RAW converter software (Lightroom 1.2 vs. Aperture 1.5)

[alejandrovelardephotograph]

Hi everyone,

 

I am an amateur photographer; I shoot with a Canon 30D and I will be buying a

40D soon. In the past year I've been using the Digital Professional software

that comes with the camera to do my adjustments in RAW and conversions into

JPG but I am not very happy with it, it seems a little slow and limited.

 

I run this software on a Macbook Pro G4 (4-5 years old) and I have a Cinema

Display monitor (which by the way, when I open pictures in Photoshop they look

great, when I use this "Canon" software the pictures look terrible (grainy and

the colors are kind of poor compared to those of photoshop).

 

Bottom line, I am trying to buy a RAW conversion software that can work

smoothly with the equipment I own. I've heard/read good things about both

softwares (Lightroom 1.2 and Aperture 1.5) but I would like to get the opinion

of somebody who has actually used them or tested one of the two.

 

Any suggestion/advice will be greatly appreciate it.

 

Thanks,

 

Alejandro

[ajweiss]

Aperture will not run very well (if at all) on your computer. The minimum system requirements are -- from Apple's website --"15- or 17-inch PowerBook G4 with a 1.25GHz or faster PowerPC G4 processor and 1GB of RAM." Even if your PowerBook (not a "Macbook Pro G4") meets those requirements and Aperture runs, it will be painful to use.

 

<p>Apple recommends at least a dual-core G5 with 2GB of RAM, but I don't believe that's really enough machine either. I consider Aperture to run just about acceptably on my quad-core Mac Pro with 3GB of RAM -- a computer that is <i><b>many</b></i> times faster than yours. Lightroom, on the other hand, ran just a little slow (but fine) on my 5-year-old 1Ghz PowerBook G4 with 1GB of RAM.

 

<p>Both are good pieces of software (I prefer Aperture myself), but I doubt either of them will be required to solve your problem. First of all , if the photos look "great" in Photoshop, why don't you just switch to that for your processing? Secondly, the Canon software can give great results if you know how to use it, so you might be able to fix your problem there with nothing but practice.

 

<p>If you want to get one of the two pieces of software you're asking about without upgrading your computer, your only choice is Lightroom.

[ronald_moravec1]

You don`t have a software problem. I think you need to figure why the same picure looks differently in the two software programs you have. Start by getting them both into the same color space.

 

Photoshop is accessed thru the preferences menue.

[david_amberson1]

You can download the new CS3 and or Lightroom as a trial for 30 days to see for your self. I have been playing with it for about a week now. Some things I find that I can make a photo better in Lightroom, otheres seem to be better in DPP. Maybe its me, not the program. I am one who like to try and get it right in the camera(exposure wise) but if something goes wrong as we are not perfect, then I find Lightroom or Camera RAW(Which opens in CS3) to be better at getting it back and not looking like it was blown in the first place. I find Lightroom and CS3 conversions to be slower than DPP, so for me, i think I will be using DPP until I need something extra, then I will open it in Light room. I find more tools in Lightroom than DPP as far as adjustments are concerned. You can do more with colors. I absolutly hate the way the picture looks when viewed in Adobe. It looks washed out and dull. I can open it in DPP and its awesome. Again, maybe something in settings. I found that changing DPP setting from sRGB to Adobe kinda reveals the same look as Adobe. sRGB may not be better than Adobe, but DPP sure displays a better looking photo in sRGB than Adobe.

 

I have to tell you, Photography itself is very fun and a great enjoyment for me. But when I find myself stepping into this deep deep discussion of colorspace and everything that goes with Adobe workspace, I get very discouraged and it isnt fun for me anymore. That is a whole other ball game by itself. I spent an entire afternoon today trying to see if I could make an already great picture better. i found i could make it different, but I dont think better. I would love to sit down with Bob Adkins(Hope thats spelled correctly) and some others who have a great understanding on this board and learn it some time, but its not something to get a great grip on in a forum board. They can certainly help, but it takes more. I want to take pictures of something interesting to look at. Then if its lacking the punch that I want visually, then maybe some tweeking in Adobe will be good, after all, its about being able to put our vision of a subject onto a print is what matters. Its not always about an exact replica of reality. A winter forest with bare trees, no snow, and no grass can be rather boring, but add some Lightroom Color and Sat. and other changes and it suddenly becomes very pleasing to look at.

 

My advice is, Lightroom should be a tool in the drawer. It does things different from DPP just like my Automotive tools do things different. I use the one that does the best job. Its not always the same tool, just which ever one I find easier to work with. Dont bog yourself down with all the Adobe stuff just yet. Go out and take pictures. There is so much to learn about photography without getting booged with this stuff. I find my pictures today to be head and shoulders better than a year ago, which suggests that I'm learning alot, and I think I have alot to go. These guys on this board are 30year veterans at it and I think they will tell you that they are still learning all the time. Sound like you are doing what I did and are looking for that next tool to give you the edge. I think technique is the best tool to get an edge. Thank God steroids won't help photographers or we'd be in trouble. Hope this wasnt a bore, just relief for you.

[alejandrovelardephotograph]

Oh my God! This was so simple to fix; had I known more about color space. Ronald you were so right, I realized DPP was using my laptop's monitor profile; I switched it and now they are both 100% identical; so thank you for the suggestion.

 

Adam and David, thank you both for your suggestions, I will most likely get Lightroom for its capabilities; the good thing is that I don't have to rush anymore and I can wait until Christmas because now that DPP looks better I think I can be a little more tolerant about the speed of the software.

[JDMvW]

Those Aperture requirements are for the older machines. The software, according to Apple will run on the current Macbook as well as the Macbook Pro.

http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/9204001/wa/PSLID?mco=7E4EB91E&nplm=MA715Z/A&wosid=9N3Uo9zjMnbY2GSrQzbFnRAmhlS

[jeffreyfortuna]

I believe Alejandro has a Powerbook G4 and not a MacBook or MacBook Pro. Either way Lightroom does manage to function with much less system requirements than Aperture. Myself I use Aperture on a Mac at home but also have Lightroom on the Mac at home and on my PC at work. Although I prefer Aperture (slightly) I think it will be swallowed up by Lightroom in the future. Lightroom works with less requirements, works on both Mac and PC and is likely to be bundled with more Adobe software in the future and therefor become less expensive to buy for most people. I do hope they both survive and provide each other with some competition to keep things moving forward.

Jeffrey

[alejandrovelardephotograph]

Jeffrey,

I think you may be right. I think it is a Powerbook G4 and I guess I will need to go with Lightroom.

Thanks to all of you again,

 

Alejandro