I'm using Aperture, should I change to Lightroom?

S

supersammy

Messages
534
Name
sam
Edit My Images
Yes
So I am currently running with Aperture. It's ok and seems to do everything I want from it. I don't bother with all the key words rubbish or use faces, but do like to use it to keep all my images in some sort of order.

I also have photoshop cs6. And after a bit of googling it seems the Aperture is now very outdated and that most people are saying you should jump over to lightroom 4.

So I just wondered what you all thought on the matter? I am not bothered about the cost of the change, thanks to piratebay, however I don't want to waste time learning to use it, only to find that it's a complete waste of my time.

Thanks
 
supersammy said:
it seems the Aperture is now very outdated and that most people are saying you should jump over to lightroom 4.
Click to expand...

Most people are talking utter rubbish then, Aperture is an equal to Lightroom in 99% of things, and possible easier for keeping things in order.

There are ways of downloading DPP, but to be honest I VERY rarely use it now preferring to do everything in Aperture.
 
> I am not bothered about the cost of the change, thanks to piratebay, however I don't
> want to waste time learning to use it, only to find that it's a complete waste of my time.

Yeah, we'll sit here giving you free advice on software we've paid for, to save you the tedious effort of stealing it. You must be a very busy man.
 
Well I've now downloaded Lightroom and can say to my eyes it is very similar to aperture. It seems to do everything I want to do with aperture equally well. However I think I'll stick wih aperture as again in my opinion Lightroom seems more designed for windows system in comparison to aperture .

I would be interested to hear if anyone thinks I'm missing anything and if there are some features which I should look at from either piece of software.
 
supersammy said:
So I just wondered what you all thought on the matter? I am not bothered about the cost of the change, thanks to piratebay, however I don't want to waste time learning to use it, only to find that it's a complete waste of my time.
Click to expand...

If you can't be bothered paying software developers for their time then I can't be bothered giving you a serious reply to your post.

Can you guess what I do for a living?
 
Do you seriously expect assistance with this kind of attitude?
 
What attitude? I've downloaded a 30 day trial and Internet police are getting upset.
 
supersammy said:
What attitude? I've downloaded a 30 day trial and Internet police are getting upset.
Click to expand...
That is fine but not what you started out saying. Therefore don't be surprised at the reaction.
I use LR4 and consider it the best system for cataloguing image files. It is a data based system as opposed to a file based system. Data bases are usually considered easier to search and organise with.
LR4 cannot corrupt or lose your originals, unlike many other systems. LR4 integrates easily with standard methods of backing up systems.
Hope that helps.
 
BrynBoru said:
That is fine but not what you started out saying. Therefore don't be surprised at the reaction.
I use LR4 and consider it the best system for cataloguing image files. It is a data based system as opposed to a file based system. Data bases are usually considered easier to search and organise with.
LR4 cannot corrupt or lose your originals, unlike many other systems. LR4 integrates easily with standard methods of backing up systems.
Hope that helps.
Click to expand...


Thanks. It was actually more of a joke when I said about piratebay. Just because I didn't want to get the inevitable comments about the cost of upgrading... Your comments were useful though.

What I think I am going to do, is try both with the same images and see which one j find easier and get on better with and then stick with that.
 
I'm using Aperture and really love it, but...

a) the raw support is a bit slow to arrive, to non-existant (eg for my Fuji X10)

b) I'm still on Snow Leopard and have not been able to upgrade Aperture for the past year or so. So if I get a new camera, I probably won't get raw support for that (I know it's OS, but same principle).

I really don't want to change, but if I do it, I'll probably start in January 2014 so I'm clear what's where (I don't think I'd move all my thousands of existing images nd scans into LR!).
 
ChrisR said:
I'm using Aperture and really love it, but...

a) the raw support is a bit slow to arrive, to non-existant (eg for my Fuji X10)

b) I'm still on Snow Leopard and have not been able to upgrade Aperture for the past year or so. So if I get a new camera, I probably won't get raw support for that (I know it's OS, but same principle).

I really don't want to change, but if I do it, I'll probably start in January 2014 so I'm clear what's where (I don't think I'd move all my thousands of existing images nd scans into LR!).
Click to expand...

When I first started with macs I used iPhoto and loved it. I could easily sort my images and at that time it did everything I need and more. Part of me still feels like its good enough.

However I want a more grown up piece of software. I'm lucky that I don't have a huge catalog of images, so am just trying to pick the right one to star with. Another consideration is that I am told apple may be getting rid of aperture, and they certainly have not upgraded it in a while. Ultimately I just want something which is quick and which will be good for me for several years.
 
Your info is totally wrong, there was an update to aperture on the 5 JUNE 2013
 
Last edited:
ChrisR said:
I don't think I'd move all my thousands of existing images nd scans into LR!).
Click to expand...
In my earlier days, I used Apple apps, but now, after a big scare (despite solid back-ups) with corruption of files, I don't trust any of their image processing/cataloguing products. I am nonetheless a solid iMac fan.
I find often there is a fundamental misunderstanding regarding how LR4 works. You do not have to change or move your files from their present drive locations, as LR4 works with your existing file architecture. You may change it if you wish, but it is not essential. Rather what you do is to introduce LR4 to the system and import the information of the file structure. The actual files do not have to move on the hard drives, etc.
I trust this makes sense and you can find lots more information with a web search, or consult such as Martin Evening's excellent book on LR4.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm clearly missing something here. But surely if you do lose any files from years ago you would have used them by now? I mean that you would have printed them off or finished editing them and put them on Flickr or whatever website you use...

So what's the harm in losing ancient files?
 
acetone said:
Your info is totally wrong, there was an update to aperture on the 5 JUNE 2013
Click to expand...

I got that update. But it didn't seem to change anything. At least as far as I could tell. I thought it just added more raw camera formats?
 
supersammy said:
So what's the harm in losing ancient files?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if this remark is addressed to my last post, but I'll try and answer it simply.
First, if an image you made was worth saving at the time, then why should it be any less valuable in the future. You must appreciate that nothing is better than the original (and preferably raw image) that you made at a point in time. Anything further you do with it, such as uploading to the web, will only degrade the quality compared to the original. Compare it to the old film negative or glass plates of 100 years ago. They can still produce crisp prints. It is the difference between a professional approach to archiving records or posting ephemeral snaps on a website!
Hope that helps.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top