MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

I'm a die-hard Mac fan. And I have been using Aperture for some time and have become really disappointed with its performance. Aperture 2 has been really slow in handling my RAW images (processing) from my Nikon D700. It is really frustrating when I have a lot to do. I downloaded Aperture 3 today hoping that there was a significant improvement. Not so on my 2009 15" MacBook Pro with 4 gigs of RAM. I'd gladly pay the money if it was functioning a bit better. Is anyone else experiencing the same issues?

@David F.

It might be because when you first load your library, your machine gets crushed searching for faces, places, and updating previews for the new rendering. Would probably take a day or two to finish on a good size library.

@ Joe. You may have a point. It seems to have picked up a bit. Overall, it adds some functionality that used to need plugins to achieve.

Feb 09, 10 - 10:39 pm Comment from: ChrissyOne

Would an Aperture user like to volunteer to tell me what they like most about it? I use Lightroom and love it, but I'm open minded and will use whatever works best for me. Is there some killer feature that you believe puts Lightroom to shame? Is it just a UI thing? I need information.

Feb 09, 10 - 10:40 pm Comment from: ChrissyOne

BTW - I've used Aperture but not since version 1.

Feb 09, 10 - 11:14 pm Comment from: ChrissyOne

<crickets?>

Feb 10, 10 - 05:13 am Comment from: SKY LARK

@ C1 "Howzat?" cricket?

@David F. Check out this link at Adobe (even though it is from Jun 15, 2009)

http://forums.adobe.com/message/2041614#2041614

Hi, ChrissyOne!

For what it's worth, I tried both Lightroom and Aperture and found them to be very close, but I am not as fussy or particular as some. Some will prefer one or the other. For myself, I bought Aperture because I thought the books feature was better than what Adobe offered. I am eager to try Aperture 3.

Feb 10, 10 - 10:01 am Comment from: ChrissyOne

Good to know. I have used iPhoto books. There isn't a good one-step solution for Lightroom and it is something I miss.

Feb 10, 10 - 12:15 pm Comment from: RicMac

Personally I think that if your Nikon camera is less than a year old, and it's top end, the software on board is much better at converting from RAW than anything Apple or Adobe can produce. Get your settings right, take the picture and let the camera do it's job.

(how's that for reopening the RAW verses JPG war!)

ChrissyOne:

I've tried both LightRoom and Aperture. I chose Aperture, and am now using version 3.

The advantages of Aperture over Lightroom are:

*Better management, searching, tagging
*Faces, Places, Library merging, management
*Fantastic books, light table
*Smoother, less modal workflow

Things like workflow sounds like it's not that important, but it really makes a difference in how you use the app. Aperture feels more natural, more obvious, more focused than Lightroom. Things like these are hard to quantify. If I were you I'd download the trial from apple.com/aperture and try it out.

@RicMac,
The camera does a pretty good job of making a .jpg, but for those of us who would like to retouch the image once it's out of the camera, having the image already compressed to .jpg is a major detriment. Also, recovering highlight detail is impossible once the camera has converted to .jpg, so that format is really not of any use to me.
It's analogous to shooting all day with a film camera, going to the lab, and receiving only prints, with your negatives being destroyed. Not catastrophic for day to day use, but disappointing when you want to make that enlargement for the mantle.

@chrissyone - I've found Aperture's workflow of managing files, tagging images, and interacting with my whole computer workflow much more enjoyable than Lightroom. But Lightroom has had better image manipulation in the past. It looks like that has changed with Aperture 3, so I'm a very happy professional who can stick with Aperture.

I agree with t-bone. Up until about 2 years ago, I resisted shooting in RAW and shot in JPG only. Then I made the switch. The ability to adjust white balance, RGB, etc makes a major difference in your final product. I shoot with a Nikon D700 and shoot only RAW now.

The other day, I attempted to make adjustments to some jpg shots I took at the Monterey Bay Aquarium a couple years ago. I could not do the kinds of adjustments I do with RAW images.

I chose Aperture initially because I'm a Mac user and trust Apple programs. But I became a bit disillusioned with it over time. Too few editing capabilities and it was a bit slow. I'm trying Aperture 3 now and there are some nice additions. I'll determine over the 30-day trial period if I want to buy it.

Feb 10, 10 - 04:25 pm Comment from: RicMac

And the difference for me is that I'm just a casual shooter - but then I didn't expect those in the know to be swayed by me.

Feb 12, 10 - 04:21 pm Comment from: ChrissyOne

Good points, but most of them don't really apply to me - I don't care about faces at all. Places are cool, but I don't yet have a GPS enabled camera.
Lightroom 3 is coming, and I know some of the cool things that are in store, but I plan on trying them both for a while. Editing functions and speed are king for me, so we'll see how they stack up.