Lightroom vs. Aperture...is there any comparison?

linpelk · Mar 17, 2009

Ok, I've heard that most people use a program first (like Lightroom) to do some adjustments in RAW before importing their pics to Photoshop. Is THAT correct?? And if so, why?? Does Photoshop not have the basic adjustments like WB or exposure?? Do you NEED another program to make these adjustments?

I just recently bought CS4 (and a book to help learn). I'm making the switch over from Aperture. I've never used Lightroom before (and I currently don't own it) but I'm wondering if it is similar to Aperture. I would like to not have to purchase Lightroom right now if you don't think it is necessary. I am willing to invest in it if there is NO comparison to the two programs.

Also, could somebody please explain Camera Raw and if this is essentially the same thing?? And, if so, why are people using Lightroom too?

Thanks for your help!

TheSon · Mar 17, 2009

You do NOT need lightroom if you have CS4. It has all of the SAME editing tools as lightroom. They have updated the new Photoshop (CS4) to be able to process RAW photos the same as Lightroom does.

The only thing lightroom adds is cataloging and tagging of your photos.

Chris.Reed · Mar 17, 2009

camera raw is a file type its contains a .jpeg, and can only be read by a few programs its good if you want to do any sort of post production work on your shots as it allows you to push digital photos further before they lose resolution.

I like light room for organizing raw files and some basic adjustments. I don't do much photoshop work, as i prefer to get the look i want in camera, but when i need to light room and photoshop transition esaly.

as to if you need it, that depends on how you figure need, i know a few kids with D3s, pocket wizzards, an array of pricey lenses and only shoot for their highschool photo class, but hell they can afford it so why not.

inTempus · Mar 17, 2009

Photoshop can do everything that Lightroom or Aperture does. The issue is that many people find Lightroom or Aperture more user friendly (which it is IMHO) if you're only concerned with doing basic photography type edits.

I use Lightroom as it has something Photoshop lacks - workflow. It also suits my needs for photography editing as the tools I typically use are easier to find/use than in Photoshop.

Parkerman · Mar 17, 2009

Yea, Lightroom was made for photographers. You can do everything it does in Photoshop in one way or another.. just not as easy.

davebmck · Mar 17, 2009

The first two modules of Lightroom, Library and Develop, are similar to Adobe Bridge and Camera Raw in Photoshop. The library module of LR is a much more powerful and intuitive file manager than Bridge and while Camera Raw has all the tools of the Develop module the Develop and Library modules are much better integrated so it is very easy to work back and forth between them. After working in LR for a few months, I do not want to go back to the clutzy interface between Bridge and Camera Raw.

LR also includes a Slideshow, Web and Print module. These are tools professional photographer find very useful and efficent to use. I don't use Web and Slideshow very often, but I fine the Print module much easier to use that the print function in photoshop. Again, all these modules are well integrated and it is easy to work between them.

There are many more features of LR that make working with groups of images efficient. You really have to use the program for a while to appreciate what it can do for you.

I do 99% of my PP in LR now. I only go to photoshop to do major picture edits, which fortunately, I don't do often.

Aperture is a similar program to LR. They are both workflow programs. You will still need photoshop if you do significant image editing.

linpelk · Mar 18, 2009

Thank you all very much. That was incredibly helpful!

Double H · Mar 18, 2009

I also make sure to get as much as I can with my camera, and do minimal to no post-editing. I prefer Lightroom when initially going through a studio session, or wedding set. I like the way I can control batches. When finished in LR, I export everything as hi-res jpegs, and do any specific editing in PS. LR offers a few more neat tools in v. 2.x that makes less work, if any, in PS in most cases (good strong images to begin with).