The one LR 2 advantage that matters to me is non-destructive local adjustments. I suspect that Aperture's emphasis on third party adjustment plug-ins working only on rendered images results from their evaluating that this is the quickest way to get 3rd party adjustment software partners for Aperture. Developing this kind of plug-in only requires the third party to layer an interface on top of the existing software.

If I understand what little is written on this subject, it seems that the plug in API would support some kind of 2 way communication that would be required by a non-destructive adjustment plug-in. Several applications provide capabilities that have specific advantages for photographers. Until these are incorporated seamlessly (i.e. non-destructively) into the Aperture workflow, we will miss out on realizing Aperture's wonderful vision of being a single place to handle all import, post-processing and organizing tasks.

More specifically, many Nikon high end users believe that Nikon's Capture NX provides the highest quality raw conversion because of its ability to use proprietary Nikon meta data. Capture also has excellent local adjustment tools, but the overall software is seen by many as being ponderous to use. Incorporating Capture NX as a non-destructive plug-in to Aperture would be an obvious place to win over many Nikon pros. It would be a win for both Aperture and Nikon.

An exchange on this subject on Juergen Specht's Nikon D1scussion forum with a Nikon USA person indicated that there has been no contact between Apple and Nikon on this subject. It would seem to me that reaching out to Nikon would be very much in Aperture's interest.

Nikon's RAW SDK is a black box - you feed it a a RAW file and some parameters and you get a rendered TIFF back from it.

In other words, there's no way for anyone other than Nikon to produce what you're talking about, and they have no incentive because it would take away from sales of NX.

I'm not particularly happy with the way the editing SDK was implemented in Aperture, but it's a complex problem - how would you integrate the NX-style adjustments with Aperture's own adjustments, all from a RAW file? That means applying the NX adjustments on the fly, somehow layered with Aperture's ones, even assuming that NX could be written using Core Image.

Ian

The only drawback to Aperture, for me, is the inability to durning downloading from camera card to create a second copy of the file to a second location for archival purpose.

The only LR advantage is the non destructive local editing.

One of the interesting things about this debate is the similarity it holds to the Nikon/Canon debates, etc. People love to tote the superiority of whatever brand they're using (and yes, each brand has various superiorities), but ultimately the discussion is only marginally useful, and even then, only marginally useful to the people who are just starting out in it. For all the screaming and shouting about whether a 40D or a D300 is a better value, I don't see anybody switching from Canon to Nikon and back again just because of new features on one or the other. Much like Lightroom vs. Aperture (naturally, I use Aperture), the real trick is to pick one and learn how to do everything you can in it. Yes, the modules in Lightroom drive me crazy, but if I hadn't used Aperture first, I don't think I would have noticed that issue so much. Similarly, many people are probably pretty irritated by the lack of chromatic abberation tools (which is doubly an issue since Photoshop only includes that feature in Lightroom or Camera Raw, which means even more of a workaround to send stuff there from Aperture) but I for one don't notice it as much, since much of what I shoot is in studio or black and white.

I'd say there's basically zero chance that chromatic aberration adjustments aren't on the short list of features to add. They're probably already written and waiting to go.

Steven - I use ImageIngester Pro for most of my downloads, for backing up and for automatically geotagging the 'working' copies which then go into Aperture.

Peter - yes, a very similar feel to Nikon v. Canon. Aperture is far superior for my needs but I can see that this isn't the case for everyone.

Mark - given that LensFix CI already does CA correction via Core Image I'd also be surprised. It's always interesting to see what we get with each new release...

There is another con for LR: it doesn't have softproofing.

As a somewhat frustrated LR user, with a serious case of Aperture envy, I'd like to add four short points to this already very comprehensive list. I didn't want to make this very long, so more details are on my blog. In brief:

ONE: LR does not offer one, integrated interface to manage its presets. Aperture offers one-stop, comprehensive access to manage them, through elegantly designed, and easily accessible dialog.

TWO: Related to point one, LR (incl. 2-Beta) has no way to export and package into one file (e.g. a zip file or a directory / folder) a COMPLETE subset of its library / catalog. Exported catalogs strip all user-created layouts (web, print, and slideshow), and presets. Aperture can package a subset of a library with EVERYTHING into one, single file that can be given / sent to other people or backed up.

THREE: Affecting a very small number of dark, contrasty photos with large flat-color areas, Apple's RAW-2 renders them in a very "clean" way, just as Nikon's NX does. LR's ACR engine makes them look somewhat "frothy", or blotchy, and at times almost posterized in the darker areas.

FOUR: In LR's favor, I much prefer the ability to directly zoom into a photo, up to 11:1, to Aperture's loupe tool. But that's clearly a personal preference.

"...pokey on a PowerBook..."

Actually, this is all I have at my disposal for now, and I still love my Aperture. Yes, work *does* take longer, and my editing methods have changed as a result, but it doesn't make it any less functional. Edits just aren't always instantaneous.

Granted, I've maxed out my machine beyond apple specs, and it was the fastest version of that line (came in mere months before the Intel switch), but it still performs well enough for me to hold off on the purchase of a MacPro just yet. That is, unless you guys want to donate ;-) :-P.

Ian, I don't agree with your comment that NX integrated with Aperture would take away from Nikon sales. The NX plug-in would be sold at the same prices as NX stand-alone, or included in an NX bundle. This could only add to Nikon's sales of NX. And to Aperture's.

I do agree that this is not a simple implementation problem. It will take effort from both Aperture and Nikon, but it is definitely doable and would get us closer to the goal of a really efficient and effective work-flow. Aperture is already modular in its conversion and adjustment architecture. Each adjustment/conversion brick corresponds to a set of fields in the sql database. Opening this up would mean allowing for 3rd party bricks and the accompanying data base entries. Just as now the user would choose which adjustment bricks to apply; the plug-in would add adjustment bricks.

I suspect that Aperture's architecture might be more modular than the underlying structure in LR and that this is in an intrinsic Aperture advantage that could be exploited.

From the exchange I referred to on Juergen Specht's forum, it appears that Nikon would be willing to at least talk with Apple about this.

Even without Nikon, Aperture at minimum should enable local adjustments. I can't see this as a huge effort as a simple implementation would involve using the localization capability already there in the spot and patch tool and combining with various existing adjustments.

@ Steven:

I use Image Capture to place my pics in a "download" file and then import them to Aperture "referenced". This way when I toss a pic while editing it also disappears from the download file.

After importing to Aperture I backup the download file to an external drive and then I reformat the camera card.

I maintain my archive outside of Aperture and it sure would be nice if keywords added in Aperture would show up in "Spotlight".

I find Lightroom extremely frustrating in everything it does, except for the awesome targeted adjustments (you left that out of "Pros"), so I'm trying to switch to Aperture.

I have bought a new 2.5Ghz MacBook Pro, with GeForce8600 graphics, and 4GB RAM ... but still, Aperture is very, very sluggish in the all important image adjustments area, and seems to have significant display / refresh bugs.

Maybe CoreImage is to blame, but that's neither here nor there. I really, really want Aperture to work for me, and I haven't given up yet, but the poor performance really can only boil down to substandard software engineering. If Adobe can do real time feedback on complex, non-destructive adjustments _without_ the benefits of being close to the native OS and hardware, then why on earth can't Apple ?

George - yes, I find the Project packages very handy as a way of moving entire organisational structures between machines.

Dan - I've actually used Aperture 1.0 on a 1GHz titanium PowerBook - any kind of adjustment or export was slooooow, but it still managed to speed up my overall workflow...

Tom - that sounds promising, Nikon don't usually want to speak to anyone!

Bob - given that Aperture doesn't do anything to your Master files, any kind of Spotlight search solution would require sidecar files for all your images. :-(

David - no, I didn't forget targeted adjustments - the 'Color' brick in Aperture isn't an exact overlap but most things you can do in LR with TAT can be done with it including using an eyedropper to choose the colour range to adjust. Performance - to be honest, it sounds like there's something wrong with your machine. I'm using a first ed. MBP with a lesser graphics card than you and don't generally see serious slowdowns unless piling on the 'known-slow' adjustments such as straightening, highlight & shadow, vibrance or definition.

Ian, your list of Aperture cons doesn't mention that Aperture limits all files it outputs to the Adobe RGB color space. This is a serious limitation for users who want to take advantage of the wider color gaumt offered by many newer inkjet printers.

One thing you didn't really touch on was how the results actually *look*. You can have all the features in the world and still make lousy pictures.

I'm an Aperture user but after using the LR2 beta, I'm considering switching over.

Have a look at this for a nonscientific test of the image quality: Aperture 2 vs. Lightroom 2

One thing that's relay time consuming and awkward in Aperture is the inconsistent us of dot and comma. When you change the Exposure values, you need to use comma. Next you want to Enhance the photo, you need to use dot. Further down it changes again.

Aperture is also slow in reaction when changing Levels, compared. BR/Val

Sorry, email wrong spell. charlamov@yahoo.com BR/Val