| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
aperture or photo mechanic
Bennett Cohen, Photographer
 |
westwood | nj | usa | Posted: 7:41 PM on 11.23.07 |
->> hey there
first of all happy holidays to all
here is a question. for true editing what is better photo mechanic or aperture.
is the aperture price that much of a difference if i color correct in photoshop anyway
pm is very usefull. but is aperture better for metadata?
help me...
bc |
|
Robert Seale, Photographer
|
Houston | TX | USA | Posted: 8:07 PM on 11.23.07 |
| ->> Try Lightroom. |
|
Bennett Cohen, Photographer
|
westwood | nj | usa | Posted: 8:45 PM on 11.23.07 |
->> is lightroom stand alone or in a package
i use a old cs of photoshop |
|
Sean Harding, Photographer, Assistant
|
Woodinville | WA | USA | Posted: 8:56 PM on 11.23.07 |
->> Lightroom is standalone. You can download a 30 day demo on Adobe's website (and you can download a demo of Aperture from Apple).
FWIW, I asked a somewhat similar (though far more detailed) question a couple of days ago:
http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=27260 |
|
Eric Francis, Photographer
|
Omaha | NE | United States | Posted: 9:34 PM on 11.23.07 |
->> Lightroom is Adobe's version of the Aperture workflow.
I have demo'd both and prefer Aperture because of how well it flows with the OSX
eric |
|
Bennett Cohen, Photographer
|
westwood | nj | usa | Posted: 9:47 PM on 11.23.07 |
| ->> is aperture as intuative as pm since i wont be color correcting is it worth the $$$ |
|
Mike Brice, Photographer
|
Toledo | OH | USA | Posted: 11:40 PM on 11.23.07 |
->> If you are just editing and captioning, then PM is the best program.
If you are using the program for editing, you'll need Aperture, because PM doesn't edit the image for color, etc...
It sounds like PM is what you need.
I think all three have free trials - Aperture, Lightroom and Photo Mechanic.
Download them, try them for 30 days and then decide which one best fits your workflow. |
|
Bill Vaughn, Photographer
|
Huntsville | Al | United States | Posted: 9:44 AM on 11.27.07 |
->> For those who are using Aperture, do you find the fact that Aperture determines where your photos are stored and requires them to be imported to the "library" to be annoying for managing your files? Maybe I just haven't given enough effort or research into the workflow options, but the only thing I didn't like about Aperture is that it wants to tell me where my photos are rather than giving me an option of telling it where to find them.
It just didn't seem as intuitive for me to have to go to Aperture's library to get a photo rather than a folder I designated. Then having to be sure I got all the corrections since they are in a sidecar file. Not to mention the confusion of all my archived images being in a separate location unless I went to the effort to import them all. If I could open the app and point it to my folder similar to Bridge, there are quite a few things I like the way Aperture works over using Bridge or PS (i.e. adjusting the white balance of a JPEG for example).
I'm not slamming the app, especially since I have $300 invested in it, I just haven't convinced myself to change over to it permanently yet. Have I overlooked something that might make me fall in love with this app? |
|
Andrew Klapatiuk, Photographer
|
Toronto Niagara Region | ON | Canada | Posted: 9:56 AM on 11.27.07 |
->> Aperture allows you to either import into the "Library" (managed import) or leave the files in various folders spread across mulitple drives if you are so inclined (referenced images). You are presented with this option on import but can also consolidate you images after the fact. Meaning you can move the files to a new location too. I have images on DVD, External hard drives and on my Mac Book Pro's hard drive and find no issue with Aperture finding files. If something gets moved you can point Aperture to the offending file and relink too.
Performance has improved with 10.5.1 and Aperture 1.5.6. My take on things anyways. Obviously I like Aperture. |
|
Bennett Cohen, Photographer
|
westwood | nj | usa | Posted: 10:13 AM on 11.27.07 |
->> in the trial of aperture it seems a bit sluggish on my macbook is this normal?
but i like the interface of both but photo mechanic is more what i need so far |
|
Mike Brice, Photographer
|
Toledo | OH | USA | Posted: 11:45 AM on 11.27.07 |
| ->> Aperture is a bit slow if you don't have lots of RAM and a good graphics card. |
|
Andrew Klapatiuk, Photographer
|
Toronto Niagara Region | ON | Canada | Posted: 1:03 PM on 11.27.07 |
| ->> Agreed. Maxxing out the RAM in your MacBook will help but I think the graphics card may slow you down a bit. Aperture is doing live adjustments on every RAW image so there isn't a cache file like some programs (if I am understanding things correctly) generating medium to high res previews will speed things up sometimes. Again it all depends on how you use it. I generate preview after I have done my initial culling. |
|
N. Scott Trimble, Photographer
|
Lake Oswego | OR | USA | Posted: 5:24 PM on 11.27.07 |
| ->> lightroom. It is easier on the computer, and better set up for your future as a working photographer! |
|
Bill Vaughn, Photographer
|
Huntsville | Al | United States | Posted: 10:19 AM on 11.28.07 |
| ->> Thanks Andrew, I sure missed that as an option. WIll have to look again... |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|