Aperture to CC or Lr6

Discussion in 'Image Processing' started by mcasan, May 9, 2015.

  1. mcasan

    mcasan Mu-43 All-Pro

    Feb 26, 2014
    Decent article about the option of moving from Aperture to LR 6 or CC. For those that are frequently in areas where the there no internet access, consider the CC photography plan (LR + PS) on the annual plan. That software only checks the subscription validity every 99 days. The monthly plan checks every 30 days. And of course if go for LR 6, no checking once you have it downloaded and installed.

  2. David A

    David A Mu-43 All-Pro

    Sep 30, 2011
    Brisbane, Australia
    I don’t agree with some of his comments but there is some useful info.

    I think his price comparison is off. Aperture comes out way cheaper in his comparison. Firstly because Aperture hasn’t had a major upgrade in years so of course it’s been cheaper over the time he’s describing simply due to the fact that there have been no paid upgrades for Aperture in that time frame. I swapped from Aperture 3 to LR4 and I've upgraded to LR5 then LR6. Aperture would have been way cheaper over that period simply because Apple has done nothing with Aperture over that period and it was still at Aperture 3 when they killed it. Secondly because comparisons with Aperture are now useless since Aperture is dead. Better to compare Lightroom costs to those of alternative applications that are still up and running and he doesn't attempt that. Straight price per month figures for LR are OK as far as they go but no one considers price without comparing it to something and if you're going to compare LR pricing to something it should be to something that you can actually buy and Aperture no longer falls into that category.

    On the import question, if you’re running a referenced library (ie keeping your RAW files in a folder structure rather than in the Aperture database) you really don’t need to use the import from Aperture facility. You just have to do a normal file import from the folder your RAW files are in. That's what I did when I swapped some years ago because it was the only way you could do it back then. It worked fine then and it should work as well now.

    When it comes to processing and features I think he’s got a lot right but I do think that using LR isn’t as similar to using Aperture as he suggests. I think LR gives you a lot more muscle and flexibility in processing but I found myself struggling a bit when I switched from Aperture to LR a couple of years ago. It took me a few weeks to start to feel comfortable with LR and getting results I felt happy comparing to what I could do in Aperture. There is a learning curve and it has as much to do with unlearning some Aperture habits as it has to do with learning new LR habits.

    I found my processing approach had to change quite a bit because some things that look like they’re the same thing aren’t quite the same. For example, the Exposure slider doesn’t work the same in both apps. In Aperture exposure moves every tone in the image the same amount brighter (+ adjustment} or darker (- adjustment) but LR does things slightly differently. It moves the mids further than it moves the highlights on a + adjustment or shadows on a - adjustment because it rolls off the adjustments at the ends of the scale in order to minimise/prevent clipping which is quite handy, but it means that you then have to work slightly differently with the highlights or shadows after adjusting exposure. Contrast affects saturation slightly as well. Adjusting black and white points is slightly different, Curves can be done in the same way but LR offers a few additional options as well including the ability to do different curves for each of the 3 colour channels. There is no Levels feature in LR but you can use the parametric curves editor in a similar way to Aperture’s Levels adjustment. All in all I think there’s a bit more to swapping from Aperture’s processing workflow to LR’s workflow than he suggests. Having done that, I find processing in LR is more flexible and powerful than it was in Aperture but a lot of that is probably due to the fact that LR has had some significant new features added since I swapped while Aperture, which I think was superior to LR when I bought it, has had no such development since then. Basically Apple let others take over the front position in my view, and it started falling behind several years ago now.

    For those still using Aperture my advice is simple. You are going to have to swap at some point when the Mac OS gets an upgrade that doesn’t preserve Aperture compatibility. It will happen but not for a while. Aperture still works and does what it does very well. There are several applications you can consider swapping to and there are some interesting differences in features, interface and workflow. You can take your time in choosing a replacement so take a look at them all and see which one suits you best before swapping because any swap comes with a bit of pain. Whatever you do, don’t ignore the fact that you will have to swap at some time. You’ve got the time to explore all of the options at your leisure and come to a decision on which application you’re going to swap to based on careful consideration. Don’t leave it until you’re forced to make the decision and the actual swap in a rush.
    • Like Like x 2
  3. tyrphoto

    tyrphoto Mu-43 All-Pro

    May 25, 2014
    Seoul | NYC
    Real Name:
    I used both Aperture and LR since the beginning and eventually migrated solely to Aperture. A couple of weeks ago, even though Aperture is still completely usable, I decided to make the switch to LR because sooner or later, I"d have to move away from Aperture. I did consider C1 heavily but in the end, I chose LR for two reasons. IMO, better DAM capability as well as it's seamless integration with plugins.

    It took a little bit of time getting used to LR after using Aperture for so long but in the end, I'm actually preferring the workflow in LR.
    • Like Like x 1
  4. mcasan

    mcasan Mu-43 All-Pro

    Feb 26, 2014
    I used LR for years. Last year I tried Aperture and liked most things. One thing I hated....it forced me to use the logical containers of Projects, Albums, and Folders that had nothing to do with the physical containment of my master images. I store my images by date and use keywords for searches. I only use collections and collection sets as a way to prepare a group of images for output (slideshow, web, print..etc.) I think Apple's Aperture designers were way ahead of the game. But now that the IOS world is the big Apple cash flow, beware of depending solely on any app that is Mac only.
    • Agree Agree x 1