Photoshop vs Aperature

unpopular · Jul 21, 2012

gryphonslair99 said:
Koalabear said:

I agree that Aperature is only in its infancy. But have a look at these reviews. I was a bit surprised.

Review: Apple's Aperture 3 photo software looks simple but is powerful

Apple Aperture for Mac - CNET Download.com

Click to expand...

From your link.
But that hasn't happened here. Aperture 3 ($199.99, $99 for upgrades) is fine, serious software that should put a dent into rival Adobe's very popular Lightroom

The digital download version is actually only $79.99. It seems that they have fixed many of the bugs, a few still remain. When Aperture 3.0 came out, it was bad. Like REALLY bad, and I put off my purchase. But people seem happy with 3.30.

ACDSee has come out with a mac version of Pro. I'm going to download the demo now. ACDSee has been around forever.

Mac v2

http://www.acdsee.com/en/products/acdsee-pro-2-mac

PC v5.5

http://www.acdsee.com/en/products/acdsee-pro-5

TheKenTurner · Jul 21, 2012

Koalabear said:
Interesting. The guy at the Apple store misinformed me!

Someone at an Apple store was wrong about something?!?!?! :shock:

But seriously, go with PC. You'll get more performance for the same price as a Mac. And Mac users use Photoshop a lot because it does way more than Aperture will ever do. I haven't personally used Aperture so I don't know how it compares to Lightroom though....

unpopular · Jul 21, 2012

TheKenTurner said:
You'll get more performance for the same price as a Mac

Provided that you never, ever go online.

---

Actually, this is only really the case if you build your own PC. Otherwise you end up spending about the same. A little less, probably, but there is just no way that a $250 e-machine from wal-mart will compare to a $2500 Mac Pro.

Macs are also *way* easier to recover from a crash, and have built-in, system integrated backup. IDK if windows 7 has anything like Time Machine or not.

TheKenTurner · Jul 21, 2012

but a $2500 PC will run A LOT faster than a $2500 Mac Pro...

unpopular · Jul 21, 2012

That is kind of a blanket statement which cannot be made. I am sure that in some applications it is true, while in others the opposite is true.

Besides, even if there is an "Apple tax" the operating system and inexpensive upgrades ought to surely be taken into account.

SamSpade1941 · Jul 22, 2012

TheKenTurner said:
but a $2500 PC will run A LOT faster than a $2500 Mac Pro...

uh sure it will .... have I got a surprise for you if thats what you think...

Jaemie · Jul 22, 2012

[MEME]Captain Picard Facepalm[/MEME]

marcoborghesi · Jul 22, 2012

I think first of all yuo have to starting thinking that anything is good. Photoshop are good, LR to, Aperture to.
a Pc is good and a Mac to. In my opinion y have to think about how much you can invest. Obviously as an art director and photographer I can say Mac is better but believe me ... In this year you can achieve the same result with a Pc.
about the software.
You have to think that photoshop and aperture are totally different. Photoshop is the standard image manipulation software and aperture like LR is a catalogue and raw converter. In my opinion you can even just choose Photoshop with bridge that is suite with photoshop where bridge work like a browser and catalogue. But you can use Aperture or LR with photoshop as external editor for more complex work on photos. So as you see in my opinion the best solution is which suite better for you.

fjrabon · Jul 22, 2012

While others are correct in noting they are different types of programs, they do have quite a bit of overlaps (as do photoshop and lightroom as well).

I think Aperture is easier to use overall for the vast majority of edits one would make. While layer masks are extraordinarily powerful, photoshop tends to sort of force you to use them in ways that aren't immediately intuitive, and aren't especially efficient. Hence, photoshop can have a tremendously steep learning curve. Things that should be relatively simple, and are in Aperture, require somewhat tedious (at least for someone who doesn't have all the methods built into their subconscious) manipulation of layer masks in photoshop. However, photoshop does many things that Aperture and lightroom can't do. And, as others have said, it's the industry standard.

So, my advice: If you're serious about photography you will need photoshop and one of Lightroom or Aperture. In theory lightroom and photoshop are more tightly integrated. However, I like Aperture more than lightroom and I find that Aperture and photoshop play well enough together that I just went with the program I preferred.

If you just want to make 'normal' edits (like fix the white balance, sharpen, adjust colors, lightly smooth skin, apply curves, etc) then you don't need or really even want photoshop.

Designer · Jul 22, 2012

Koalabear said:
Now the question is, do I go PC or Mac.

As a side note; a Mac can run windows software with "parallels". I have not heard of that working in reverse.

Some people have purchased parallels and MS Office (in windows) to run on the Mac, and the cost differential between the PC app and the Mac app easily pays for parallels.

I went from Mac way back when (decades ago) to windows, and just recently bought a new Mac and Aperture 3.

(edit) Oh, and another thing; if you are talking about the full version of Photoshop, it costs a lot more than either Aperture or Lightroom, so let's compare apples to apples in the cost category. If you can afford PS full, then why not get it? Personally, I considered the cost and complexity of PS, and decided to go with Aperture.

Ysarex · Jul 22, 2012

Koalabear said:
Interesting. The guy at the Apple store misinformed me!

No! Wow! And he was a genius?!!

davisphotos · Jul 22, 2012

And descending in to a 20 page Mac vs. PC pissing contest in 3, 2, 1

As others have said, Aperture and Photoshop are two completely different programs, and each has capabilities the other does not. Aperture is a photo organizing and basic editing tool. I used it from V1 up to 3.3, when I switched to LightRoom. LR and Aperture are what I use probably 90% of the time, I find their toning tools to be very powerful, and the retouching tools adequate. For any heavy retouching, composities, panoramas, Brenzier method or more advanced work, Photoshop is still king of the roost.