1. Reminder: Please user our affiliate links to get to your favorite stores for holiday shopping!

Light Room or Aperture vs. PhotoShop

Discussion in 'Image Processing' started by dornblaser, Nov 29, 2012.

  1. dornblaser

    dornblaser Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 13, 2012
    Chicago-area
    David Dornblaser
    I was wondering how many folks primarily use Light Room or Aperture to do their post in without going to PhotoShop? Yes, I know that they are different, I use Aperture & PS (I have LR but don't use it). I am just curious how many folks use PS sparingly; I know I increasingly do.
     
  2. MAubrey

    MAubrey Photographer

    Jul 9, 2012
    Bellingham, WA
    Mike Aubrey
    Lightroom takes care of 95% of what I want to do.

    I didn't have PS in any form until the 50% off deal on Elements 11 at Amazon in the past couple weeks. I've used a few times for removing unwanted elements in photos that would have been difficult to remove with the circular heal tool.
     
  3. savvy

    savvy Mu-43 Top Veteran

    714
    Sep 28, 2012
    SE Essex, UK
    Les
    +1 here.:bravo-009:

    LR is my "negative" processing lab, and I'm liking it more and more.

    Only use PS if I need to clone something out, etc., very rarely now (but, I don't do "Special FX" images).
     
  4. Zariell

    Zariell Mu-43 Top Veteran

    535
    Sep 28, 2012
    Bountiful, UT
    +1 for me as well. Since I've learned LR I do about 95% of my photography work there, I only use big brother PS when and if I have some major retouching to portraits, or some other amount of work that LR can't do.

    And I have to say it took me awhile to get all my photography into LR database, but I love the hell out of that, it makes me look far more organized now :p
     
  5. kevinparis

    kevinparis Cantankerous Scotsman

    Feb 12, 2010
    Gent, Belgium
    I am a long time Aperture user....can't recall posting a picture here or on my flickr page in the last 3 years that used anything other than Aperture alone.

    I did use PS the other week to do a composite....but that is the exception to my general rule.

    To me the advantage of Aperture is that it is a one stop for all my photo needs - import, select,catalogue, process and deliver. End of story

    Latest groovy thing I have been using in Aperture is Photostream, which is great for pushing a set of images to my ipad to show to others

    K
     
  6. dornblaser

    dornblaser Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 13, 2012
    Chicago-area
    David Dornblaser
    Yes, I use my iPad for that as well. I also like the new shared PhotoStream, for example my wife is traveling in the UK and I now can see and tweak her full sized images before she returns home.
     
  7. dav1dz

    dav1dz Mu-43 Top Veteran

    926
    Nov 6, 2012
    Canada
    If you're on a Mac, there is a cheaper alternative to Photoshop CS called Pixelmator. I have found it to be a great replacement for tasks that I do need Photoshop for.

    That being said, I looked into Aperture or Lightroom on the Mac and decided to go to Lightroom. The only reason for this was because Lightroom had the option to correct lens distortions with my previous Nikon system. Now that I have such an immense library in Lightroom, the switch to Aperture would be time consuming so I haven't done it.

    I may switch back to Windows if one day Microsoft does something amazing that Apple just can't compete with. So having a Lightroom library is advantageous in terms of porting to another system. I don't have to learn the intricacies of another app if I do decide to switch operating systems.

    For what it's worth, with the m4/3 system, I believe Aperture and Lightroom are pretty much interchangeable. If you're on a Mac and missed the Lightroom sales on Amazon a little while ago, Aperture is quite a steal at $79.

    Photoshop, or Pixelmator, to me is a creation tool. Lightroom, or Aperture, is a darkroom workflow tool. Each would serve a slight different purpose. But since my camera is my creation tool unlike artists using other media, Lightroom serves me well 99.9% of the time.
     
  8. dhazeghi

    dhazeghi Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 6, 2010
    San Jose, CA
    Dara
    Photoshop is good for local editing. If you do work that requires a lot of specialized local-editing it makes sense. I don't, and I can't remember the last time I put an image through Photoshop for anything other than custom printing.
     
  9. IcemanYVR

    IcemanYVR Mu-43 Regular

    105
    Nov 16, 2012
    Vancouver, BC
    Allan
    I've been using Aperture for 6 years, and if the next version does not have lens correction and greatly improved noise reduction/sharpening tools I will begin the process of migrating to Lightroom. At this stage, I feel it's a far superior program to Aperture in that respect.

    With respect to Photoshop, I'm using CS6, but almost exclusively for design work and mockups... photo editing with the exception of cloning is pretty much non-existent these days.
     
  10. Bob T

    Bob T Mu-43 Regular

    90
    Nov 8, 2012
    Carol Stream, IL
    I've got a question for you experts...

    Since I already own and use PS CS6, is there any reason to have Lightroom?
     
  11. kevinparis

    kevinparis Cantankerous Scotsman

    Feb 12, 2010
    Gent, Belgium
    I'll give you that LR has better NR tools.....but that is becoming less of a worry as high ISO performance improves...

    as for lens correction, it from version 3 it seems to handle the correction for Oly/pana lenses just fine... so it has correction .. just doesn't give you an interface to tweak.... which isn't necessarily a bad thing

    would be interested to know what deficiencies in sharpening you see in Aperture?

    not trying to start an Aperture is better than LR war... just curious as I have not found any level of sharpening that is missing from Aperture.... not that I use sharpening that much, but the Definition slider kind of covers my needs

    My wish for the next Aperture is to have more control over the layer masks that the brush in adjustments creates - at least the ability to use the same mask across several adjustments, and ideally a way to import external masks

    cheers

    K
     
  12. IcemanYVR

    IcemanYVR Mu-43 Regular

    105
    Nov 16, 2012
    Vancouver, BC
    Allan
    Lightroom gives you a way to organize images, view by photoshoots, albums, any number of ways really. quick adjustments (or batch adjustments) without having to open each one in PS individually. For general photographic workflow, it's almost an essential tool... photoshop these days is an extra
     
  13. vinay

    vinay Mu-43 Regular

    137
    Mar 18, 2012
    Toronto
    They are different tools for different purposes. PS is great for doing complicated edits on small sets of photographs. Lightroom is great for doing simple edits on large sets of photographs.

    I wouldn't want to come back from a trip and have to go through 1000 raw files with just PS :)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. yekimrd

    yekimrd Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 14, 2012
    Cincinnati, OH
    Mikey
    I've been solely using LR4 since I picked up the OM-D 4 1/2 months ago. I like to do all my work in one place. If I needed to do some work outside LR, it's probably just with portraits. I may use OnOne's portrait software (Handful of times) but I hate how it has to create a new TIFF file -- Am OC that way. Hehe..
     
  15. David A

    David A Mu-43 All-Pro

    Sep 30, 2011
    Brisbane, Australia
    I used to use Aperture, I now use Lightroom. I do not own and have never used Phototshop.

    For kevinparis:

    The reason I swapped was to get the easier removal of chromatic aberration and fringing that Lightroom offered because I was never happy that I was doing a good job with that in Aperture. In Lightroom it is a breeze for me. What surprised me was the difference in rendering of highlights between the 2 applications. I had a test shot taken when trying to work out where my highlights limit with the E-P3 was. I had the highlight warning level set to 245 and I photographed a sheet of white paper in my back yard, adjusting exposure and noting when the highlights warning started to show. The shot where it was just starting to show in camera showed blown highlights in Aperture and needed some recovery of highlights. When I opened that shot in Lightroom it not only showed no blown highlights but it also showed a luminance level of around 95-96% in each channel, what I would have expected given that my highlight warning level was set to 245 which is 96% of 255, the level at which clipping occurs. My feeling is that Lightroom handles processing of non-clipped high level highlights more accurately than Aperture.

    What I've found since then, after getting over the "learning curve" of doing things in slightly different ways and in slightly different orders because of the differences in controls and their different preferred orders is that I can get results I like easier in Lightroom, which has more adjustment range on some controls as well, and that I also prefer the results I get in Lightroom when I reprocess older images that I had previously processed in Aperture. Often the differences in the end results aren't large but I definitely find the process easier. Part of that is because there are some tools in Lightroom, such as the graduated filter tool, and the "targeted adjustment tool" available with some controls which allows you to click on a tone in the image and change its hue, saturation, or luminance or adjust it in the curves tool simply by clicking and dragging in the image, actually a quite intuitive technique that enables you to adjust precisely the parts of the image that you want to adjust.

    I've been using Macs and Apple software for over 20 years, I bought Aperture when I started digital processing simply because it was an Apple product and well regarded at the time and I was extremely comfortable using it. I wasn't certain I would stick with Lightroom when I purchased it several months ago but I wanted some features Apple didn't seem to be in a hurry to add, and still seems not to be in a hurry to add, and was quite surprised to find it easier in many ways and actually more flexible as well. I wouldn't go back to Aperture for processing now though I prefer Aperture's file management.
     
  16. OhWellOK

    OhWellOK Mu-43 Veteran

    225
    Oct 4, 2012
    Brooklyn, NY
    Since I started working with RAW this past summer, I pretty much use LR4 99% of the time for photo management, processing and light retouching. Occasionally Oly 2 viewer-because sometimes you need access to in camera settings that Adobe doesn't offer for my cameras (XZ-1 and OM-D). Unfortunately OLY 2 is unusably slow, and has very poor workflow compared to LR. Very rarely do I need to do an edit so extreme as to warrant opening an image in Photoshop. Before working with RAW i'd just use iPhoto and PS.
     
  17. RevBob

    RevBob Super Moderator

    Jun 4, 2011
    NorthWestern PA
    Bob
    I have PSCS5 and LR3.6. Like many others I find myself doing 95% of my work in LR and rarely opening PS. :cool:
     
  18. dav1dz

    dav1dz Mu-43 Top Veteran

    926
    Nov 6, 2012
    Canada
    Sorry I can't answer most of your questions but I'm curious at the lens distortion correction part of Aperture. I understand that m4/3 RAW files have corrections embedded so that supporting RAW converters will automatically make the necessary corrections. That is fantastic.

    Aperture's corrections doesn't extend to other camera systems right? I may be wrong and if this is something new in version 3 then I would say that Lightroom and Aperture are mostly at feature parity. There would be little reason for one to choose one over another unless they're bound by operating system requirements or workflow preferences.
     
  19. Bob T

    Bob T Mu-43 Regular

    90
    Nov 8, 2012
    Carol Stream, IL
    Thanks everyone. I've looked at Lightroom off and on, and it sounds like it may be better for what I do most of the time.
     
  20. Ralser

    Ralser Mu-43 Regular

    67
    May 28, 2011
    I use LR FOR NEARLY EVERYTHING. Printing is far superior in LR than in PS.