Aperture vs. Picasa... Thoughts? Help? I don't get it...

[VisualOddity]

So, I have Aperture and Lightroom now. Lightroom aside, since I know what it is, and haven't installed it yet, lets discuss Aperture...


What does it do exactly? Here are my observations after 2 minutes of use, and questions.
So first, is it better than Picasa? On of the things that I hate about iPhoto (and why I don't use it), is that it moves/copies the pictures that are imported to it's own library. So then, either I have one copy of everything in a horrible sorting situation, or I have my own folders w/ pics in a logical structure, and then there is iPhoto's library, so I am taking twice the space. I have to have my own structure. It's just how I operate, and I can't work otherwise. This is why I like Picasa. It simply browses/links to the structure I already have. This way I know where everything is, and there is only one copy of each photo (at least not duplicates).

It is looking like Aperture acts the same as iPhoto, and I am wondering if there is a way around this, or should I stick to Picasa on my Mac?

What else is good w/ Aperture, what do you use it for? Why would you use it over Picasa? I know it's geared toward Togs, but how is it different? I know, I'm probably just don't get it at all lol...

[kenw]

not sure about the others, but I only use Picasa for keep/cull sorting on the bigger screen (it works with RAW), and the occassional impromptu slide show. I can't see doing any serious editing in it.

[toverman]

My understanding is that Aperture and Lightroom are similar programs for light editing and organizing your database of images. Aperture is Apple's version, Lightroom is Adobe's (in theory a more seamless workflow to Photoshop). Having both seems a little redundant to me.

[d2creative]

Forget iPhoto. Aperture or Lightroom (both very similar and from now on referred to as "AL" in this post) are not like it at all.

AL can act as your entire workflow from the second you stick your memory card in the reader, to the point the print comes out of your printer. When you stick the card in your reader, a dialog box in AL automatically opens and ASKS YOU where to put the images. So you can keep the exact same file system you already have or come up with a completely different one, it's up to you. You can also assign all your keywords, and even assign global adjustments. When you click the import button, all your files are copied to the correct location, keywords and other metadata and any global adjustments are all applied and AL will now show you all your images. AL will do an initial raw conversion if you are shooting raw, or it will just import your jpgs. Now you can scroll through all the thumbnails and pick out the keepers. Then you can apply a crazy amount of adjustments to them and all these adjustments were designed for professional and amateur photographers alike. You can make simple contrast or saturation adjustments, sharpen your image, and even do crazy vignetting, wild hd looks, cross processing, detailed b/w conversions, even touch ups! And the best part is your original file is never touched! AL is non-destructive, only keeping the "instructions" for your adjustments. And you can make multiple "copies" of the same image, trying different adjustments on each, without actually making duplicate files (taking up valuable hd space). Then when you are happy with your images you can create contact sheets, web pages, print them, email them, etc, or export them to photoshop for further manipulation.

Both programs do the same thing, they each have their own ways of going about things but most are pretty similar to each other. No reason to have both. Both let you download full trial versions to test drive and make your own decision.

[VisualOddity]

WOW! Thanks for all the explanations! I really appreciate it.
Since I use Photoshop for my editing, would it be better for Lightroom to be the one I keep? I didn't know you could do that much in them! Sounds great!

I made a test folder (a copy of my photography from 2009) on my desktop, and imported to Aperture. Now the "Library" folder for Aperture is 300mb (original folder like 280'ish mb). Doesn't that mean that Aperture is importing the pics to it's own library, and there are now 2 copies/twice the space used?

*FYI*
My MacBook has a 160gb drive, and it only has 8.27gb free at current. External is on the fritz, and I can't go get another external for a while, so space is at a premium... ;)

[peeker]

Visual Oddity,

Your last statement is a setup for a worst case scenario. A full hard drive on your computer, a non-working external drive = No backup for the work you have already done. One hiccup with your MacBook (failed drive, corrupted Aperture database, etc) and you lose everything you have. Be smart, spend $100 to pick up an external drive to have at least one backup of your work.

Scott

[VisualOddity]

Originally Posted by peeker

Visual Oddity,

Your last statement is a setup for a worst case scenario. A full hard drive on your computer, a non-working external drive = No backup for the work you have already done. One hiccup with your MacBook (failed drive, corrupted Aperture database, etc) and you lose everything you have. Be smart, spend $100 to pick up an external drive to have at least one backup of your work.

Scott

I have most of it backed up on my webspace (photography, family pics, etc). I have unlimited space, and unlimited bandwidth with my host, so that helps... :)

VisualOddity added 422 Minutes and 21 Seconds later...Double Post Merged Below

Thanks everyone. "Like, OMG!" Lightroom is the best thing EVER! It doesn't move my stuff, as was said before, I get to choose EVERYTHING, and the editing options are awesome! Aside from layer stuff, it really can be my workflow from camera to print/final copy...

Thanks Again!