Aperture or Photo Shop for RAW stills?

[Paul Cronin]

It would be nice to receive some input from shooters using both Aperture and Photoshop for their RAW still files?

[Olof Ekbergh]

I like Aperture but I have been using it for years.

Don't forget Lightroom from adobe as well:
photo management software | Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 3

I think you can download demos of both programs. They are very similar, it is really a question of what you get used to.

The thing about both these programs are that they really are aimed at the Photographer. They are very good at archiving and sorting. Also at least Aperture is way faster than Photoshop as you are working on proxies just the screen size and then nothing you do is destructive, it is very easy to save many different versions of a photo w/o actually having duplicates, it just stores your settings. It is really easy to view many photos at once and organize them on a virtual light table, creating stacks etc. It is like working with a bunch of transparencies on a light table.

You will still want to use PSD as well for comps etc. But these programs are great for photographers in my mind anyway. They are made for grading, retouching and archiving and also very good for doing presentations.

[Ben Ruffell]

Aperture is very fast and easy for me. Lets me make the basic adjustments very quickly. It's also great at exporting various versions for clients.

Ben Ruffell

[Paul Cronin]

Thanks Olof,

Aperture looks nice and so does Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 3. I already own Adobe Creative Suite 3 Production Premium. So I think I will work with that for now, unless there is a very good reason to switch to Aperture. I will check if Photoshop Lightroom 3 can be added easily to PS?

Edit:
Looks like PS Lightroom 3 is a different program all together. Is this worth it or should I spend the time to work with RAW Canon 5D MKII stills in PS?

[Bill Binder]

Lightroom rocks, and it also plays nice with Photoshop.

[Olof Ekbergh]

Hi Paul,

Like I said above, they really are different programs than PSD.

If you don't do a lot of volume of stills, they may not be worth it. But keeping stuff organized is important.

I also prefer the CC/grading in Aperture, but this is really a personal thing because I am used to it I think.

Aperture works great with PSD as well. It rountrips pretty seamlessly.

[Paul Cronin]

Thanks Bill, Olof,

There is a special now that has Lightroom 3 and PS 5 upgrade. Aperture is the same price as Lightroom.

Bill, my buddies who shoot stills for a living both use Lightroom and PS and swear by it. But as Olof says it is what you are use too using. They are both new to me so which ever I choose, I will be spending a bit of time on Lynda.com.

Olof I will be doing a lot of stills. Sorry I just missed your call. The sky just lit up at sunset so we went out to shoot a few stills to work with tomorrow.

Wow the new version II EF L 2.8 16-35 is amazing lens on the 5D.

[Paul Cronin]

With a few hours of research this morning I am leaning toward Aperture 3. It looks well thought out and easy to learn. Also the ability to make a timeline with my stills for time-lapse seems straight forward, plus loads of other features. I just like Mac based software it seems easier to use. I know Lightroom 3 works on a Mac but I find Adobe software not that easy to use.

Any other thoughts?

[Robert Turchick]

It's all what you get used to.
I use Aperture 3 and PS-cs5 as they have different strengths. For processing Raw, Aperture is really easy to use. I tend to pull out PS when there's detail work to do though.
My buddy uses LR and raves about it too. He also uses PS when serious editing is needed.

For organizing and batch processing large amounts of photos, I don't think you can go wrong with either Aperture or LR. Either way you will want PS though.

As for the Adobe learning curve, i think it's inherent in all their software. I was scared to dig into AE but finally did it and realized that once you get past a few UI things, you realize how powerful the software is and why the complex interfaces are needed. Found the same in AI, and several other parts of the suite I own.

Aperture was a breeze to learn. Can't speak for LR.

[Paul Cronin]

Thanks Robert the input is appreciated.

I do own PhotoShop 3 and will upgrade to 5.

Makes sense what you are use to is the way to go. I am leaning to Aperture 3.

[Morton Molyneux]

Hi Paul,

I have both Aperture 3 and Lightroom, but prefer Aperture 3 and now use it exclusively.

To get started the Lynda.com "Aperture 3 Essential Training" by Derrick Story is excellent. Aperture 3 Tutorials | Essential Training


cheers

Morton

[Paul Cronin]

Thanks Morton,

Appreciate one more vote for Aperture 3, and from some one who uses both.

I went through a few of the videos by Derrick Story this morning and liked what I was seeing. It has paid of for the last few years buying a yearly subscription to Lynda.com, a fantastic tool.

[Paul Cronin]

Just about to order Aperture and I have read a few reviews that say it is unstable. Most of those are Feb - Sept 2010.
Has the software been updated since then?
Is it now stable?
Can it go on the same machine as my FCS and not cause harm to my editing?

[Morton Molyneux]

The latest version is 3.1 posted Oct. 20.

I haven't had any problems with it and have been using it every other day and I use it on the same machine as FCS .
Aperture 3.1

cheers

Morton

[Paul Cronin]

Thanks Morton,

I thought there was an update that solved this problem, just wanted to make sure.