Lightroom vs. Aperture… again
Since Apple released Aperture 3 a few weeks ago lots of folks are debating the pros and cons of Lightroom vs. Aperture. It’s natural for folks to want to take sides, and pick one program over the other. It’s equally unlikley that most people will be able to effectively use both products, which supports the need to choose one.
I’ve casually used and kept up with Aperture updates since it was first released. After all, I’m a huge Mac fan. For twenty years I have passionately preferred all things Mac to anything Windows.
When Aperture 1 came out, it was a time of dramatic change in photography, when digital cameras were starting to become more popular than film. Clearly, new software was needed to support the new digital photo workflow. Though other software had been produced in attempts to deal with this (Adobe Camera Raw and Bridge, Capture One, iView Media Pro etc.) Aperture really represented a significant improvement in the photographer’s workflow. (And this was before Lightroom came out.)
I still love most Apple products and always stay current with what they are up to. In several ways, Apple is well poised to change computing as we know it – as they have done several times in the past. So I never count Apple out – even in the case of Lightroom vs. Aperture.
When it comes to the important and difficult choice, then, of what software to use to process our digital photographs, when clients, students and people in the general public ask me why I prefer Lightroom over Aperture, here’s what I say:
1. Platform independence: true, I believe OS X is a superior operating system to all flavors of Windows (even 7, which doesn’t suck). That said, I think it’s a big mistake to limit your work to using Macs only… and Aperture currently will only run on a Mac (and a new, fast one at that). I myself use both Mac and Windows every day in my work, and being able to use Lightroom on both platforms is a huge advantage. Maybe someday, the majority of people will be using Macs (we can only hope) but until that day, platform independence is essential.
2. Company focus: Adobe is the undisputed champion in digital imaging software. I trust their products completely and they have led the way for two decades. Though there will always be little things that we wish Adobe would add or improve, there is no doubt that the people working for Adobe are the best and brightest in the business. Conversely, Apple contunues to show it is really a hardware company. That happens to have some really kick-ass operating systems, oh, and the industry leading video editing program
3. Workflow: there are some really crazy, frustrating things about working with Aperture. One example is the Image Vault concept. This is very much like the approach taken by the horrible iPhoto, and serves no purpose other than to ensure it will be difficult to migrate away from Aperture in the future. I myself have helped a number of people through the extremely painful and nervewracking process of moving from Aperture to Lightroom. On the other hand, Lightroom’s handling of files is simple and unobtrusive. You could safely use Lightroom for all your photos for the next few years, then switch to something else, essentially without a hitch. Not so with Aperture.
These three points illustrate the main reasons why I believe Lightroom is still the way to go. The list could go on and on; other folks have already talked about Lightroom’s superior noise reduction, processing algorithms etc.
One way that I agree Aperture outshines Lightroom is the interface itself. Lightroom is designed to let you easily get the interface “out of the way” while you’re working; there are lots of cool tools to work directly on your photo, with only the photo showing on the screen. However, Aperture’s interface is clean, elegant and beautiful, providing the kind of experience where you might not want to get the interface out of the way.
Unfortunately, for me (and I believe the vast majority of photographers) the interface itself is not a good enough reason to choose one product over another.
I hope this article helps you understand why Lightroom is the better choice. I’d love to hear your thoughts, comments and questions on this topic.
Thanks for reading!



Hi Nat, We have just purchased a Mac …. I am currently using Lightroom on the PC – all my pics are located on a ex hard drive – is it just a matter of upgrading to the Mac version of Lightroom and all will work fine or is it trickier than that.
@Bron
Hi Bron – all will work perfectly as long as the format of the external drive is one that the Mac can recognize. Lightroom catalogs transfer seamlessly between platforms. Thanks for your comment!
Just want to clear up some inaccuracies in this article.
>>3. Workflow: there are some really crazy, frustrating things about working with Aperture. One example is the Image Vault concept. This is very much like the approach taken by the horrible iPhoto, and serves no purpose other than to ensure it will be difficult to migrate away from Aperture in the future. <>I myself have helped a number of people through the extremely painful and nervewracking process of moving from Aperture to Lightroom. On the other hand, Lightroom’s handling of files is simple and unobtrusive. You could safely use Lightroom for all your photos for the next few years, then switch to something else, essentially without a hitch. Not so with Aperture.<<
How exactly is that? You can't take the adjustments with you to another program, so really all you're doing is taking images that are saved in folders and re-importing them to some other application, losing all of your work.
Aperture can import files with Lightroom's XMP sidecar files.
David – thanks for your comments. Looking at my statements I can see how they could be easily misunderstood.
I was specifically referring to the handling of original files, not the transfer of adjustments.
What I meant was that, by default, Lightroom doesn’t change the location or folder structure of imported files like Aperture does when images are copied into the Aperture Library.
However, I neglected to mention one key point – if you import files into Aperture by Reference (instead of copying them into the Library) Aperture handles the files on disk the same way Lightroom does.
With regard to adjustments, as far as I know neither program will respect the other’s proprietary image adjustment metadata. XMP metadata attached to imported images will certaintly transfer both ways, but the image adjustment settings will be ignored.
And As you pointed out, this would require re-processing to replicate those adjustments in the other program.
(I haven’t looked around lately, but a developer could have a huge hit on their hands with a tool to translate Aperture adjustments to Lightroom and vice versa!)
Thanks again for your comments!
This discussion is very helpful. I’m going from a PC to an iMac and was looking all over for a clear explanation about filing issues before I commit to Aperture or Lightroom. Would I be able to preserve my folder system and file names. (The files are named using the following format: YYYYMMDD “Event Name” pic####.) The library on my PC has about 10k files.
1. Is it correct that even though Aperture appears to allow the user to set up folders and subfolders, the picture files are all stored in the vault using a different technique? And that you can’t easily preserve this organization when you decide to move in 5 years to a new platform. (Let’s assume that losing edits is not a big issue at the moment.)
2. Do you know if I import my files to Aperture in one big dump, would the file names be preserved. This is more important to me than the folder in which they reside.
In the end, I’ll likely choose Lightroom for the same reasons you have laid out above, but wanted to clarify my understanding nonetheless.
Thanks!
Pinakin – as far as I know, if you import photos into Aperture by reference (not copying them into the Aperture Library) all your folder structures and file names are preserved and not modified. In any way. It’s only if you import files by copying into the Library that Aperture will re-organize them. It’s been a while since I used Aperture, though, maybe an Aperture user can confirm this?
I recently bought the new 17″ macbook pro which of course comes with iphoto, and i ordered the current Aperture pre-installed on it. I also just got a Leica Dlux 5 which comes with one free download of Lightroom. Previously I had been using Adobe Elements 3 which came with the dlux2 on a Dell laptop. So my entire library of digital images is now in Elements and I need to decide which program to use and that’s how I ran across your site. I was thinking of using all 3 new programs, each for a different reason: iphoto for quick pics (visual design notes, i call them) that i take with my iphone. Lightroom for all family pics (jpeg) that i take with the leica and Aperture for all fine art pics, (raw) that I also take now with the leica or with a canon dslr that i’m planning to buy. The reasoning for me was that I wanted to use mac for ease of use as much as possible, but also wanted to be familiar with adobe products since I think down the road I will have a real desire and need for most of the creative suite programs. But from what I’m reading here, it looks like I should just stick with the Adobe product and not complicate myself with the 2 mac programs. Is this still the current thinking–is there any additional light that you can shed on my dilemma?
Also I wanted to add: will any of the mentioned programs allow you to put a line or two of text on the picture? I don’t want to buy full fledged Photoshop just to do that. Also will all three programs currently handle jpeg, gif, raw formats? Some of the online comparisons may be for different versions and seem to be contradictory. Thanks again.
Hi Teo – thanks for your comment. My thinking is that you should use as few applications as possible. Although I love Macs and Apple software in general, Adobe is the clear leader in photo/imaging software. Based on your description I wouldn’t bother with Aperture, and over time you’ll find that you don’t need Elements either. For most photographers, and most kinds of photographs, Lightroom provides everything you need to organize, process and share your pictures.
Yes, you can easily do this with Lightroom watermarks.