Lightroom vs Aperture - The Results
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4
Now, when I zoomed into each image side by side at 100 percent in Photoshop, I found that they're pretty much identical in sharpness, noise, and shadow detail. Even the color rendition is very close, as you can see in the image below.
Figure 9
For the first test with the cowboy image, I tried reprocessing the image in Aperture in every way I could to eliminate the artifacts and the crunchiness but it never got any better than the sample presented here. I don't know what finally happened with the cowboy image produced by Aperture in the first test but with the second test, the high quality of Aperture's RAW processing was just as good as that produced with Lightroom. And in my other comparisons, I've found no fault with the latest version of Aperture (1.5.2) and its RAW conversions.
I want to reassure you that I didn't try to set up Aperture to produce poor results in the first test. I have nothing against Aperture so I have no agenda here. And as I said in the beginning of this comparison, I'm not trying to bash either application. Both Lightroom and Aperture were using the same file referenced on my hard drive so the file is not corrupted or anything like that--just in case you're wondering.
Still, seeing this one hiccup from Aperture throws up a red flag as to the ultimate image quality it can deliver on a consistent basis. I remember early on Aperture had some RAW processing issues, but I thought those were all in the past. I wouldn't take my results as gospel, but I've worked with a lot of RAW processing software applications (ACR, Nikon Capture, Capture One, etc.), and have never seen anything like the results in the first tests. Hence, I don't know what to conclude. I do know that if I was using Aperture, I'd be on the lookout for poor image conversions.
If you know how or why this might have happened, please post a comment at the end of the article.
Grayscale Conversions
Converting color digital images to Black and White is a huge topic. In fact, my business partner is writing a 285 page book on that very subject in cooperation with Adobe right now. While I'm sure you can get similar results in Aperture, the before and after mode of Lightroom is the hands-down best color to grayscale method I've ever seen or used.
I normally create a Virtual Copy in Lightroom, then switch to the Before and After mode as in the image below. This allows me to see the colors I'm adjusting in the black and white counterpart.
Figure 10
Lightroom has really got me excited about doing black and white photography again and I find myself converting a lot of images to black and white. If you like black and white photography, then you'll love Lightroom!
Exporting Images
Both Aperture and Lightroom have easy to use Export dialog boxes. I found it strange, though, that in Aperture I had to set the color space, resolution, and file export type in the Image Export Presets. It's not a big deal but it'd odd that you have to go somewhere else to deal with that. I suppose once you have all your presets in place, you just choose the one you want to use in the export dialog box and this becomes a non-issue. In Lightroom, all of the settings are set in the Export dialog box and just as in Aperture, you can create Presets that let you choose your export settings with one click.
One of the other issues I've found is that Aperture can't function while exporting images; whereas in Lightroom, you can export a batch of images and continue working while the export process keeps churning away in the background. This may not seem like a big thing, but if you process a lot of images, it can become a major issue fast.
Spotting Images
In both applications, spotting images is eerily similar. The controls in Lightroom are fairly advanced and intuitive for both the Heal and Clone tools. They just take a little getting used to. Aperture's almost the same. There's no clear winner here. For extensive spotting and image repair, the best place to go is Photoshop. I think this is a great feature though in both applications because it lets you stay in the application for minor repairs like the occasional dust spot.
Sharpening
I applaud Aperture for having multiple sharpening methods built in. I really appreciated the Edge Sharpening tool and found it very easy to use. Lightroom doesn't have as many sharpening features, but it's a known quantity, and I do my standard capture sharpen (20-25) in the Develop module and deal with the rest of the image sharpening in Photoshop.
I've spent the last eight or nine years getting a feel for how Photoshop sharpens images and I know the general numbers for how much to sharpen given an image's size and resolution. Plus, I have my custom sharpening actions set up in Photoshop which essentially create Edge Sharpening. With Aperture, all of my knowledge is out the window so I'd have to take the time to figure out the art of sharpening in Aperture from scratch.
Creating Web Galleries
Web Galleries are another area where both of these applications excel. My only gripe with Lightroom is that there's no sharpening applied to the images as a web gallery is created. For that reason alone, I still use Photoshop to create web galleries. I'm sure Adobe will update the web module to take care of this issue shortly and that will solve the problem. Otherwise, I love the way you can create custom web galleries and upload them directly from within the software.
Aperture seems to have some really nice web galleries as well. I like the understated look of the web gallery options in Aperture and it appears that Aperture applies some amount of sharpening to the gallery images, which is very nice. It doesn't seem to have the variety that Lightroom has in terms of the preset web galleries but I like just about all of the Aperture web templates for their simplicity and clean design. Sadly, I couldn't find a method for uploading web galleries to my web site. Aperture allows you to upload to a .Mac account but I don't have one and I'd prefer to upload to my own web site. To do that, I'd have to export the web pages and upload via my FTP software. It's a small thing, but Lightroom saves a little time by having the FTP upload work with any web site.
Printing
In my opinion, the Print module in Lightroom is the weakest of the modules because it lacks a method for soft proofing. And while there are some sharpening presets, it also lacks the fine sharpening control that's found in Photoshop. So it's no surprise that I find printing with Aperture a lot more powerful since it has soft proofing and more advanced sharpening control.
I confess I didn't have enough time in this assignment to really explore how Aperture deals with printing. I'll try to take a look at this and compare it to Lightroom in a future blog post. My suspicion is that really high-end fine art prints will need to be printed from Photoshop. At least that's where I do the majority of my high-end printing because of the control inherent in Photoshop.
SPEED!
Lastly, how do these two stack up in terms of speed? Right off the bat I'll say this depends on your computer. I noticed I had to wait around more with Aperture (the spinning ball of death) but had little waiting when using Lightroom.
On my MacBook Pro, Lightroom and Aperture took about the same amount of time importing images. In the image editing process, I found Aperture to be much slower than Lightroom. I was constantly waiting for Aperture to load images into the Loupe tool while Lightroom cranked away with 1:1 previews. And as I said above, I had the annoying spinning ball of death with Aperture way more often than I would have expected. With Lightroom, I had no delay in the editing process or in the develop module. While exporting, I found that Lightroom took anywhere from one third to one half the time that it took Aperture to export the same images. In terms of building web galleries and exporting them, Aperture was a bit faster than Lightroom.
Overall, Lightroom was much faster, but if I had a super fast MacPro and 5 or 6GB of RAM, I bet that would speed up Aperture. Of course, Lightroom would feel like it was on crack cocaine if I was using that same computer.
Final Thoughts
Before you go ballistic, realize these are my opinions. I've spent a week comparing two very complex software applications. I feel at this point I have a pretty good feel for them both--at least enough to draw a solid conclusion for myself and my work.
A big part of why I chose Lightroom in the first place, and why I will continue to use it for my workflow, is because I came from using Adobe Camera Raw, so I'm comfortable with the sliders. I prefer Lightroom's simplicity of design and its user interface. I also have my images organized methodically by geographic location so at this point, I don't need much help from software to keep track of my images. I'm sure that will change as my hard drives continue to fill up, but I'm confident that Version 2.0 of Lightroom will have some sort of archiving and cataloging solution when it comes out a year or two from now.
Another big reason I choose Lightroom over Aperture is the issue of speed. It works faster and it works on all of my computers. The fact that I already know the software to some degree having come from ACR means I don't have to learn a whole new way of dealing with my raw images. As a professional photographer, this point cannot be underestimated. I simply don't have time to spend two whole weeks learning Aperture inside and out when I can learn pretty much everything about Lightroom in a day or two.
I have clients to deal with, assignments to shoot, process and get out the door, and most importantly invoices to keep track of. Digital photography has cut into my time behind the camera because I'm now at my computer dealing with images. This may sound like a rant, but I'd much rather be out there shooting images than learning about new software. And that amigos, is the real reason I choose Lightroom over Aperture or anything else for that matter. It allows me to concentrate on photography again!
I hope this comparison has helped you decide for yourself which of these programs will work best for you and your work. I think the real test is to download both trial versions and try them out.
If you'd like to see how I use Lightroom and my entire digital workflow, you can purchase my workflow on my website at:
www.michaelclarkphoto.com/workflow.html.
Lightroom vs Aperture Blog Posts by Michael Clark
A comparison: Adobe Lightroom vs. Apple Aperture
Lightroom vs. Aperture: Versions and Stacking
Lightroom vs. Aperture: Loupe Views Compared
Lightroom vs. Aperture: Synching Adjustments
Aperture vs Lightroom Blog Posts by Micah Walter
Special Event: Aperture Vs. Lightroom
Aperture Vs. Lightroom: Let the Games Begin
Aperture Vs. Lightroom: Day 1 - Lightroom's Library Module
Aperture Vs. Lightroom: Day 2 - The Rainbow Filter?
Aperture Vs. Lightroom: Day 3 - The Develop Module
Aperture Vs. Lightroom: Day 4 - The World in Black and White
Aperture Vs. Lightroom: Day 5 - Ready for the Web
Lightroom Vs. Aperture: Day 6 - Exporting Images
Aperture Vs. Lightroom: Day 7 - River Rotations
Michael Clark is an internationally published outdoor photographer specializing in adventure sports, travel, and landscape photography. You can see his work at www.michaelclarkphoto.com.
Return to Inside Lightroom
You must be logged in to the O'Reilly Network to post a talkback.
Showing messages 1 through 18 of 18.
-
Lightroom handling of RAW/Jpeg images
2007-06-10 08:13:38 bendee [Reply | View]
I've been using LR for a few weeks and have been puzzled by the way LR handles those images I capture with RAW and Jpeg saved for the same image. I usually do this so that I can immediately send the Jpeg off to someone, while I decide what I'm going to do with the RAW image. I can't find those Jpegs in LR even though they're recorded as a separate file in Finder and even in Bridge. All LR shows is the RAW images. Those images don't even show up in the LR folders, and the image numbers exactly add up to only the RAW images. On the other hand, if I only capture Jpeg, then LR shows this image and does so as a Jpeg. Any explanation? -
Lightroom handling of RAW/Jpeg images
2007-06-10 08:40:10 michaelclarkphoto [Reply | View]
I'd suggest separating the Jpegs into another folder before importing into Lightroom - that way everything stays separated and isn't confusing. Don't know why Lightroom isn't importing your Jpegs with the RAWs - maybe check your preferences.
-
Lightroom handling of RAW/Jpeg images
2007-06-10 21:13:08 bendee [Reply | View]
Did check my preferences and can't find a command for this. Separating Jpegs and Raw somewhat defeats the purpose of setting my camera to take both for a single image (I only do this when I expect to send files off ASAP). It's so much simpler when they're together (like Bridge), and I would have expected that if LR is smart enough to ignore the Jpegs, it would be smart enough to stack them under the RAW images. Have you encountered this problem, or is it only me and my LR settings? Or does LR assume it's so good that users no longer ever need to capture both RAW and Jpegs for one image. LR works fine when I only capture one file format (either RAW or Jpeg). -
Lightroom handling of RAW/Jpeg images
2007-06-10 22:33:16 michaelclarkphoto [Reply | View]
In a future version of Lightroom it may work as you wish, but for now it is what it is. I don't see why separating the images is a problem. For myself and my workflow, I wait to send out any images because I don't want to send jpeg's from the camera and then work up the RAW's and have them look different. I have gone to an all RAW workflow. I know for yourself and many others that are on tight deadlines this will not work. If I am on tight deadlines I send un-touched RAW files to a client - have them tell me what they want and then I work those up.
-
Lightroom handling of RAW/Jpeg images
2007-06-10 08:13:24 bendee [Reply | View]
I've been using LR for a few weeks and have been puzzled by the way LR handles those images I capture with RAW and Jpeg saved for the same image. I usually do this so that I can immediately send the Jpeg off to someone, while I decide what I'm going to do with the RAW image. I can't find those Jpegs in LR even though they're recorded as a separate file in Finder and even in Bridge. All LR shows is the RAW images. Those images don't even show up in the LR folders, and the image numbers exactly add up to only the RAW images. On the other hand, if I only capture Jpeg, then LR shows this image and does so as a Jpeg. Any explanation?
-
portability and flickr
2007-04-12 16:18:22 gfurry [Reply | View]
I have looked all around for an easy solution to my 2 issues with Lightroom. #1 How do you easily shoot and edit on the road and then transfer everything over to your master library when you get home? Not just the images but the edits and the history.
#2 In Aperture I use the flickr export plugin to upload photos to flickr. It lets me upload everything very easily and even adds a flckr keyword to the image after it has uploaded it so I know which pix I have uploaded. Is there a simple way or similar plugin available for Lightroom?
-
Lightroom's major missing feature...
2007-03-23 07:30:10 vince_m5 [Reply | View]
Applescript! How does Adobe, who have incorporated some of the most extensive Applescript dictionaries available into Photoshop, Indesign, and Illustrator *totally* drop the ball on Lightroom?
Please tell me that this is in the plans for version 1.1... it would just about make the purchase decision a no-brainer.
vince
-
Slowness and Lightroom
2007-03-15 16:22:03 michaelclarkphoto [Reply | View]
Steven -
Sorry to hear that you have had speed issues with Lightroom. You are the first I have ever heard that has had this problem - most complain that Aperture is way slower than Lightroom.
I offer the following advice:
1 - check to see that you have at least 50% of your hard drive space on your G5 available. If you are working with less than 25% unused that can slow down all applications especially these.
2 - make sure that you Render the 1:1 previews after importing images into Lightroom. It doesn't happen auotmatically and this will greatly speed up everything in lightroom.
3 - I've used Lightroom with a Nikon D2x (12 MP) and a Canon 1Ds (16 MP ) so unless you are using a MF 39 MP back this shouldn't matter too much.
4 - if you have your lightroom Libray/cache on an external hard drive (USB or Firewire) this can massively (i.e. BIG TIME) slow down everything. Put the cache on a faster drive with a SATA connection if need be or better yet leave it on the G5's internal drive.
I have the exact same computer as you do and have experienced very snappy and fast movement in Lightroom - faster than any imaging software I've ever used. So I don't know what to tell you otherwise.
In terms of the user interface, well that is personal preference - go with what works for you. Happy hunting...
Cheers, Michael Clark
....
www.michaelclarkphoto.com
-
Interesting observation on speed
2007-03-15 13:06:04 Bruizer [Reply | View]
I enjoyed reading your review. Having been a user of C1 Pro for the past 4 years or so, I felt they are falling way behind in many areas of the RAW interface program and decided to set out and find a new tool. I did a 1 week use of both Aperture (1.5.1) and Lightroom 1.0 to try and decide what applications I would end up using for the next 4 years.
The MAJOR deciding factor is Lightroom was simply a DOG!!! There was no contest (this is on a Power Mac Dual G5 2.0 Ghz/GForce Ultra 6800 DDL Video/4.5 GB RAM). Every action felt like it was on molasses. In short, Lightroom was (and still is) simply too slow for productive use on my machine. This was from waiting several seconds to load images to very slow updates on any adjustments (1-2 seconds).
Aperture, on the other hand, simply glided most of the time. If too many filters are added, it hits a wall but even then is still a good 50% faster than Lightroom on a good day.
And as for the Interfaces. Allot of thought seems have been put into each one, but I found myself fighting the interface a bit more on Lightroom. It might be that I never used ACR so I am simply not used to it at all. The metadata browser was right cool, however, and hope to see in Aperture in the future.
Makes me wonder what the differences are. Could this be as much the camera used (Canon VS Nikon for the review), video card, memory, processor?
Steven -
Interesting observation on speed
2007-04-09 07:36:23 gwostrel [Reply | View]
Steven,
Really odd to read your comments regarding relative speed. I would have said exactly the same thing - but reversed. I have used Lightroom since the first beta and Aperture since its release. Aperture has always been extremely frustrating to use because of the constant "hangs" while it tries to do something. Lightroom, on the other hand, works well even on rather low end gear (eMac 1ghz G4 768ram). My work machines are Macbook Pro 2.16ghz Core2Duo/2gigs ram and Dual 2.0ghz G5/Radeon x1600/3.5g ram. Lighroom and Aperture behave the smae on both. Clearly there are "other" factors here.
-
iView has a function that both don't
2007-03-09 23:02:07 PunkStarStudios [Reply | View]
I've been doing the same thing for a few days - comparing trial versions of both Aperture and Lightroom.
Hands down - I love the Lightroom UI.
Aperture's integration with iLife is a HUGE bonus though - so this almost equals out the last point (almost).
One GLARING shortcoming though is the lack of auto syncing folders. I'm a recent Mac user, and on the PC I used Picasa (I almost shed a tear after bying the 24" iMac when I saw not OSX version of Picasa existed). Picasa autosynced the folders you set up to watch. When I dumped photos into a a folder - I didn't have to keep track of them for importing into my DAM software - it did that all on it's own automatically.
I am profoundly saddened by the lack of this feature in both Aperture and Lightroom. I know iView and Portfolio has it, and I applaud them - but the editing tools just aren't there for these guys... I've been seduced by the lightroom UI is most likely my problem here.
Anyhow, If Picasa ever made an OSX version, both Apeture and Lightroom will be in trouble (especially since Picasa is FREE). If Picasa ties into iLife... hell - that will be the one-two punch as far as I'm concerned.
Can someone PLEASE tell Adobe to look at the auto sync feature (this is no where near the same as their watched folder feature), and integration into iLife (and iWork for that matter) would have me pre-ordering the next release!
-
iView has a function that both don't
2007-07-18 06:23:58 gwilli [Reply | View]
Not to be funny or anything but you can't exactly compare Picasa with Lightroom or Aperture, it's like comparing a compact to a DSLR.
Aperture and Lightroom are professional photo management tools, Picasa's pretty much for your holiday snaps using your compact camera, hence why it's free.
If you want something comparible to Picasa there's something already on your mac, which is 10 times as good and free, it's called iPhoto.
Setting up "auto syncing folders" will only slow down your system.
-
Lightroom Web Gallery Poor Quality
2007-03-08 11:25:58 justinbastien [Reply | View]
Not only does Lightroom not have the option to sharpen images, it is also exporting HTML files with incorrect information. I created a web gallery using the Midnight template, set the Preview setting to 600 (large images) and exported the web gallery. All of the vertical images have been resized to 599, while the value for the height attribute in the img tag is set to 600. As a result of this inconsistency in the actual size of the image (599) and the height attribute (600) the images look considerably distorted.
I’ll be sticking with Photoshop for creating web galleries until Lightroom provides the ability to sharpen images and at least produces accurate HTML code and properly resizes images.
-
Alas for the iPhoto victims
2007-03-06 21:03:48 jfaughnan [Reply | View]
I'm doing my own testing of Lightroom, and I'm disappointed that it's so good. There's no real comparison, for me it's much better than Aperture. It's extremely fast on my G5 iMac and very easy to understand. I was productive immediately.
So why the disappointment?
Only Aperture will import iPhoto Libraries. I'm stuck.
Bleh.
-
Great series
2007-03-06 20:52:46 etherfarm [Reply | View]
Michael,
First of all, thanks to both you and Micah for spending some time "wearing the other's hat". This has been a great series of articles.
I, like perhaps many, am trying to decide between Aperture and Lightroom. I've spent years using iView Media Pro and a new camera acquisition has given me impetus to rethink my cataloging and processing workflow from scratch. I'm currently running, simultaneously, the trial versions of both Aperture and Lightroom, importing the same photos into both programs, getting a feel for each.
I would suggest, not necessarily as a criticism, that Michah seemed to give stronger consideration to the value in Lightroom's features than you did for Aperture's. Even after only a short time with both programs (longer with Lightroom, as I've been a beta user since b2), I can tell that Aperture's asset handling is far superior to Lightroom's. You seemingly write off these features, saying that you don't really need them for your workflow, and that "you didn't have a lot of time to work with the different projects and smart folder structure in Aperture." You take a similar approach towards many areas where Aperture excels, such as stacking, sharpening, and printing. I'm not saying a Lightroom bias was necessarily apparent, just that it may have been a good opportunity for you to consider how these features might benefit your workflow.
For example, I can't begin to tell you how valuable I find smart folders and stacking in Aperture, (I'm very glad Adobe put the latter feature into the final release). Sure, in iView and in the Lightroom betas, I can't say they played a very valuable role in my workflow--but that's because these features were completely absent. Only after I started contemplating how these features could be useful did I see its true value. In even this short trial period, in which I've loaded both programs with roughly 20,000 images, smart folders are an absolutely killer feature. Though as as you report, want to get behind the camera more, for some of us the time organizing and printing pictures is also part of the reward.
I agree there are aspects of Lightroom which are far more intuitive than Aperture, and should it sound like I'm defending Aperture, I'm not--I'm still very much undecided. Both programs have strengths, and at this point it's perhaps more a decision of how I want to work than evaluating features in and of themselves. I have ordered a new desktop system which might help me better evaluate the two programs. As you report, Lightroom seems way ahead on the performance / footprint ratio.
Anyway, thanks again for the series. I look forward to reading both Inside Aperture and Inside Lightroom, regardless of which program I end up with. -
Great series
2007-03-07 14:12:22 erikbarzeski [Reply | View]
I agree with etherfarm's third paragraph ("I would suggest..."). I also found the constant "I'm not biased, I assure you" assurances a tad off-putting. That's not to say I saw any actual bias, but if you have to keep telling us, it just comes off a bit oddly.
I like Lightroom for a lot of things. It seems to run better when I have all my other "day to day" apps running, for example.
JamieF1