Mac users - image management: Lightroom or something else?

[vandit]

Having switched to a Mac, about my only regret is that I no longer have access to Imatch. The idea of

rebooting my computer just to access one program is a non-starter, so I am looking at alternatives.

 

I generally sort, tag and edit my images after a shoot. Then I move them to an external drive for storage.

The image management program needs to be able to handle this transfer to an external drive and also

show me some info re. the offline images (it should show me a thumbnail as well as location name of the

file).

 

Lightroom would be helpful, as I can also start editing images on it. However, I keep hearing mixed

stories about Lightroom and large image libraries. I generally store about 2000-5000 shots a year, so I do

want an image program that is capable of managing a large number of files.

 

So, any suggestions?

 

Vandit

[kuryan_thomas]

Iview Media Pro (now known as Microsoft Expression Media) is a possibility. Personally I

switched from iview to Lightroom, but many people are very happy with iview.

 

http://www.iview-multimedia.com/

[adam rosser]

Give Aperture a go. I am very happy with it. Apple offers a free trial (30 days, no other

restrictions) and its tagging and sorting are second to none. Good offline system, too.

[patrickn]

Lightroom and Aperture both have preview versions you can download and try. Give them a go, I use Lightroom because my PowerBook is not up to running Aperture.

 

And I wouldn't call 2000-5000 shots a year heavy usage. Both of these programs will handle that amount without a problem.

[patricklavoie]

i really like Ligthroom, but i think for now is not as strong for offline storage than other mature software. I dont think 2000-5000 image a year will be a problem, i have that amount of image everymonth, what i do is creating different library everymonth, so i dont end up with a 60000 image library that will take forever to load.

 

My friend use Portfolio for years, he should have more than 60 000 by now (3 photographer in there studio) all image on a Xserve with optic fiber things...pretty fast and reliable, keywords, 600x480 preview even or CD and offline stuff that are backup to tape...seem pretty strong to me.

[ellis_vener_photography]

I've got Aperture and Lightroom, also what was iView Media Pro. There are aspects of both Lightroom and Aperture I like and dislike, but on the whole prefer Lightroom.

 

2000-5000 per year is easy work for Lightroom.

[lwg]

You could also get Parallels and run Windows in it to use your old program.

 

I personally use iViewMedia because it handles larger scans than Aperture or Lightroom.

[peterlyons]

Another vote for Aperture. I'm managing a library of 46,000 images, and it's working out

fine. You break the library down into projects, and it becomes manageable.

[saltcod]

Lightroom has changed the way I shoot. I keep my 'keepers' on my computer - around 2000, and keep all the rest (about 20,000) on an external HD. Works very cleverly.

[mark_sirota1]

There are lots of Lightroom users with well over 50,000 images in their libraries. There were problems with this for 1.0 on Windows, but not on the Mac. Also, 1.1 has also improved performance for large libraries, and also made it easier to split it up into several smaller catalogs.

 

I use Lightroom and keep almost all of my images offline, on external FW800 hard drives. I keep the catalog files and previews on the internal disk so they're always available.

[vandit]

I should have clarified - I generally start with 10k-15k images a year, which I whittle down

to 2-5k for archiving/storage over time. So initially, the database will get a lot higher

usage. Long-term archiving, however, will be 2-5k, as I mentioned.

 

One other point - I cannot really break up my images into separate projects. I do a lot of

wildlife and travel, and if I am looking for a photo of a certain animal/bird or a certain

location, I need to search my entire database of images.

 

Within that context, it is heartening to know that Lightroom can handle 50k+ images. I

didnt know that the storage problems were for Windows only - thanks for letting me know

that, Mark.

 

A question about Parallels - do I need to boot up Windows separately like Bootcamp, or

does it run within the OS X environment? IOW, if I install Parallels, will I be able to run

IMatch just like a native OS-X application.

 

Vandit

[adamlozo]

You'll find both Lightroom and Aperture to be slow on an 'older' machine. To work properly, you should have a dual core CPU with a fast processor and video card. Ram... it really depends on where you keep your images. If you have a large external drive it will have a much slower response than a quick 72GB drive, regardless of how much ram you stuff into your machine.

 

I test drove both applications and purchased Lightroom. While both still have a way to go, Lightroom is a modular database that soon will open it's hood to other software vendors like DXO Optics. In the long run this platform is superior to Aperture.

[vincedistefano]

I used both in tandem for about a month, and found myself liking Lightroom much more. It is in fact more forgiving of an older/slower machine than is Aperture. I could not effectively run Aperture on my MacBook, and it was adequate at best on a Mac Pro tower. Lightroom runs as fast on my Macbook as Aperture did on my tower, and on my tower - Lightroom performance is great! Print and Web modules are very nice, and there are plenty of ways to organize and tag images and create collections. Aperture integrates nicely with other "iLife" apps - BUT Lightroom seems to integrate better with Adobe apps such as Photoshop. For me, Lightroom, PS CS3, and Noise Ninja make up an awesome set of digital darkroom tools.