LR vs. Aperture for MF?

[ringthane]

Hi all,

I'm close to pulling the trigger on either a S2 or a Phase One... or maybe a M9. Long story, but my options are open currently and I'm still sussing out what my goals are and what tool/s I want to accomplish them.

So, my concern -- as a Mac user, I early on adopted Aperture. I've tried Lightroom numerous times and simply can't stand the workflow. It has its own pros and cons compared to Aperture, but I simply can't handle LR's modular approach.

With that said, it seems like most of the Leica's come with LR. Do the M9 and S2 play nice with aperture in terms of color profiles?

Also, re: Phase One and Capture One -- does it integrate well with Aperture? How well does Apple stay on top of camera profiles since most MF etc seem to be either a dng or some proprietary flavor?

There seem to be a lot of Mac folk here -- anybody use Aperture? Or will I eventually be forced to join the dark side, give in and start using LR for PP and image management?

Thanks!

 

[Anders_HK]

I suggest for you to take a real close look at Capture One Pro. :thumbs:

For myself Capture One beats any other that I have used. LR was never for me, I used Camera Raw for some years, until Capture One revolutionized for me. It is photographic, simple and gives advanced results. It simply matches my brain. They keep updating and adding USEFUL new features to each version.

Capture One also works very superbly for Leaf backs, thanks to Leaf now being a Phase One company. I use Afi-II 12 and recent upgraded from Aptus 65.

I can recomment to take a look at Leaf as well. :thumbs:

Regards
Anders

 

[ringthane]

Thanks Anders. Does Capture One also serve as an 'digital asset manager' or does it simply serve as a raw convertor/editor? Looks like I need to read up on the Phase One site...

 

[Graham Mitchell]

I recently tried C1 for the first time in years. Don't like the layout at all. LR is by far my favourite raw processor, so I suppose it comes down to individual preferences.

 

[fotografz]

I admit to not using Aperture for a long time and probably should reinvestigate it since some say it is the best at M9 files right out of the camera ... plus I could test it with my S2 DNG files which are quite similar to the M9 files. I have C1 Pro on my machine but have never taken to it no matter how many times I try.

Like Graham, LR is by far my favorite processor ... the array of localized tools, asset management, and ability to use 3rd party software without leaving LR has revolutionized my workflow. LR even has one click lens corrections for my S2 lenses.

I'm not sure I understand the OPs "modular" LR comment ... I use the Library Module to cull initial imports, segregate groups of shots by camera or even lens, and for export ... otherwise I never leave the Develop Module until done. The adjustments in Library are just too basic for me.

Individual preferences for sure.

-Marc

 

[Godfrey]

I use both Lightroom and Aperture, but for different purposes.

Lightroom is the basis of my photographic workflow. Import, annotate, sort, grade, organize into projects, do adjustments, round trip to Photoshop when needed, export to various forms when done, and print. It does a great job of that for me. Far as I'm concerned, I like Lightroom's handling of native DNG files the best, and its image processing options suit my work perfectly. Lightroom also handles all of the myriad raw format files I have easily. I like its easily configurable defaults and ability to manage alternative and special purpose camera calibration profiles too. For me, it provides the most complete image processing workflow solution.

Haven't gotten on well with Aperture's image adjustment tools, but Aperture handles the post-image-processing work well by providing good tools for creating slide shows and books, and integrating photos with other Apple apps (iMovie, Keynote, Pages, iDVD, etc.) for presentation and distribution. I use Aperture's face recognition tools to further sort and find photos of friends and family.

 

[David K]

I think it's pretty well established that C1 is the software of choice for Phase files. While many folks rave about the software I find it doesn't suit me. So I'd suggest giving that software a look to see if it works for you. Capture Integration does a bunch of seminars on C1 which might be something for you to consider. With regard to the S2 or M9, I use LR for both (switched from Aperture for some issues which are specific to me) and find it (combined with CS5) does a fine job. The software is a critical part of the workflow so I'd recommend spending some time with that first. It may (probably should) play a part in your choice of what system to ultimately buy.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Sorry I am biased here but nothing but C1 pro for me on any cam that supports it.

 

[Shelby Lewis]

I've never gotten on perfectly well with C1... but have been giving it a shot in demo mode. I'll admit that it is probably my ineptitude, though... I still struggle with the color for skintones in C1. Almost everything you've seen from me has been processed in LR3, but I'll admit that LC11 has some special sauce with my aptus, so I will use it to output full-res tiffs for work inside of PS from time to time.

As a (ex) wedding shooter, LR is just so efficient, and since version 3 the image quality has really closed the gap on C1. The noise reduction, alone, is worth the cost.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Well people forget you can rearrange C1 in many ways to fit a flow you like. There are all kinds of options on this both in the tabs, workspace, display looks and all sorts of options. I know new folks don't really take the time to get to all this and get frustrated. But lots of ways to work

 

[Godfrey]

Well people forget you can rearrange C1 in many ways to fit a flow you like. There are all kinds of options on this both in the tabs, workspace, display looks and all sorts of options. I know new folks don't really take the time to get to all this and get frustrated. But lots of ways to work

I spent three weeks working with C1 exclusively to learn it. Didn't really like the UI very much, didn't find any difference with my work from what I could achieve with other tools. Perhaps it has better calibrations for some cameras, but it just didn't pan out to be my preference.

Whatever tools do the job for you is all that matters...

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Yes for some it just will not work out. And it does take time to get your workflow going no question. But nothing is better for my Phase files. Everything else is long gone on my machine.

In all honesty what makes it great for other cams is the ICC profiles they make for each cam. These folks know there stuff. You also have to remember they been doing this longer than most as well.

But end of day it is what works best for you that counts. But I bought Phase backs because of C1 which i used long before i went MF.

Also i freely admit my bias here with C1

 

[ringthane]

Just some things with LR vs. Aperture:

* Aperture has geotagging and a pretty nifty map feature for printing books (cool for travel/landscape. Overall, Aperture does a much better job with meta data and place tagging.

* LR wasn't nearly as flexible as Aperture in terms of being a digital asset manager (multiple libraries, etc etc). Maybe flexible isn't the right word... LR was certainly capable, but it wasn't as effortless as Aperture.

* A big killer for me was that LR could not do individual channel editing, which just seems so ridiculously basic to me. A trick I often do is an inverted s-curve on the blue channel for a retro-ish film look. This is such a basic thing I've got to wonder if Adobe updated LR to address this (I haven't launched LR in almost a year).

And I apologize, I meant LR's modal workflow, not modular. By modal I mean there are certain things that could only be done in certain sections, or in certain ways (ie, like keywording only in the Library module). It seemed there were always these little things I would want to do, and LR would throw up a stop sign and force me to click over to somewhere else or require extra clicks. It drove me freaking batty and seemed restrictive, but I suppose if certain people are inclined to that it wouldn't pose a problem or even be preferred.

With that said, LR's lens correction was great and was better at noise reduction... Aperture is simply beyond useless in those two areas.

I don't mean to turn this into an LR vs Aperture thread, as many people like/use LR... I was more curious if people used Aperture at all and what their thoughts were.

I *have* read (as someone else mentioned earlier) that Aperture produces great results with the M9, but this was from Ken Rockwell, so grain of salt and all of that.

What I would be really interested in -- let's say I go for an IQ140 -- have folks used C1 as their import/raw converter, then use Aperture as a DAM (digital asset manager). Aperture is a pretty kick @ss DAM.

From the screenshots, C1 looks like it would be pretty agreeable to my workstyle. It looks similar to DxO and not unlike Aperture, which is good for me!

 

[Guy Mancuso]

You can download a free trail of C1

http://www.phaseone.com/en/Downloads/CaptureOne.aspx

 

[Godfrey]

Just some things with LR vs. Aperture:

* Aperture has geotagging and a pretty nifty map feature for printing books (cool for travel/landscape. Overall, Aperture does a much better job with meta data and place tagging.

* LR wasn't nearly as flexible as Aperture in terms of being a digital asset manager (multiple libraries, etc etc). Maybe flexible isn't the right word... LR was certainly capable, but it wasn't as effortless as Aperture.

* A big killer for me was that LR could not do individual channel editing, which just seems so ridiculously basic to me. A trick I often do is an inverted s-curve on the blue channel for a retro-ish film look. This is such a basic thing I've got to wonder if Adobe updated LR to address this (I haven't launched LR in almost a year).

I don't mean to turn this into an LR vs Aperture thread, as many people like/use LR... I was more curious if people used Aperture at all and what their thoughts were. ...

Nor do I. As I said, I use both.

I find both Aperture and Lightroom to have deficiencies in metadata handling that are annoying sometimes. That's why I keep the latest copy of EXIFtool handy. Never got into geotagging and don't think I ever will ... I'm only occasionally a travel photographer, and not much of a landscapist by inclination. Jumping back and forth between modules and views in LR seems more seamless to me than the many confusing popup controls and modalities in Aperture when I'm editing IPTC and image adjustments. Aperture's project organization took me a long time to figure out, it's much more complex than Lightroom.

Regards multiple libraries, Aperture and Lightroom differ in that Aperture can do both fully managed (stored in its own library structure) and "by reference" image management. Lightroom can do only "by reference". What this means is tricky: multiple libraries (catalogs in LR parlance) can exist in both Aperture and Lightroom. Lightroom catalogs can always look at the same original files and can share processing parameters if desired (processing parameters established in one catalog can be written to disk as metadata and read by the other catalog). Aperture can similarly share original image files by reference but is not so friendly about sharing rendering settings, nor can Aperture easily share the contents of one library to another and keep them up to date if you're working in both.

Lightroom can edit color channels using an eight channel spectrum in the HSV panel, but doesn't implement a curves type editing tool. Same effect in the end, though. Adobe relies more for the tight integration between Lightroom and Photoshop/Camera Raw for this functionality, it seems.

Different strokes. As I said, I use both for what I find to be their strengths. I think overall Apple's focus and strength with both iPhoto and Aperture is on image management post-image processing rather than image processing, and Adobe's strength is definitely on the image processing workflow. That's why my workflow runs through Lightroom and into Aperture with my completed projects.

At least there are great choices to be had...

 

[baudolino]

I use LR3 with the M9 files as well as with DNGs generated by Captureshop from my Sinar eMotion MFDB files. I have tried C1 many times and, while it has some advantages for me (better moire control, useful keystone correction tool) I do not like the layout and workflow. The DNGs from both of my cameras edit really well in LR3 (I have no experience with Leaf files).

 

[gogopix]

I am sure, as in most professions, tools are personal. That said, even with limits on asset management (actually BRIDGE I find best for keywords) C1 just produces the best files,...for me. I have M9 and P65+ as the main raw, but also DMR and S2 occassionally. I just can't STAND the IMPORT needed in LR
I think it would be difficult to trade IQ for easier workflow; it jsut isn't a question; why leave quality on the table. ACR just isn't as good, and I believe for selected cameras that has been demonstrated here.
That said, the newer C1 does a better job with metadata, allows direct access to folders as well as favorites and sessions.

Did I mention that I just can't STAND the IMPORT needed in LR:ROTFL:

Victor

 

[Graham Mitchell]

I am playing around with an ISO 800 file from a Leaf Aptus II 12 back right now, and I must say that C1 is doing a much better job of cleaning up the noise than LR. So to the original poster I would add that you should probably do some thorough image quality testing with different kinds of files from whatever camera you end up getting before settling on a workflow.

 

[gogopix]

Well said, Graham.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

I am playing around with an ISO 800 file from a Leaf Aptus II 12 back right now, and I must say that C1 is doing a much better job of cleaning up the noise than LR. So to the original poster I would add that you should probably do some thorough image quality testing with different kinds of files from whatever camera you end up getting before settling on a workflow.

Sounds like a nice back for you Graham.

I do have to agree with you the Phase or leaf backs just sing in C1.