So, Mac Users, Is Aperture a Worthwhile Purchase?

[Hogleg 44]

My first Mac is in transit, so I am now in a learning mode.
I have seen a lot of references to Aperture here. And I have seen the demo's at the Apple website. But is it a tool that you really use a lot? Is it a good raw converter? Is it worth the bucks?
Thanks.

[srwatters]

Depends on your workflow and the type of photography you do. If you do mass adjustments to similar images, then perhaps Aperture or Lightroom are good choices. For more individual style shooting (as I do) I don't see the value add. I do use PhotoMechanic for my cataloging and tagging, host that feature is covered.

[billbunton]

There's a couple different questions (or at least answers :-) wrapped up in that. One relates to workflow, the other to hardware. My take on hardware: unless your first Mac in transit is a Mac Pro (note I didn't say anything about Macbook Pro) with at least the X1900 graphics card, then you don't want Aperture. It relies very heavily on the GPU. I bought the X1900G5 card from ATI when it became available, then finally had to remove it (and stop using Aperture) because it was causing kernel panics (someone has told me since that those cards have a tendency to overheat).

The other question comes down to workflow. I'm finding with Lightroom 1.1 that I'm starting to eliminate my use of PhotoMechanic and Bridge. Aperture can do the same for workflow, but there are some limitations I don't like. One of the major ones is that you only have the choice of sRGB or AdobeRGB when exporting a tiff (well actually there are a couple others, but the point is ProPhoto is _not_ a choice).

Aperture also really, really wants to totally manage your library. It will let you use referenced images instead of managed, but when you go to edit (i.e. export a tiff for an external program to use) it _is_ going to be a managed rather than referenced image.

So I guess the upshot is, speaking about Aperture in particular, no it's not worth the bucks and no I no longer use it a lot (at all).

HTH!

[OversighT]

Hey Paul--
Congrats on the Mac purchase. I had the same question about Aperture when I switched to a Mac and after downloading the trial and using it for a few days my workflow is much more suited to Lightroom. I may be biased because I had LR weeks before I tried Aperture, but LR just makes more sense to me. Sure there are some features in Aperture that I would love to have in LR (namely the ability to setup smart collections/albums), but they aren't show stoppers. For me the money was better spent on LR than Aperture.

T.

[johnastovall]

As a Mac owner and user, NO. Big reason no support for DNG which rules out the M8.

I'll stay with CS3, Lightroom and Capture One.

[CincoJoe]

I have tried both and actually switched back and forth twice. I have settled on Lightroom and have no regrets. I can't believe how big an update 1.1 was and how fast it came out. This tells me that Adobe is serious about making this product a success. But try both and make your decision.

[photosbyms]

I 2nd CincoJoe's experience. I have both on my computer, and Lightroom has impressed me over Aperture, however both lack something (fortunately, PS CS3 covers anything they lack).

[brianmcho]

how does aperature compare to lightroom?

or is that like comparing apples to oranges?

[photosbyms]

Aperture uses Mac OS X coreimage, allowing system resources to spent more efficiently. However, it still lags a bit behind Lightroom in overall speed. I like Aperture's organization features better than Lightroom, but I like Lightroom's layout better. I like LR's histogram viewer better. Developing is somewhat similar. I like how LR has curves built-in. The only things I do in Photoshop now are airbrushing, dust removal, sharpening, and other small things. Levels, contrast, exposure, saturation, VIBRANCE (big one), and other edits I can all do in Lightroom.

In conclusion:
LR + on editing, layout, & speed
Aperture + on organization, web output, exporting, resource management, beauty

[merock]

More of a question for me is how much better is Lightroom then Bridge and ACR? I haven't tried Lightroom, but from what I have seen of it (watched a friend who swears by it show me his workflow), it doesn't seem worth the extra purchase. Someone let me know if I am wrong and why. (Sorry to thread highjack if that's what I am doing.....)

[photosbyms]

With the right plug-ins for photoshop, you can do everything, along with Bridge and ACR, that Lightroom does. You just won't be able to do it as fast. Lightroom and Aperture are both designed to get you through photos faster.

It is simply a matter of judgment. There might be a demo available for you to try (I forgot), but if you are comfortable with PS CS2/CS3 + ACR + Bridge, that is an acceptable workflow.

[billbunton]

The Bridge+ACR vs. Lightroom question pretty much comes down to one question: whether the DAM features of LR are worth the money to you. Bridge is amazingly improved in CS3 (especially with 2.1). It doesn't do the cataloging though, and I'm finding it extremely nice to be able to do adjustments as I'm keywording/rating, without having to fire up ACR.

[Hogleg 44]

Originally Posted by merock

(Sorry to thread highjack if that's what I am doing.....)

Feel Free. No Highjack! I like all of this input.

[Anthony Martinez]

I tried Aperture on a buddy's MBP before I bought mine. I honestly could not stand it myself, though that may be because I'm used to doing my RAW work in Bibble Pro (which I use on Win/Mac/*nix). My batches finish significantly faster on every platform with Bibble than any other RAW tools I've come across, so that's enough reason for me to stick to that.

[photosbyms]

I haven't heard very many good things from Mac Book Pro users on both LR and Aperture. Both products need lots of ram (3gb min., 8gb ideal) and a powerful graphics card.