Adobe user considering Aperture

[Jason Kinsey]

So I got a new laptop a month or so ago, and can't install LR 2 on it as I've got it on several other machines. I've been satisfied with LR 2, and am considering purchasing LR3 for the new laptop. But I downloaded the free trial of Aperture from Apple today, and opened it for the first time tonight. There are some similarities, but a lot of differences too. Has anyone out there used both, and found any major differences between them? I have to say that if Apple support for Aperture is anything like the rest of their products, I would MUCH rather deal with them than Adobe. I figured this was as good a time as ever to check it out and see. Thanks for your input.

[Robert Amoruso]

Jason,

As a non-Aperture user (is that a weird way to say I don't use it or what :)) I cannot comment but wanted to let you know I did look at your questions.

OK Aperture users, what do you have to say.

[Jason Kinsey]

Thanks Robert-and yes, that was a unique way of saying you don't use it. But it works.

[Roger Clark]

Jason,
Does aperture do 16-bit editing? (I haven't used aperture either.)

Roger

[Fred Canter]

I've used Aperture from the beginning of the product and various upgrades, but recently switched to LR3. I switched mainly because of the tighter integration between LR and CS5. Initially I felt switching was a major mistake as I really liked (still like actually) the the way Aperture operates. Comparing the two, here are my takes. Aperture is faster than LR in rendering high resolution previews, Aperture is also faster in dealing with a large catalog. The biggest fault I have with Aperture is the compatibility of raw files, they are slower to update to newer formats and some older formats have never become available. As an example I use a Sigma SD14 primarily as an IR camera and the raw files from the Sigma are not supported, I always had to covert them prior to pulling them into Aperture. LR is able to process the raw file from this camera, along with a P&S that I shoot raw with that is also not supported in Aperture. LR3 has a decided advantage in the noise reduction area, a plug-in or stand alone application for noise reduction is no longer necessary.
The biggest problem I see with LR is the slowness. I will continue to use it for personal purposes, but I take a lot of documentation photos for various engineering projects and I'm considering moving to Photo Mechanic for that specific application, as it can handle large volumes of photos much faster than either LR or Aperture and these photos typically don't need or get extensive post processing.
And, I'd really need to fire up Aperture but I do believe 16-bit editing is possible.

[Jason Kinsey]

Thanks for the input folks. I'm leaning towards LR3, maybe because its what I'm used to but we'll see.

[Andrew Merwin]

Aperture supports both 16 bit & 32 bit mode. The more I learn about aperture, the more I like it. That said, I truly dislike Adobe, their products, & their lax attitude toward security. I was quite disappointed when Adobe purchased Macromedia just to own Flash. I am looking forward to the full implementation of HTML 5.

[WIlliam Maroldo]

Andrew: I really don't understand your dislike for Adobe. I don't know anything about Aperture, and as far as I can tell Photoshop can do anything Lightroom can do, and much more. Both use the same RAW conversion. About Macromedia: I also own and use Dreamweaver which was also sold to Adobe, and what Adobe has brought to the table is excellent. I guess I just have had no bad experiences with Abobe, and when I've had problems, with such things as license transfers, they have been prompt and presented no problems. regards~Bill

[Andrew Merwin]

Andrew: I really don't understand your dislike for Adobe. I don't know anything about Aperture, and as far as I can tell Photoshop can do anything Lightroom can do, and much more. Both use the same RAW conversion. About Macromedia: I also own and use Dreamweaver which was also sold to Adobe, and what Adobe has brought to the table is excellent. I guess I just have had no bad experiences with Abobe, and when I've had problems, with such things as license transfers, they have been prompt and presented no problems. regards~Bill

Bill, I have always had poor customer service from Adobe. I think their software is over priced. We have just had different experiences with the company. I am glad your experiences have been positive. I wish I could say the same for my experience with them. I frequently need to adjust settings in Adobe software because of security issues—more so than with other software. Its just my experience apparently.

[WIlliam Maroldo]

I have to agree Adobe's software is overpriced. And indeed their Flash Player has security issues, so much so that I had to give up Firefox and go to IE. But the bottom line, for me at least, is what the software can do, and this outwieghs bad customer service (which I have no doubt you experienced) and other negative issues. Then again, if there was other software that could do what photoshop or even dreamweaver can do, at a lower price, I would consider it. However, IMO, such software does not exist. regards~Bill

[Van Hilliard]

I too have had incredibly bad experience with Adobe customer service. It would take too long to give a full account. Still, I use Photoshop every day so I guess I'm satisfied with Adobe's products. I just hope I never get caught in the customer service quagmire again. It's deadly. I have used both Lightroom and Aperture but I always go back to using Expression Media for cataloguing and selection and then PS for processing what I want to process further. EM has good facilities for opening PS, transferring files and other basic operations. Its full-size previews are great for image selection. I rarely use anything other than this combo plus some plug-ins got PS (e.g., Viveza).

[Andrew Merwin]

Then again, if there was other software that could do what photoshop or even dreamweaver can do, at a lower price, I would consider it. However, IMO, such software does not exist. regards~Bill

I think that is the problem. Adobe lacks motivation to do a better job with customer service & price because PS is all there is that can do what it does. When you are the biggest baddest gorilla, you can do what ever you want. IMO, Adobe needs a product that fits between PS & Elements. The last time I checked, about 2 yrs. ago, that product was nonexistent.

[john jackson]

I use Aperture 3 and previously used LR2. I enjoy using Aperture and it does the same job as LR. Aperture currently has fewer bells and whistles when it comes to things such as the develop tools (gradients and such like), but that is OK for me because I use plug-ins and PS for that sort of thing. On the other hand, it has GPS and face recognition stuff that was not in LR2 (I never used LR3, so not sure if they added that sort of thing). Aperture 2 was slow updating for new cameras towards the end, but I suspect that was because Apple was concentrating on developing version 3; it seems to me that updates appear more quickly now.

The bottom line for me is that the two programs do the same job and I chose Aperture as the one I most liked to use. On features each program seems to leapfrog the other with the passing months and years, so it does not matter whether one or the other is ahead of the game at any one moment in time. I would recommend having a play with each and seeing which fits best.