Subscribe to
Posts
Comments
NSLog(); Header Image

Aperture vs. Lightroom: Modules Suck

Lightroom is receiving a comment whoopin' at O'ReillyNet. The commenters dislike Lightroom's modules, praising Aperture for its "uni-module" design which naturally leads to a more cohesive user interface.

Aperture, for me - despite having a dual 3 GHz Mac Pro with 5 GB RAM and 200+ GB free space on the boot drive - is a dog unless I quit most of my other apps. Yesterday, simply selecting a picture to edit took a full minute. The hard disk thrashed away the entire time. Aperture loves its RAM, and when it can't get it, the page-in/page-out cycle grates on my nerves about as much as it grates on my hard disk.

That's a long way of saying what I've said a few times already: Lightroom's greatest feature is its speed. Its second greatest feature is the "target" thing that can adjust colors (hue, luminance, saturation, etc.) just by clicking and dragging. Outside of that, Aperture holds most of the cards.

BTW, if you're interested in learning how to use Aperture, I recommend Aperture Exposed.

2 Responses to "Aperture vs. Lightroom: Modules Suck"

  1. For me the speed of Lightroom just doesn't outweigh the fact that Aperture just feels right. The whole modes thing really gets on my nerves.

    Speed wise... working on a MBP, 2.16GHz Core Duo, 2GB ram, 100GB 7200rpm internal drive, ~20GB free. I can use it comfortably even with other apps running, though Photoshop as well means it's best not to have too many other apps open.

  2. [...] Aperture is insanely slow on old hardware, and new hardware too, apparently. Erik from nslog writes: Aperture, for me - despite having a dual 3 GHz Mac Pro with 5 GB RAM and 200+ GB free space on the [...]


Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

Please abide by the comment policy. Valid HTML includes: <blockquote><p>, <em>, <strong>, <ul>, <ol>, and <a href>. Please use the "Quote Me" functionality to quote comments.