Monday
Feb182008
Aperture 2.0 is Out
Monday, February 18, 2008 at 3:56PM Now featuring: Lightroom 1.0.
I mean c'mon, at least name the Recovery and Vibrancy sliders something slightly different.
Competition between Aperture and Lightroom should be good for photographers, but that only works if each stakes out unique territory in which to innovate.
Reader Comments (12)
And at $100 cheaper, it has it's advantages, doesn't it?
I presume so, because it certainly has its fans. Speed may well be an Aperture advantage—Lightroom might as well be called SpinnyBeachballRoom. Speed is the only "feature" listed under "what's new" that isn't a direct swipe from Lightroom 1.0's feature set.
I'm not saying Aperture is worthless. Aperture sells itself short by championing a bunch of "new" features that Lightroom users have been enjoying for a year. I'd love to read about how Aperture is innovating, not about how it's copycatting.
I know that there are features in Aperture 1.0 that Lightroom doesn't have—but as a Lighroom user I have no idea what they are.
oh, what then? should they go through and rename the Contrast and Brightness sliders too? in all they're made-up names for visual effects. i for one am glad they used the same names. let me know exactly what i should expect from these controls.
and if they named them something different others would have decried, "why didn't you just name the controls Vibrancy and Recovery like in Lightroom?"
Which product is better? Lightroom or Aperture. I'm sure they're going to be leap frogging each other for years, so which to go with? $200 is pretty cheap for what they both do, so if you're on a Mac, it comes down to which is better.
I've used Lightroom and I like it. But I have read that if you have a TON of photos (and who doesn't these days) Aperture is better at handling a large library.
http://prolost.blogspot.com/2006/01/mines-better-than-yours.html" REL="nofollow">As I've mentioned before, I don't find it productive to discuss which application is better. But strengths and weaknesses of each, that's productive—it helps people decide which app might better suit their needs and it helps the developers focus on what matters to us.
In a nutshell: Aperture wins, hands down, for interface. As for the toolset for developing your images, Lightroom has the edge.
If you print photo books, Aperture is the only game in town. And the Light Table (a true light table) is a really awesome interface. You can move and resize images, lay them next to or over each other, just like a real light table (except for the resizing part). It saved me a good amount of time doing some photo layouts for a calendar. And Aperture's keyword controls rock. Use the defaults, make your own sets, then just punch buttons on screen to apply them. Nice big buttons, too.
If you want Flash galleries, Lightroom is your friend.
I'm using both (just got Aperture 2 which is a great upgrade). I'm glad they aren't "innovating" by coming up with new names for tools. Each has real strengths and weaknesses. The modal interface in Lightroom drives me nuts sometimes. I say a prayer every night that they won't try to graft that onto Photoshop (http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2007/11/photoshop_as_se.html" REL="nofollow">John Nack on Photoshop interface) because it makes things harder if you don't work in exactly the prescribed way. Aperture is much more freeform.
But, Aperture lacks a Chromatic Aberration tool (not an issue if you shoot all L glass, yes I'm a Canon user) and it's noise reduction isn't as robust. Plus, no Curves (but these tools don't replace Photoshop, so they shouldn't do too much heavy lifting in my opinion). But both of those are areas that Photoshop wins hands down. Especially the noise issue; you can only run so much noise algorithm every time you open an image without killing the app.
Let's see, Aperture was released well before LR and it's 'beta' period. So who's copying who?
As a non-LR user, the only thing I can think of that LR has copied is export plug-ins. I'm sure there's a few more.
A killer feature that Adobe will be forced to copy is Aperture's image editing API. And maybe tethered shooting.
Makea, it's well known that Lightroom was well under way within Adobe long before Apple surprised them and everyone else with Aperture 1.0 (I recommend you read http://www.photoshopnews.com/2006/01/09/the-shadowlandlightroom-development-story/" REL="nofollow">Jeff Schewe's article on the subject if you're interested). But it's also probably true that Aperture's release helped nudge Adobe into making Lightroom's beta public, which was a very good thing for everyone.
That's an awesome link, Stu, thanks for that. As I think you know, photography is my day job and I haven't even looked at either of these. I've been on PS since v4 and put little thought into photo management past PS.
Very cool. Thanks loads.
I wrote about my frustrations with Aperture 1.5 http://allanwhite.net/index.php/blog/comments/aperture_vs_lightroom_on_the_precipice/" REL="nofollow">here; most of these issues (speed, lack of imaging control) have been addressed and then some. I'll probably stick with 2.0.
LR is still great - and looks better in some situations - but I like the model Aperture uses for organization, and it really works like it should now.
I was annoyed by the blatant copying of Vibrance and Recovery, but... at least I don't have to relearn what those terms mean. Kind of weak, though.
This relationship is a major thorn in my side. I own both programs and was counting the days for this Aperture update. For me, Aperture is far superior in its photo organization and interface. It's not revolutionary but Lightrooms is below standard for this type of app making that gap greater. And let's face it, any photographer is going to already or eventually have a massive amount of photo data so organizing is almost the Key. ALMOST! Unfortunately for me I do heavy color correction and Lightroom stands alone here, even compared to Aperture 2. More than just adding Vibrancy, Recovery, Vignetting and arranging the process flow in a more logical manner, Lightroom's algorithms seem much, much better and more forgiving. I find Aperture breaks up an image much faster, pulling out unwanted noise and patterns. In Aperture I've tried desperately to match the grading i've done in Lightroom using the same image and was unsuccessful every time. I can elaborate in detail but i'll spare you guys. I will stay that im truly stuck because i passionately hate the idea of having to manage my photography in lightroom, especially after tasting Aperture, but i suppose i have no choice. Grading quality comes first for what im doing and its not practical in my mind to use both. I think im still in denial. Anyway, if anyone has some hope to offer in regards to Aperture, maybe a plugin set to mimic Lightrooms CC tools, i would be all ears. Also in regards to picking names... WTF is up with... ADOBE PHOTOSHOP LIGHTROOM? What happen to Lightroom. Seems the Marketing interns are calling those shots instead of intelligent people. Sorry for the long comment.
Cory, my experience matches yours. I can't imagine living without the image editing power of Lightroom, even though the organization is not best-in-class. The great news is that both image editing and organization have made huge leaps forward in LR2 public beta. The better news is that Lightroom and Aperture are nipping a each other's heels in various areas, making the user the real winner.