* My Profile My Galleries My Networks

Aperture 2.0 Or Photoshop CS3?

I just bought a new iMac and need some new photo software to go with it. I’m familiar with using Photoshop, but i’m wondering if users here have made the switch to Aperture and liked it better, and why. I know using Apple software (I edit video) with an Apple computer is always a plus, but I’m not sure if there are tradeoffs. Willing to try/learn something new… Should I buy the latest Aperture or PS? And if I buy the new Aperture, is there any need for Photo Mechanic?


by Craig Schneider at 2008-09-12 19:36:13 UTC (ed. Sep 16 2008 ) Brooklyn, New York , United States | Bookmark | | Report spam→

lightroom 2 is pretty nifty software.

since getting it i no longer use photoshop or photomechanic. though i also started shooting film exclusively which makes my whole post experience a bit slower. if you wanted to do fast work photo mechanic might still be in order in addition to some editing software.

apple video stuff (final cut) is really great software, i don’t think aperture achieves the same quality though, at least give lightroom a try.

by sbramin | 12 Sep 2008 19:09 | toronto, Canada | | Report spam→
Lightroom. I’m still on 1, but looking forward to trying 2, after the initial and inevitable bugs start getting worked out.

by Brian C Frank | 12 Sep 2008 20:09 | Des Moines, Iowa, United States | | Report spam→
So I’m a little behind the times on Lightroom and the differences between the software. It sounds as if Aperture does the same thing as Photoshop and Lightroom combined and costs less. Am I missing something? Lightroom does the capturing and managing of images, while Photoshop is for editing, and Aperture does all three, right? Or can you just have Lightroom? I shoot in RAW, which i’m sure they all handle. But I really would like a system that helps me manage my photos and edited versions of photos easily. I just started down the digital road and have already racked up 7,000 images in a couple months.

by Craig Schneider | 12 Sep 2008 20:09 | Brooklyn, New York, United States | | Report spam→

by sbramin | 12 Sep 2008 20:09 | toronto, Canada | | Report spam→
Lightroom 2 and Aperture 2 are doing almost everything that is needed. Since working with LR myself I’m only very occasionally touching Photoshop anymore. LR is excellent for downloading, keywording, rating, “developing” your RAWs (you now even have a masking feature…), exporting, creating webgalleries… It cut down my computer time a lot. It is quite intuitive but some training is very valuable
(eg. http://www.adobe.com/designcenter/video_workshop/?id=vid0013, scroll down to Photoshop Lightroom 2.0).
I’m pretty sure that Aperture does about the same – but after I had choosen for LR I stopped comparing.


by Bernard van Dierendonck | 12 Sep 2008 20:09 | Zürich, Switzerland | | Report spam→
Gotta chime in and just say that I use Aperture 2 and love it… I went back and forth between LR and aperture in the early versions and settled on the latter… But they both are leap frog applications with one being better than the other for 6 months until the other catches up. THey both get the job done and work great.

If you are shooting a lot and want a way to manage as well as edit, I would use on of these programs and just jump to photoshop when you need to. Otherwise you could also look into the combination of using Photoshop and Bridge to handle everything. It’s really all personal preference…

by Jon Vidar | 12 Sep 2008 20:09 | Los Angeles, United States | | Report spam→
Wait if pirating is an option… Why dont you spend that $20 on drinks while your in Brasil and download the free trials of the software and just find serial numbers to activate them online ;-) Of course, I didn’t suggest that….

by Jon Vidar | 12 Sep 2008 21:09 | Los Angeles, United States | | Report spam→
While you’re at it, in the avoidance of being labeled a hypocrite, give us all full access to your photo archive so we can take what we like and on-sell it for our own profit.

by Wade Laube | 12 Sep 2008 22:09 (ed. Sep 12 2008) | London, United Kingdom | | Report spam→
I don’t think either Lightroom or Aperture completely replace Photoshop. But for photojournalism and documentary reportage they can replace about 95 percent of Photoshop. I use LR2 and I like it a lot. The localized corrections are nice and it’s a little faster than the LR1 was. The only time I run images through PS now is when I have to use Noise Ninja on a high ISO pic. I could propably get be without PS, just afraid to cut the cord completely.

As to which is better, LR or Aperture, each have their fans. I use Apple products and I generally swoon over Apple software (Final Cut is great and iWork has completely replaced Microsoft Office for me), but Aperture (vers1) was too slow on my machines and it didn’t read the Adobe .xmp files so I had to redo all my captions etc (that were done in Bridge as .xmp sidecars). After the 30 day trial I let Aperture slip gently into the digital night and I ended up with LR because it was better integrated with Photoshop and ran better on my iMac and MacBook.

(Also, LR doesn’t make CMYK conversions so if you do any prepress at all you still need Photoshop. I don’t think Aperture does CMYK, but I don’t know that for sure.)


by Jack Kurtz | 13 Sep 2008 02:09 | Phoenix, AZ, United States | | Report spam→
I proved LR and Aperture. The mac software have some more features like stacks (you can work with group of photos like stacks), the keywording is very advanced (you can assign families of words), and the light table to make layouts is very good. I like more the sharpen tool of aperture. I don’t like that if you use some plug in, the system make a new tiff file and when you export the new item don’t appear in the browser automatically. You have to import again the folder and select the new jpg exported and erase the tiff. Both are powerfull but i still find the iview or photomechanic more fast to browser or move or copy files.

by Hernan Zenteno | 13 Sep 2008 03:09 | Buenos Aires, Argentina | | Report spam→
Herman, I’m not sure what you mean about the plug ins… if you edit with a plug in Aperture creates whatever the plug in needs and puts it with the rest of the masters for that project. and Aperture will automatically generate a JPG for you if you need it… maybe I’m misunderstanding your point.

To answer Craig’s question, I believe Aperture would serve your needs much better than CS3 considering you editing video as well. There are plugins that allow you to export photos directly to final cut and it works great. I’m a newspaper photojournalist and I use Aperture everyday on deadline. Aperture handles nearly all the things I want to do to a photograph and browses raw files much faster than PM. If you have Aperture, you won’t need Photo Mechanic. I’m averaging about 10,000 frames per month and it handles that volume with ease. Good luck.

by [former member] | 13 Sep 2008 04:09 | | Report spam→
Hi Thomas. What i mean is that when you apply some plug in the master file you ends with a new tiff file. I export the jpg of that tiff file but this new file not appears in the catalog. I don’t like to work with tiff files, i have the master instead if i want to retouch in different way the photo. Two master files is too much in Gb consuming.
Do you know if are some method to search photos by caption info? The filters i found are keywording, stars related but not by some word/s in the caption. thanks

by Hernan Zenteno | 13 Sep 2008 13:09 | Buenos Aires, Argentina | | Report spam→
That’s interesting about the plugins in Aperture that allow export into a format suitable to Final Cut Pro. This may be a question for another time or another site, but does anywhere here do that using Photoshop or Lightroom? Is it just a couple more steps? I don’t need everything automated, and so as nice a feature that is on Aperture, I’m not sure it’s a must-have for me, so long as i can turn files into FCP-ready formats. Good to know though.

Thanks everyone!

by Craig Schneider | 15 Sep 2008 23:09 | Brooklyn, New York, United States | | Report spam→
I have all 3, and CS3 is a different beast on its own. Between Aperture and LR, they both basically do the same just in different ways while LR is faster. Aperture on the other hand has better file management capabilities which makes me keep it around for smaller projects I am working on. The way it creates versions is better implemented imo. The larger projects is for LR because of its speed and I like how the tool are arranged, it also has more presets. The crop tool for example on LR is a drop down menu, on Aperture it is 2 buttons you need to press to configure your aspect ratio.

LR 2.1 will have the ability to support plugins that Aperture does now.

Why not try both of them, they both can be downloaded as a 30 day free trial.

by Jonathan JK Morris | 16 Sep 2008 08:09 | Swansea, United Kingdom | | Report spam→
This discussion just got a whole lot more interesting. CS4 and Photoshop 4 has arrived. Guess I got another demo to try…

by Craig Schneider | 24 Sep 2008 02:09 | Brooklyn, New York, United States | | Report spam→
I doubt that a new photoshop makes a difference if that information is real. Aperture and Lightroom are differente tools. And if you saw the blog of Laforet you have to sum Final Cut to edit videos.

by Hernan Zenteno | 24 Sep 2008 03:09 | Buenos Aires, Argentina | | Report spam→
I think the question should be: should I buy lightroom or aperture? Photoshop is a different tool…and I think you must buy it.

I used to work with lightroom and aperture.
Both are great programs, but now I only use lightroom. Didn’t try it but I know the new version is really good.
I had only a problem with the old lightroom (maybe someone can help for this..): when you open raw files, lightroom change the colours of the pictures and doesn’t leave the real raw file…

I think you arrived just in time. Photoshop CS4 and Lightroom 2…

A tip for everybody: if you click “lightroom presets” on google, you can find and download a lot of good presets for free

by Luca Cepparo | 24 Sep 2008 09:09 (ed. Sep 24 2008) | | Report spam→

Get notified when someone replies to this thread:
Feed-icon-10x10 via RSS
Icon_email via email
You can unsubscribe later.

More about sponsorship→


Craig Schneider, Writer/Photographer Craig Schneider
Brooklyn, New York , United States
sbramin, flaneur sbramin
London , United Kingdom ( LHR )
Brian C Frank, Photographer Brian C Frank
Des Moines, Iowa , United States
Bernard van Dierendonck, Photographer, Journalist, Bernard van Dierendonck
Photographer, Journalist,
Zürich , Switzerland
Jon Vidar, Photographer Jon Vidar
Los Angeles, Ca , United States ( LAX )
Wade Laube, Wade Laube
Sydney , Australia
Jack Kurtz, Photojournalist Jack Kurtz
Bangkok , Thailand
Hernan Zenteno, Photographer Hernan Zenteno
Buenos Aires , Argentina ( EZE )
Jonathan JK Morris, Photojournalist Jonathan JK Morris
Swansea , United Kingdom
Luca Cepparo, Luca Cepparo
Milan , Italy


Top↑ | RSS/XML | Privacy Statement | Terms of Use | support@lightstalkers.org / ©2004-2015 November Eleven