(Updated 6/21) Some time last year, I can’t say exactly when, I crossed a threshold with Apple’s iPhoto software. The program had already slipped from the “greatest thing since sliced bread” category down a few notches to just “really useful” as my growing photo collection had slowed basic operations and made the program’s tagging deficiencies all the more pronounced. But after I got a Canon Rebel XT digital-SLR camera last July that had the capability to take pictures in the RAW format, iPhoto started to totally breakdown. The huge image files slowed things down even further and the program’s once cutting-edge image manipulation tools seemed cartoonish, little better in fact that the tools in Apple’s fun and wacky Photobooth software. Clearly I had progressed beyond a low brow, low complexity camera and it was time to find some photo software to match.
This has to be a hugely growing market. There are millions of families like ours with beautiful kids, bulging digital photo vaults and enough money to buy more upscale camera gear. So it’s probably no surprise that both Apple and Adobe have come out with somewhat similar products aimed at this hot niche. Frustratingly, however, I found few detailed reviews pitting Apple’s Aperture program against Adobe’s new Lightroom software.
That makes the task of choosing extremely difficult because the programs are similar in many respects and have played a little tit for tat over the past year copying some of each other’s best features. Both will keep huge libraries of RAW image files well organized. And both let you edit non-destructively. In other words, contrary to cheaper software like iPhoto, nothing you do to alter the way a picture appears on screen alters the pixels in the actual image file your camera produced. Instead, changes are listed in a database and applied to image previews or exported image files. Both programs have plenty of sophisticated yet easy to use image alteration tools to, for example, let you brighten only the background or foreground of an image. Both also work with most camera companies’ RAW image formats, but not all. Check here for Aperture or here for Lightroom to make sure that your camera is listed before making a purchase.
Most reviews that purport to compare the two are too superficial for my taste. MacWorld’s Aperture and Lightroom write-ups from February are typically lackluster, in my view. I’m going to be relying on whichever program I choose for many years to come and trusting it to make my kids and family look great, so i want to make a more informed decision (it’s also why I don’t care much that Aperture costs $299 and Lightroom is, at least for now, available for $199).
My hopes were raised the other day when two professional photographers posted extensive comparisons. The one who was mainly a Lightroom user tries Aperture here and the other, an Aperture user, tries Lightroom here. But their needs and prior experience are so different from mine that it’s almost like the reviews are written in Chinese. I really don’t care about getting hundreds of image proofs to the client or setting up fancy web sites to show off the best of my work. I’m trying to get reasonably good shots, store them safely, sort through the collection easily and occasionally upload images for prints or limited web viewing.
For some people, Apple has made the choice quite straightforward. If you’re running anything other than a recent Intel-based Mac or G5, Adobe Lightroom is the only choice. Aperture also needs a good video card and is a bit of a performance hog compared to Lightroom. I have an Intel-based Mac but I also have Windows computers and a three-year old G4 laptop, so running Aperture I’d be rather limited.
On the other hand, there is no comparison between the two in terms of Aperture’s integration with other Mac software. Lightroom, I read, has a plug-in architecture so hopefully some plug-ins will help narrow this gap eventually. But for right now, if you rely on iWeb or iDVD for slide shows or like to use Front Row to look at your collection, Aperture may be the only good choice. I’m sure Lightroom integrates much better with other Adobe products like Photoshop but I don’t use those kinds of programs much at all. UPDATE: Lightroom developer Barry Young has posted on a way to ease the task of uploading to your favorite online photo service. Hmm, and maybe for email, too?
So say you’re like me — you have a good camera, a pretty good recent Mac (I have a 24″ iMac Core 2 Duo) and you take a lot of pictures (my library is approaching 10,000 files). You can do what I did and download the free 30-day trial editions and see for yourself. If you don’t have the time or inclination for a 30-day death match, I strongly recommend Lightroom.
First, the two programs take a very different approach to basic organization. Lightroom has five distinct modules, each selected from a big tab at the top right of the screen (you can also switch with keyboard commands). You import and organize photos in library mode and you alter images in develop mode. Printing, making slideshows and uploading to the Web also have their modules. Other than a few, limited image manipulation tools in the library module basically you can’t perform the tasks of one mode while you’re in another. No tagging and sorting in the development mode, no slideshows in the print section, etc. It’s logical and simple and kept me out of trouble.
In Aperture, you can do anything, anywhere at any time. I found this a bit frightening. I’d be trying to reorganize some pictures, hit a wrong key combo and suddenly be changing the white balance setting. When you do want to switch modes in Lightroom, it’s easy and you can come back right where you left off. I was setting up some prints and wanted to tweak an image. I clicked on the develop tab, fixed the picture and clicked back to setting up my printing run right where I left off. This preference of mine may not hold true for everybody. It may depend how your brain works, and some pros who spend literally hours a day in the program prefer Aperture’s freewheeling ways. For the rest of us, structure is good.
Second, Lightroom’s performance is far, far better than Aperture’s on my great but not insane iMac 2.13 GHz Core 2 Duo with 2 gigabytes of memory. Aperture took longer to start up and shut down, longer to sort, longer to show previews and so on. Amazingly, Aperture doesn’t appear to have the ability to do anything as a background task. Start importing 100 photos into Lightroom and you can get to work in seconds when the first picture appears. With Aperture, go get a cup o’ coffee because nothing is happening until all the pictures are imported.
Third, I found many of the most useful features more accessible in Lightroom. It’s easy to assign keywords to photos on import, for example, or afterwards with a variety of tools. Filtering my entire library to just see pictures with certain characteristics is also as easy as clicking on a few icons on a menu bar. Aperture had much more limited importing settings and relies on a overly-complicated dialogue box or smart folders for filtering. Smart folders may be more flexible in the long run but are maddeningly complex for everyday use. I often had to set up a whole new folder just to find a few pictures for one print run. Lightroom also has simple tools for fixing blemishes and scratches on photos, as well as redeye in flash pictures, that were easier to use and adjust than Aperture’s.
You’ll notice that I don’t have a conclusion about which program did a better job presenting RAW images or creating final images. Both seemed excellent to my eyes. The bedrock function of taking a RAW image and putting it on screen comes from lower level functions either in Apple’s Mac OS X operating system or Adobe’s camera RAW framework. There are those out there who swear by one over the other. I think it’s a holy war most of the rest of us can safely skip.
I do miss one-click integration with other Apple programs, especially email. Using Lightroom’s template-like export settings, you can pretty quickly format and export a bunch of files for emailing. Then you have to fire up your email program, create a new message, attach the pictures and so on. It’s a pain versus the Aperture/iPhoto model, for sure. Some reviewers have noted that Aperture is also better if you’re running a set-up with two monitors. That’s not my set-up so it’s irrelevant to me.
I’m slowly but surely importing, tagging and fixing thousands of images from the past six years as I move them from iPhoto to Lightroom. I’ll report back in the future. I’m already looking for a good “tips & tricks” style book so please suggest any good ones in the comments. I was pretty disappointed with Tim Grey’s book, as I mentioned the other day.
UPDATE: MacWorld finally had a decent and comprehensive comparison review by Rick LePage, although my conclusion went the other way.
Leave a Reply