Digital Media | Spotlight: Photography | Inside Aperture | Blogs
Talking About Aperture
Last weekend, I was out photographing a big-wave surf contest in northern California called Mavericks. In between sets, I was talking with some of the other photographers, and I discovered that out of the group I was chatting with, I was the only Aperture user! It was a flashback to years ago when I was an Apple campus rep during college, surrounded by a group of PC users wanting to know why I used a Mac, trying very hard not to just tell them that "it's just better!"
Chances are, you've found yourself in a similar situation. Have you ever thought about why it matters to give a good answer? Well, in my mind, I want Aperture to succeed and for its user base to grow. That can only lead to good things, such as more 3rd party software to help make Aperture even better. Those of us who use Aperture are sort of "ambassadors" (go with me here) when we're in situations like this, and there's a good chance that our answer will affect whether or not the person we're talking to decides to check out Aperture or not.
You're probably wondering how I answered. There were mainly two groups of people--those who use Adobe Bridge + Camera RAW, and those who use Lightroom. To the Bridge people, I pointed out how Bridge is really just a file browser, lacking useful features like spell-checking in its metadata fields (you can turn this on in Aperture by control-clicking in a text field and selecting "Check as you type"). Plus, even Adobe must have felt they could make a tool more useful to photographers, given they also created Lightroom.
To the Lightroom users, my main point was that the mode-based interface is really clunky. For example, it's awkward having to always switch between two different modes to compare images, tweak on one image, and then compare again (there's no way I can see to tweak on one image _while_ comparing it to another in Lightroom). I also think Aperture's full-screen mode blows Lightroom's lights off mode out of the water. There are subtle things, too, such as how Aperture handles watermarks whereas I don't think you can specify an image to use as a watermark in Lightroom. Plus, although some people claim Lightroom is faster, from my experience, especially when in Develop mode, Lightroom isn't any faster than Aperture. Yes, there are some cool features like targeted adjustments in Lightroom, and useful features like flagging images, but on the whole, I'm far more impressed with Aperture.
After listening to me talk about it for a few minutes, the people I was talking with seemed pretty impressed with Aperture, too! In fact, they all asked for some URLs to find out more about it. Perhaps this boat ride has led to a few more people dropping into our Inside Aperture reader community!
Comments (16)
Oh not this irrelevant module thing again! Once you learn your LR keyboard shortcuts, switching modes with D is no different from Aperture and the continual need to hit F to switch to its full screen interface.
And as for a Fox-like use of the word "claim" to say Lightroom is faster, you "admit" your Apple bias and know full well that Lightroom is much faster on identical machines. That speed disparity's even more true when you factor in real world needs like adjusting multiple items at once (Lightroom's auto sync swamps the tedious lift and stamp), and its background processing.
I'm not saying that Aperture doesn't have features that are better, for example the loupe, smart albums and dual monitor support for those who can't afford big screens. But all you're doing is digging up one long dead argument that's irrelevant anyway, and trying to breath life into another that's wrong.
Sounds like the salty air affected you more than you know....
Hi Gio, one big difference is that you don't _need_ to switch into full-screen mode in Aperture if you don't want to (and once you're in it, if you're working within an album you can just stay in it), but in LR, to say crop and straighten an image to let you make an editing decision, you do need to switch to the develop mode and back again. You might say it's dead, but from having hours in each program, this still bugs me a ton. There's also the bit that LR doesn't have a comparable full-screen mode ;)
Also, I _don't_ know that Lightroom is faster, and from what I've observed when I've used it, it's not. Yes, I'm biased slightly (but always willing to recognize if I'm wrong or something else does have an advantage), but when I zoom in on an image, for example, there's a longer wait in Lightroom to see the full-res image than in Aperture on my machine.
I could believe your point about adjusting multiple images at once, but aside from things like white balance or metadata, I tend not to adjust multiple images at once.
I know of plenty of professionals. Aperture is used by some, same as Lightroom. But the majority still rely on Capture One or Photo Mechanic. And then there are the stubborn ones that resort to manually managing their workflow through directories and spreadsheets!
The biggest issues for Aperture is that it is Mac only and the previews generation are too slow.
Flame Wars!
It's not a perfect analogy, but this is similar to the Mac vs. peecee discussion. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to equate Lightroom to widows (now THAT would be offensive), but aperture users that i've met tend to just love it so much they can seem a little over-emphatic about it. Are their lightroom users out there who like LR just as much? Probably, though I haven't met any.
Then there's the tendency to get defensive. That's a likely road to take when you're in a crowd of LR lovers. That or a bit haughty, which isn't a acceptable in the Mac/PC debate.
Plus there's the conversion factor. If you're going to try and get someone to convert of to a Mac, the moving of files and such isn't hard at all. In comparison, there's a LOT of work to be done to make this happen in a move from LR to AP or vice-versa. No, I don't think I'd switch to LR unless AP became a legacy app for a few years. I would think LR users feel the same way because of the invenstment you have in one app or the other.
We'd be better off snagging more users BEFORE they chose a specific program in this debate since it will be easier for them to hop on. That's just my $0.02.
I think you are right, Daniel. Aperture users often exhibit a sort of quasi-religious faith that you don't get with Lightroom folk - they're a much more cynical, sceptical bunch.
I think your first answer to why you use Aperture was the best. It is just better. That is all you need to say. If the person asking is really serious they'll investigate for themselves and make up their own mind. No use in making a big case. Confidence and actions say more than a bullet list can. Both apps are pretty good, but I'll keep using Aperture, because it IS just better.
JBP
I agree with JBP. Send them to the www.apple.com/aperture website and have them check out the overviews tutorials, and promo videos. They seem to give a pretty good taste of what Aperture is. If that doesn't turn heads and get them hooked, I don't think much else will.
Very good points here! It's easy to let this turn into a pointless flame war, and Aperture's being Mac-only is a downside for some people. But I do think that you guys are right on how it's important to grab people before they make a strong investment in one program, and the materials on the Aperture site really do show off some of Aperture's goodies!
Funny Thought: Opinions are like buts and everyone has them, and they all stink.
Quibbling about LR and AP is like saying your flatulence stinks less without regard to the fact that you passed gas.
That being said, Excuse me.
I love AP and haven't even bothered to look at LR. Why? AP was there first and it worked for me, right-outta-da-box. Still does. If Apple were to drop it tomorrow I'd still use it. It runs wonderfully on my MBP with 10.4.
The issue I see is what I'm going to do when my current camera becomes antiquated.
Interesting discussion and it it one of those typical, which is better discussions. Is Canon better than Nikon? Nikon better than Canon? Windows better than Mac? Mac better than Windows?....
Very often, I find these discussions fruitless. What do you gain? Mine is better than yours.
On the topic, I have been using Aperture 1.5 for over a year now and am mostly happy with the software. Aperture was a revelation in how I optimized my workflow! Obviously, Apple did something right and Adobe came out with Lightroom, with a similar concept but slightly different emphasis. I played with a test version of Lightroom and found some features that I would like to find in Aperture and missed some that I know from Aperture. In the end, I felt far more comfortable with Aperture. This is not necessarily a point of Aperture, being better, but using a software for 10 months or more on a daily basis, creates habits and accustoms you to certain thinks.
Lightroom is great as it is also shows that there are other ways of dealing with workflow. Lightroom is also great, because it forces Aperture developers to come up with an even better version for the future.
Please remember also, to check out other software and tools and don't fall into the belief that everything that Apple produces is the best solution for a problem. Keep your mind open and see what others do to enhance your horizon and knowledge and find features that might help you with your workflow with your current application.
Hi,
one thing which is really sad about apple and aperture is the low speed of raw updates. Take the Sony alpha700 which is on the market longer than last november. There is still no raw support available for it. (not mentioning Nikon D3 or D300). The developing speed of Adobe seems to be much faster (they already support all cameras mentioned above).
Cheers,
Yann
I do love Aperture but I have been force to use Lightroom. Both are great solution with different perspectives on workflow. I am glad both exist.
My concern is the slow response support from Apple. It makes me wonder if they are really supporting Aperture and if they are really committed to it long range.
If Adobe decided tomorrow to drop LR, I won't loose ant correction I have made because they are compatible with ACR. I wonder what will happen if Apple dropped Aperture tomorrow with all those that have spent countless hours organizing and cataloging the images in Aperture.
I have to disagree about Aperture being as fast or faster than LR. I am glad that in your computer it does seem faster, but I have a MACPRO with 4GIG card that I specifically bought for Aperture use and I must admit that LR, although not a lighting rod, run faster than Aperture and I do get real time adjustments while in APerture I don't.
And don't get me started in the useless Aperture cropping tool!
Like I said many times before, I like Aperture better and I think it is a better solution for me, but until Apple don't get it working right I am forced to use LR, which is by the way, a very good first generation solution.
Did any of the people you were trying to convince use a Nikon D3 or D300, or one of the slew of other non-supported cameras? If so - good luck with your evangelism !!
I am astonished that professional photographers can say they have never seen or investigated Aperture.
A bit like coming across a photographer in the 80's who had never heard of Kodak..!
I like Aperture for its overall performance and user interface. However, I hope that I don't have to give up on Aperture because it fails to response to the competition around. Besides my Nikon D200, I also use a Canon G9. The long waiting RAW support of new cameras just keep me worry as more and more people will switch to Light Room or other photo management softwares. Why it take Apple so long? Don't forget that Aperture launched long before Light Room. It's a shame to give away the market share with such a good product.
I've been using Aperture since 1.0 and this past week I've been testing Lightroom, along side Aperture. They really are about the same, speed wise. The problem with Aperture is its constant display of the "Spinning Beachball of Death". I never saw that once on Lightroom. I assume these are bugs in Aperture, which will most certainly get worked out in Aperture 2.0 (silently wishing/hoping/waiting for PMA08). For those of us that have been using Aperture, since the get-go, we've become accustomed to the SPoD, like it's there for a reason, or that Aperture is actually doing something important. But for Lightroom users, it's the single biggest turn-off when testing Aperture and I gotta agree with them. It's a total deal breaker.
Further, Aperture 1.5 was great when it first came out. But now, we're two years further down the road and Aperture no longer covers our RAW workflow 100%. There's no way it can, without a real plugin SDK or easier round-trip to Photoshop. Beyond performance issues, that's the reason why most people that I know, who have seriously investigated Aperture, choose not to use it. Beyond Aperture's insanely elegant and powerful organization features, There's just not a whole lot you can do with Aperture's adjustment features. No importable presets. no universal presets (beyond individual adjustment presets). No 3rd party adjustments/filters. The list goes on and on...
I love Aperture. And I hope that the dev team is one step ahead of us, but Apple really has their work cut out for them. I'm really hoping that the reason that Aperture 2.0 is taking so long to be released is that the Aperture dev team really are taking their time to release a product that will satisfy my needs and the way that I work, but also all those other photographers who work differently than I do, that need different things.