File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Any Macfags here use Aperture 2?

If so, how do you like it compared to other similar programs?
>> Anonymous
Lightroom 2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
>> Anonymous
I used it for a while, but as another anon simply put it, it's "way too dramatic." I tend to agree with this.

I really like iPhoto in terms of organization and simple edits like cropping etc, but what I tend to do is just drag a photo which I want to edit more straight out of iPhoto and into Photoshop CSx.

Do my photoshop edit and save the file, once I go back to iPhoto my photoshop edit is right there ready since I edited the source file and once I save it, it overwrote the original.

Nice and simple works for me.
>> Anonymous
>>283259

Though I haven't tried Lightroom, so my system might be fail in comparison
>> Anonymous
Bridge and Photoshop. Fuck everything else to pieces.
>> Anonymous
>>283257
macfags don't know what they are talking about, that is why they have macs
>> soulr !lK4GD5SleY
>>283257

So, what sculpture is that? where is it located? Italy/Greece I presume?
>> Falldog !2qYdimqiHs
It does everything I need it to with ease. *shrugs*
>> Anonymous
there really is no big difference between aperture and lightroom. they both have trial downloads available. see which interface you like better and then stick with that one.
>> Anonymous
LightRoom is basically the only direct competition to Aperture. iPhoto is great for personal photos but not if you want to do any serious RAW processing.

Short version:
- Lightroom works on PC, UI feels faster, great for developing photos, although not superior
- Aperture is heavyweight, gfx card intensive, a little sluggish, but provides a lot more photo management options. Has its own nice set of tools for adjusting photos as well, most of them translate to LightRoom.

tl;dr:
I have to admit Lightroom 2's performance is significantly better than Aperture's on my 2nd revision MacBook Pro. Aperture ties itself to OSX's rendering capabilities and requires a good amount of graphics card acceleration. LightRoom seems to adjust well as long as you have a decent CPU.

Aperture has superior organizational tools and UI for tagging and managing your billions of photos, but the development module in LightRoom feels a bit more intuitive and gives you a couple more options.

There are arguments of whether CameraRAW (which Lightroom uses) is better or the RAW converter in Aperture is better. It's really just down to personal preference unless you're SERIOUSPRO WITH SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT COLOR REPRODUCTION.

>>283261
The idea is that none of the edits are destructive to your original in any way in both Lightroom and Aperture, and it also saves room by not storing your 15MB RAW photo twice. Photoshopping dramatically increases your storage size if you want multiple versions of the same photo and still want to be able to restore revisions.
>> NatureGuy !se3A3TwzdY
>>283295
Look at it stylistically, 5$ says it was made within the last 20 years. Also second, where is this sculpture and what is it called. More importantly who made it.
>> Anonymous
>>283257
Too resource heavy on my mac compared to lightroom.
>> Anonymous
OP here

>>283391
I've got an MBP with 4GB of RAM, so GFX stuff isn't really an issue for me, but I'll give both a try. Amazing, an Anon that was actually helpful.

>>283295
>>283396
No clue who did it or where it is, I just found the picture online, and have been using it for a wallpaper. Figured I'd post it because it's a cool picture.
>> Anonymous
>>283396
Looks like a render to me
>> Anonymous
The statues giving me a boner, wtf.
>> Anonymous
>>283284
no u
>> Anonymous
that's an awesome statue, artist/sculpture name?
>> Anonymous
>>283421
>Too resource heavy on my mac compared to lightroom.

This.
Also Aperture makes it impossible to manually manage files.
SHit is a pain in the ass.
>> Anonymous
>>283257
My 12 inch g4 is too slow for aperture2 and the new macs are $2000 + . I rather spend that on equipment like lighting instead of a non upgradeable system.
>> Anonymous
>>283541
I dunno, I kinda like it.

It's all up to personal preference, OP.
>> Anonymous
>>283541
I haven't looked too much into LR's file management side, but you can use Aperture by externally referencing all the photos (instead of storing them in a packed Aperture Library file), which lets you put them in a separate HDD and bring online at your leisure. Downside is you can't take advantage of the vault feature to auto backup your entire library. (but then you probably have your own method anyway if you're externally referencing)

>>283427
RAM is helpful, but my MBP is a bit older and has shoddy 3d acceleration, and i think that's hurting Aperture performance. If you got one of the fancy new MBPs with the 9600 or whatever, expect awesome.
>> Anonymous
>>283586
I actually have the model directly before the new ones, the Early 2008 model with multitouch and the 8600M GT.

Which model is yours?
>> Anonymous
Fail book pro
>> Anonymous
>>283391
has pretty much said it all already.

Both Aperture 2 and LightRoom are great. You can't go wrong with either one. I went from photoshop to lightroom to do my RAWs, and it's increased my speed something like tenfold. I've tried lightroom, too, and it's pretty nice. Lightroom has some filter features I wish Aperture had. Thing is, Aperture works great for me, and if I really want to do some serious editing, I'll do it in Photoshop anyway, not Lightroom.

Best thing to do is try them both out and see which one you like more. You can't really go wrong.
>> Anonyfag of Borneo !bHymOqU5YY
>>You can't go wrong with either one. I went from photoshop to lightroom to do my RAWs, and it's increased my speed something like tenfold. I've tried lightroom, too, and it's pretty nice.
wat
>> Anonymous
Aperture isn't bad at all, IMO.

However, I'm too invested in the whole Adobe way of doing things, and LR2 gives me the advantage of being able to move back and forth between the same program on my Mac and PCs. I have a very early MacBook Pro, as well, so LR's performance advantage is a lot of help.
>> okto !.ZlrOYZhsk
I greatly prefer it to Lightroom, but it's pretty heavy-duty. About half the time I would rather use iPhoto, but there's pretty much no point in shooting digital unless you shoot RAW, so...
It's kind of like owning a tank when 75% of what you need to do is drive around in the city. Like a tank, however, it's the best tool for certain jobs. Like sifting through a 1000-frame shoot.

>>283541
Not true. Check the help for "referenced masters".
>> Anonymous
>>283257
Yeah, I think this statue almost looks CG. What keywords did you use to find it?
>> Anonymous
>>284403
Actually, iirc, it was posted on /wg/, which is where I found it.
>> Anonymous
>>283906
Both lightroom and aperture are good, and do pretty much 90% of the same stuff. The ability to go through and process raws one after another, instead of using photoshop to import, then use a bunch of layers to make adjustments, makes things a lot faster. I can do in one hour now what used to take me ten.
>> Anonymous
>>283627
RadeonX1600 128MB :(
Model Identifier is: MacBookPro2,2

If you have both a PC and a Mac you intend to use for photo management, LR is pretty much your only choice. Otherwise you can't really be disappointed with either.