
Mr. F
Apr 5, 03:59 PM

Corndog5595
Nov 14, 08:49 PM

bj3949
Apr 15, 04:21 PM

mizzoucat
Sep 12, 08:15 AM

iJohnHenry
Apr 18, 08:23 AM

Clive At Five
Oct 2, 04:14 PM

amin
Oct 10, 09:07 PM

sjo
Oct 28, 04:38 PM

Calidude
Apr 17, 08:10 AM

DoFoT9
May 14, 12:21 AM

html
Apr 15, 10:57 PM

bassfingers
May 4, 07:08 PM

hatersgonnahate
Apr 13, 02:55 PM

eawmp1
May 4, 02:58 PM

Europe calling
Jan 16, 01:40 AM

Mad Mac Maniac
Apr 21, 01:48 PM

AnalyzeThis
Dec 16, 05:10 PM

reallynotnick
Apr 25, 04:30 PM

dethmaShine
Apr 29, 04:03 PM
Rodimus Prime
Aug 7, 11:57 PM
JAT
May 2, 09:07 PM
dethmaShine
Apr 16, 10:35 AM
macFanDave
Oct 10, 09:41 PM
Abstract
Sep 25, 10:29 PM
While I like Aperture's ability to "catalogue" better than Lightroom, I wouldn't choose Aperture over Lightroom right now just because it's better at importing from my camera and "cataloguing" --- not unless I take 500-1000 photos at a time. Lightroom can sort, although I don't like the UI as much. I like Lightroom right now because while not as fantastic as Aperture at sorting, etc, it's much much better at pp. I have literally SAVED a fantastic RAW photo of my girlfriend in tricky lighting with just the editing tools in Lightroom, and I surely could not do that with Aperture.
Lightroom is also faster.
So Aperture has fantastic sorting and cataloguing for those who take >300 photos, but rather poor at post-production (not much editing, and quite slow at what it CAN do).
Lightroom is also faster.
So Aperture has fantastic sorting and cataloguing for those who take >300 photos, but rather poor at post-production (not much editing, and quite slow at what it CAN do).