Yesterday, most of my Internet contacts were buzzing about the announcement of Lightroom 3.0 (beta). E-mail, blog pages, Facebook and Twitter all repeated pretty much the same message. I looked at it a bit less enthusiastically than most, perhaps since I use Apple’s Aperture to manage my photo library instead of Lightroom.
There are a lot of things to like about Lightroom. It offers local adjustments, so you can selectively change a portion of your image using the Adjustment Brush instead of apply changes to the whole thing. Aperture doesn’t have a competing feature, though you could use a plug-in called Viveza (also announced for upgrade yesterday). They don’t work the same way and Aperture’s plug-in approach doesn’t offer quite the same integrated experience, but you can produce similar results using plug-ins like Viveza.
Despite the Adjustment Brush and other features in Lightroom that Aperture lacks, I’m still not compelled to switch. I haven’t seen a feature in Lightroom yet that I can’t replicate using my existing toolset (which includes Aperture, Photoshop CS4, NIK Complete Collection and OnOne Software’s Photo Suite). The thing that keeps me in Aperture and out of Lightroom are features where Apple’s product is much stronger than Adobe’s.
One of the most compelling aspects of Aperture is that you aren’t locked into a specific workflow, as in Lightroom. I can choose the order in which I edit my images, apply keywords, compose galleries, or take any other actions. In contrast, Lightroom has a strict modular approach that determines your workflow order. You start with the Library module and then you switch to Development, Slideshow and Print. The workflow seems logical, but it appears even Adobe isn’t satisfied with it.
For example, Lightroom 3.0 beta now has a Collections Panel in the Deveop Module, instead of just the Library Module. Why? Because sometimes you need to get to your stuff and the Lightroom got in your way. This is Adobe’s kluge to get around a poor user interface.
In contrast, Aperture lets you access the features you need anywhere you need them. Let’s say that you’re laying out a gallery or photobook. You place the images next to each other and your creative muse decides that one of those images would look better in Monochrome. You don’t have to exit your layout to make that change in Aperture. You always have access to your Project, Metadata and Adjustments panels in any place where you see your image. Lightroom doesn’t offer that kind of flexibility. It forces you to hop back and forth between modules to make changes. Is that a big deal? Maybe, maybe not. It’s a distraction from your own creativity, which may end up being a larger issue for some than others.
One of the other differences between Aperture and Lightroom is the simply matter of presenting Keywords for tagging your images with Metadata. Aperture has a hierarchical approach to listing Keywords that I find invaluable. I have six top level keywords and lower branches get more detailed. I find this approach not only makes it easy to remind me which keywords I need to add by going through the categories. Lightroom’s handling of Keywords is like a pile of socks. They’re all there in no particular order. The only thing that may remind you of something to add is a feature that suggests keywords because you’ve used them on other photos. Needless to say, I prefer Aperture’s approach. Considering the importance of tagging your photos to access them later, this is a killer issue.
Lightroom’s user interface is reminiscent of Aperture’s early days. It has panels on the left and right, with your image situated in the center. That doesn’t leave as much screen real estate to view your image while working on it. Both products have a full screen mode, though I prefer Aperture’s implementation and ability to continue editing in full screen mode vs. the Lightroom offering. Aperture also offers floating HUD displays for the various panels to work on your image in full screen mode.
One thing where Adobe beats Apple is community management. Apple is famous for its silence regarding upcoming product releases, which causes many of its users to wonder whether they will see a new version or competitive improvements to a product like Aperture. Adobe regularly communicates with its user base through trade shows, affiliations like Photoshop Cafe or Kelby Media, and offers free public beta versions of its software. People know where they stand with Adobe, but not Apple. Based upon conversations on Apple’s own support forum for Aperture, the lack of communication is causing them to lose market share.
In some cases, this may be due to a misconception that both products are essentially the same thing. They aren’t.
At its core, Aperture is a database. It has some image editing tools built-in; some very good ones. Lightroom, on the other hand, seems to bolt Camera RAW and Bridge together with a few other tidbits. You’re still responsible for managing your files in folders which are then cataloged by Lightroom, but not managed as with Aperture’s database (you can still use the folder method in Aperture).
To my eye, Aperture’s RAW processing engine renders better results than Adobe’s Camera RAW/Lightroom engine. If I understand some of the new material I’ve read, Adobe re-wrote Lightroom with this new beta version. I’m unclear if that means it has a new RAW processing engine or not, but it would be a welcome improvement.
Aperture and Lightroom are both great products, each with features that the other product lacks and a lot of overlap in between. I don’t expect to change anyone’s mind if they’re a fanboy of one product or the other, but I just hope you understand the strengths and weaknesses of each one before you jump into it. Once you develop a large library, it’s a pain to migrate to a competing product.
