Aperture vs. Lightroom: What do the pros use?

[GregW]

Following on from this thread: http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....opic=19876&st=0  about how popular Apple's Aperture is I noticed this post on John Nack's blog.

According to InfoTrends:

66.5% using the Photoshop Camera Raw plug-in
23.6% using Lightroom
5.5% using Aperture

There is more information here: http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2007/10/apert..._lightroom.html

[jjj]

According to InfoTrends:

66.5% using the Photoshop Camera Raw plug-in
23.6% using Lightroom
5.5% using Aperture[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149615\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

As Apple have only about 2-3% of the computer market, that figure appears quite good for Aperture. But as the use of Macs amongst Pro Photographers is much higher than the 2-3% for all computer users, Aperture you would think would get more than 5%ish. Maybe it's because the initial v1.0 was so awful, people waited, tried Lightroom and then gave Aperture a miss. LR 1.0 was also awful, but there you go.

[Scott Martin]

I think it's ridiculous that they didn't link to the survey on Infotrends or post more relevant info on the survey. What about the last 4.4%? Did the survey include applications like Capture One? What constitutes a pro?

[Goodlistener]

There's no question that Lightroom sells more copies than Aperture.  I have had the trial versions of both programs and did A LOT of work to figure out which of the 2 I would prefer.  In the end it was kind of like the difference between Canon & Nikon cameras. One has this, the other has that (i.e. CCD or CMOS sensors, and slightly different sizes too).

My conclusion about camera brands was that none of the differences in features would make a difference in the pictures that I would capture.  It turns out that is 98 but not 100% all the way true, there is a difference in noise.

Similar story for digital workflow apps.  The finished print or web gallery will be as good with one as with the other. Both tools are so very good that the skill of the user, not the specifications of the software, is the critical factor. But that doesn't mean there aren't any differences. Its just a case of point - counterpoint. One is better at X, but the other is still very good at X.  Another is better at Y, but the other is still very good at Y.

Apeture integrates with the great Apple multimedia products a bit bettter.  I think that Adobe integrates a bit better with CS-3.  Both do well enough.  Which is more important to you?  In the end I went with the one that I predicted would give me faster workflow.  And "faster" was not a sure bet, it was just my best judgement one fine day.  I won't ever all the way know for sure which one has a faster workflow, the differences are not that great.

So, to those who agonize over the decision, you may want to take the 30 day trials on both of them.  To those who want to convince the general public which choice is "best": you can't do it. To those who want to frame the conversation about which is the favorite of this or that segment of photographers (i.e. Pros) the discussion will never stay focused that narrow.  To those who have bought one or the other of the 2 producrts - Great!  Get the learning curve behind you, and make good use of a very good product, whichever one it is.  

Most of all, enjoy your photos and share that joy with everyone who cares.


IMHO

[jjj]

? What constitutes a pro?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149700\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Someone who main income is photography is the usual definition.

[jjj]

My conclusion about camera brands was that none of the differences in features would make a difference in the pictures that I would capture.  It turns out that is 98 but not 100% all the way true, there is a difference in noise.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149713\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

For me the opposite was true, I use wide aperture wideangles a lot and in low light, therefore Canon was the only choice.
However with the new FF Nikon and impressive high ISO performance, we have some competition at last for the 5D at least. Though still nothing to match the 1DsIII for sheer MP though sadly.

[GregW]

I think it's ridiculous that they didn't link to the survey on Infotrends or post more relevant info on the survey. What about the last 4.4%? Did the survey include applications like Capture One? What constitutes a pro?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149700\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

These types of reports can often cost upwards to USD 2-3K.  I suspect the survey was not linked because most working pro's or the general public for that matter do not have an InfoTrend account, and are unlikely to pay for one.

[Scott Martin]

These types of reports can often cost upwards to USD 2-3K.  I suspect the survey was not linked because most working pro's or the general public for that matter do not have an InfoTrend account, and are unlikely to pay for one.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150295\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Nonetheless, they could have posted more relevant info on the survey like the aforementioned questions.

[John Camp]

A story in the Wall Street Journal a few days ago said that Apple may be selling as much as 20% of non-corporate computers, with very strong growth since they went to Intel. Of course, corporate sales are huge, so overall, Mac sales are still a small fraction of overall sales, but the fraction is growing quickly. I saw another number recently that said about 10% of all computer sales are now Mac, but that story cited the Wall Street Journal story, and since the WSJ story didn't say that, I'm not sure about the number.

In any case, Aperture sells far fewer copies than Lightroom, and probably will continue to do so. Part of it is simply a bad attitude on the part of Apple, and the other part is that Lightroom is available for both PC and Mac, and Aperture isn't.

By bad attitude, I mean that Leica M8 users, for example, were told bluntly by Apple reps that Aperture would not support the M8 because it wasn't a significant camera. There went several thousand pros and semi-pros. Apple's tendency to drag its feet as regards camera updates really hurts.

The fact that Lightroom is dual platform means that a Lightroom user can move seamlessly between Mac/PC systems, without having to relearn. That can be important to professionals and art directors.

Lightroom's relationship with Adobe is, of course, critical.

In  terms of the actual app, I looked at both, and Aperture has some strong points. But Adobe updates on a quicker cycle because, I suspect, Lightroom is more important to Adobe than Aperture is to Apple. Therefore, I think, Lightroom will pick up and improve vis-a-vis Aperture more quickly than Aperture will adapt vis-a-vis Lightroom...if you see what I mean.

In any case, I went with Lightroom, not because I liked the actual app better, but because as a database, this is a pretty critical application -- changing horses in midstream would be a major problem. And I think Adobe is more dedicated to the software than Apple is.

JC

[jjj]

In any case, I went with Lightroom, not because I liked the actual app better, but because as a database, this is a pretty critical application -- changing horses in midstream would be a major problem. And I think Adobe is more dedicated to the software than Apple is.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150308\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Apple has happily dropped support for programmes in the past, without caring about cutomers still using those programmes, so relying on Apple for any long term support - which is essential for your image databases is like betting on a lame horse.

[sniper]

Apple has happily dropped support for programmes in the past, without caring about cutomers still using those programmes, so relying on Apple for any long term support - which is essential for your image databases is like betting on a lame horse.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150902\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Errr..   Adobe stops support as soon as a new version comes out.   No updates for CS2!     Wayne

[John Camp]

Errr..   Adobe stops support as soon as a new version comes out.   No updates for CS2!     Wayne
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150919\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I was pretty pissed when I found out that CS2 isn't and won't be supported for OSX Leopard. Maybe there's no way to do it, but I suspect they're just pushing the later version of CS3 and have no interest in updating CS2, despite the fact that people like me (and I think a lot of us) had to buy two copies so we could run it on three machines, if we wanted to avoid that switch-over routine every time we wanted to take the laptop out. And I bought CS2 only a couple of years ago.

Leopard has that quick back-up program that I really want, but I'm hesitating because of the Adobe update position.

Not to beat a dead horse, but many photographers take two laptops on location shoots, because you can't allow having a laptop go down to derail the whole expensive process. That's not my problem, because I'm not a pro doing location shoots, but I have an iMac at home (for the bigger screen) an older tower at the office, for the speed and the cinema display, and a laptop. I'm the only person using them, so I only use one at a time. But it's a common enough situation, I think, and the situation with the pros is almost universal; two laptops and a tower at the studio. Adobe should allow three installs of its overly expensive software, or if not, at least update the 18-month-old version when when new operating systems come out. I know why they don't -- money. But, if I go to Leopard, I may not update Photoshop at all. I already do most of my work in Lightroom anyway. Or maybe I'll skip Leopard on the home machine, and if I need to use Photoshop (CS2), I'll just transfer the image with a thumb drive.

I'm feeling pretty ripped-off right now. Though I'll still use Lightroom.

JC

[Schewe]

I'm feeling pretty ripped-off right now. Though I'll still use Lightroom.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150932\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, let's see...you have how many computers? 3? You bought them all right? I mean you didn't take one computer, put it into a matter duplication device and clone the computer right? You had the cash to buy the tangible property but now you complain that Adobe is ripping you off because you want to run their intellectual property on more that the allowed 2 pieces of personal property.

Does anybody else see the irony here? Is intellectual property somehow less valuable than intellectual property? Should Adobe change their end user license agreement because YOU have three not two computers? Should Apple then also give you a second computer because you've already bought one? Should Canon or Nikon give you a second camera for the same reason?

It never ceases to amaze me that photographers, whose lifeblood is intellectual property can have such little regard for the intellectual property of others...maybe you should switch to the GIMP.

Just saying...

[jjj]

Errr..   Adobe stops support as soon as a new version comes out.   No updates for CS2!     Wayne
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150919\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Not quite what I was talking about. PSDs still work in CS3, so your images are still supported. The Adobe equivalent of what I meant regarding Apple, would be dropping PS and support for PSDs.

[mistybreeze]

Does anybody else see the irony here? [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150945\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Maybe. But then why change policy on your 24th year in business? Was the product worth less the first 23 years?

Given Adobe's prices plus Apple's prices plus scanner maintenance fees plus your wimpy two-year LCD life plus the I.T. fees to make all this cargo work, let's not kid ourselves, the cost of doing digital business remains quite high. At least with film, NYC labs offered 50%-60% discounts for their loyal pro customers.

I have no desire to turn the clock back and open my doors to retouching middlemen but it sure would be nice if Adobe gave professionals a three-computer-use deal. Adobe could easily make this arrangement with any number of professional organizations, like APA. Small businesses need every ounce of help they can get.

Just sayin'...

[Schewe]

Given Adobe's prices plus Apple's prices plus scanner maintenance fees plus your wimpy two-year LCD life plus the I.T. fees to make all this cargo work, let's not kid ourselves, the cost of doing digital business remains quite high.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150977\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Horse-pucky...compare what we have now with what we had then (in 1990 $'s) the "price we pay" now is tiny compared to then for both hardware and software. If you can afford multiple computers you should expect to afford multiple licenses to software. It's a cost of doing business. And Adobe's EULA hasn't changed since the early 1990's, they've only taken steps to enforce it in recent years with activation. Jeeeeze, I wonder why?

[mistybreeze]

compare what we have now with what we had then

My point addresses professional consideration. I wasn't comparing apples to apples. It is obvious many "digital" prices have come down substantially since the 90's.

they've only taken steps to enforce it in recent years with activation. Jeeeeze, I wonder why?

I know why. I'm one of the few pros in my circle who actually owns the software licenses. NYC overhead is a killer and many young photographers need to cut every corner they can, just to survive here. I can't blame Adobe for addressing the "I want it free" marketplace. But, in spite of the pirates, Adobe has risen high. Now they clearly need to watch their future.

"If you can afford multiple computers" is simpleminded and greed-speak. Many professionals still rely on their 4-year-old G4s as they steadily transition to upgrades. Throw in a laptop or the spare (travel) G4, which has become necessary for location jobs, and, suddenly, you can't handle the workflow and maintain the archive without three computers. And god forbid you do your own web design. Your software costs just blew off the studio's roof. Cheers to those who can afford insurance.

[John.Murray]

hmmmm - the cost of digital high???

I bought CS then went the upgrade route throught CS2 then CS3, also purchasing LR . . .

Along with some plugins - lets call it ummm $1500

Computers - I have 5, but I write software for a living - I use 2 for photography, a laptop and a desktop - probably $3500 invested in the two of them.  I won't even mention that the computers give me great value beyond my photography, thats a given between us all . . .

So - shooting 4-5000 images a year, my cost works out to about 1 dollar per image - and that is of course lumping my *total* computer software and hardware costs to only one year as opposed  to the more normal 3 years . . .

Digital cost are LOW!  Get over it and PAY the people that have invested considearble intellectual time and capital to give YOU world class imaging tools.

my .02 (or maybe a 640x480)

[The View]

(deleted)

[barryfitzgerald]

With regards Adobe and their policy on no. of installs per product etc.., I don't have a major problem with that. But then I only use LR, and thats pretty much it.

As for activation, its not really as effective as many suggest. I am not here to condone the ripping off/theft of software, just to state..that as someone who does some pc building/repairs etc and selling to people (less nowadays), its a fact of life..sadly.

Adobe are high profile targets, esp photoshop. Activation is their way of limiting the damage as such, its not a solution to the problem. It just puts some less well informed at nicking software people off, that is it. Its been bypassed and beaten with some ease. I am aware of course this is a sticky subject, but I can only tell you the no. of non legal photoshops installs I see, is pretty massive really.

Microsoft are the other big target. Activation has helped somewhat on that, though it can be a pain for legitimate users also (hardware upgrades etc). MS office is the other one too..that is pretty much on 80% of the pc's I see, and it aint paid for.

You could argue these comanies have to do something to limit the damage. And they do. Fair enough. But don't kid yourself it solves the problem, it does not.

I do my bit as much as I can, I tell people they dont need photoshop CS etc (and most do not), I tell them about open office, and I use it myself..dont need MS office, OO works great for me. That is also the reason we have lower end software like elements, enough for most, or PSP.

There is no long term solution to software theft, it not going to go away. Maybe if there really was a real open source alternative to photoshop (not gimp, I think its inadequate to say the least), then it would help somewhat.