface better. I've also found that I like having both Aperture and Photoshop Elements as there are some things in PSE that are very useful.
    Good luck! :smile:
  14. Bokeaji

    Bokeaji Gonzo's Dad O.*

    Aug 6, 2011
    Austin, TX
    I ended up with aperture just because it was cheaper(back in lr3 days)
    I liked both interfaces
    And both seemed very similar in output

    But now if I were buying, I'd go lr4 for the extra dr you can force out of the files easier
    Tho it's still more expensive... But yer getting something for it this time, whereas before it was too much of a toss up

    - Eliot
  15. fgbrault

    fgbrault Mu-43 Regular

    Mar 2, 2012
    I use to use Aperture and switched to Lightroom. The reason was that Apple was quite slow in updating to handle RAW files from new cameras. More than once I had no RAW conversion capability for a long time after Lightroom could convert the RAW files from a new camera I bought. Apple may be better at updating now. I can't really compare the two current versions, but I preferred the operating environment of Aperture a little more and the processing results from Lightroom a little more. That was with older versions of both programs. Lightroom 4 seems to do a particularly good job of preserving highlights, which is very important to me. I suggest when you compare the two programs the you test how each handle blown highlights.

    Mat you make the best decision for your needs. Both should be excellent programs.
  16. Liamness

    Liamness Mu-43 Veteran

    Apr 20, 2011
    After using Aperture for about a year, I've downloaded the trial for Lightroom. I think I'm going to be making the switch. A few reasons why;

    - Subjectively, it seems a little faster
    - Again subjectively, the colours look nicer using the default processing
    - It has some fantastic image editing options aperture doesn't. I am already finding the graduated filter effect invaluable.
    - DNGs provide a small benefit in terms of file size, which is important when you're working on Macbook Air with its piddly 128gb drive.
    - Noise reduction seems to work better, as do automatic correction of aberrations. Again, the images just come out nicer by default.
    - It seems easier to get nice results using the sliders and presets than on Aperture. Particularly pulling back highlights and getting detail back from shadows is a breeze.
  17. meyerweb

    meyerweb Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Sep 5, 2011
    The new processing engine in LR 4 is a revelation. If Aperture 3 was roughly the same as LR 3 in terms of image processing capability, then LR4 is dramatically better in it's ability to pull detail out of shadows and highlights that appeared to be unsalvageable before. The new Clarity tool is significantly better, too.
  18. msaari

    msaari Mu-43 Rookie

    Apr 30, 2012
    Tampere, Finland
    I'm currently switching from Aperture to Lightroom. Aperture 3 is just so painfully slow on my iMac. It makes Chrome and other software slow, too. Can't bear it. Hopefully Lightroom 4 is faster (+ 4.1 RC2 has support for OM-D RAW files). I don't think I'll move my photo archive from Aperture to Lightroom, because that's not a simple task - I'll keep in in Aperture, I can always use Aperture when necessary.
  19. allenrowand

    allenrowand Mu-43 Regular

    Apr 10, 2012
    Portland, OR
    Real Name:
    Allen Rowand
    I'm also considering switching from Aperture to Lightroom; Apple is slow to support some cameras (if they do at all- still can't natively import RAW from my EX-1 after several years), has limited third party export plug-ins (FTP, NextGen gallery), and I cringe to think what they'll do to the UI in the next version. Given how badly they mangled the Final Cut Pro X release, I've lost a lot of faith in Apple's support of high end software. They're catering to the consumer crowd- can't blame them for chasing profits, but I think I'd rather bank on a company that's more concerned with image processing as a core business.
  20. Bill

    Bill Mu-43 Regular

    Apr 15, 2009
    Brisbane, Australia
    Real Name:
    Bill (really)
    I've not used Aperture, so this is only about Lightroom. I love Lightroom, but have to admit that it had a bit of a learning curve. (For me, however, that learning curve was a very good thing.)