>> |
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.
|