The No. 1 Home Entertainment Tech Resource
-
New Patreon Tier and Early Access Content available. If you would like to support AVForums, we now have a new Patreon Tier which gives you access to selected news, reviews and articles before they are available to the public. Read more.
Should I leave aperture for Lightroom
- Thread starter Rookies
- Start date
Peakoverload
Established Member
I'm in the same position. I've used Aperture since it's release and love it and I've always been highly critical of Lightroom 1 and 1.4 and think and still think that they were pretty awful (compared with Aperture) but Lightroom 2 has changed all of that.
One thing I've always liked about Lightroom are the presets but these alone are not a big enough draw. But like you the graduated tool and the dodging and burning (which is still better than how Aperture 2 does it) are becoming incredibly useful tools. So much so that I am actually finding that I currently now reach for Lightroom before Aperture.
The REALLY annoying thing is that Aperture is simply waaaaaay better than Lightroom when it comes to organising your photos but Lightroom is quite a bit better than Aperture when it comes to editing/RAW processing especially if you are into creating images with different tones to the original file. If you tend to just use your editor to 'tweak' your photos so that they are mostly the same as how they were shot in camera i.e. you just boost the colours that are already there but don't change their tone, then I'd say stick with Aperture but if you tend to get a little more creative then Lightroom is becoming incredibly tempting.
One thing I've always liked about Lightroom are the presets but these alone are not a big enough draw. But like you the graduated tool and the dodging and burning (which is still better than how Aperture 2 does it) are becoming incredibly useful tools. So much so that I am actually finding that I currently now reach for Lightroom before Aperture.
The REALLY annoying thing is that Aperture is simply waaaaaay better than Lightroom when it comes to organising your photos but Lightroom is quite a bit better than Aperture when it comes to editing/RAW processing especially if you are into creating images with different tones to the original file. If you tend to just use your editor to 'tweak' your photos so that they are mostly the same as how they were shot in camera i.e. you just boost the colours that are already there but don't change their tone, then I'd say stick with Aperture but if you tend to get a little more creative then Lightroom is becoming incredibly tempting.
If it makes any difference, I've just finished both lightroom 2 and aperture 2 trials. Lightroom just pipped it for me, even at a significantly higher cost. The editing just seemed that bit easier over aperture. Although I do have to agree about the organising comment.
Tough call really if you already have aperture.
Tough call really if you already have aperture.
Rookies
Distinguished Member
That the problem I already own the Aperture and bough it about 4 month ago... It still is a very good software for the price as got it at £125 which is a good price for such software..
But Lightroom seem to have just a couple of Editing power I like but is it worth paying £200 odd just for 2 extra things?
But Lightroom seem to have just a couple of Editing power I like but is it worth paying £200 odd just for 2 extra things?
Similar threads
The latest video from AVForums
CES 2023 Round Up: New TV Lineups for 2023 from LG, Samsung, Panasonic, Hisense & TCL
