Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 3 Review

2

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

sling74

I was also debating whether to use LR3 or Aperture 3. I use Photoshop CS5 and wanted a better workflow organization tool. I do not have either program yet, but I would like to make a comment on a "storage" issue I see from Apple's iPhoto library.

First, I'm a converted PC user....I now use a MacBook Pro 15" (128 GB SSD drive, quad-core processor), and really like how MAcs are build and the OS is fun to use.

I did a TEST on the hard drive space used by an iPhoto library (MB) versus the amount used for the same set of photos stored directly in Finder (Apple's equivalent of Windows Explorer). The results are as follows:

Storage Method (iPhoto library): 4.0 GB
Storage Method (Finder): 1.0 GB

Therefore, for the same photo set, iPhoto used 4 times as much space on my EXTERNAL hard drive.
(note: I say external hard drive because with my laptops SSD drive, I don't have enough space for my entire photo and video collection, so I DECIDED early on to store everything via an EXTERNAL drive.)
______________________

This make me think that an Aperture library will likely use much more storage space (just like iPhoto). Conversely, Lightroom 3 (by ADOBE) is probably similar to Adobe's Bridge with it's virtual albums. This means that the software is not uploading the data (like Apple's software does). Rather, it simply creates smart links to the source data, in this case my external drive.

Therefore, I have NO EXPERIENCE on the image editing between LR and Aperture. I think Lukelucas is probably correct, LR 3 is better, BUT not as good in organizing (again, I do not know).

So, the OTHER KEY POINT to consider is storage space. If you don't mind the extra storage, maybe Aperture is the way to go (if organization is so much better). If editing and space are your prioritues, maybe LR 3 is best.

Let me know if there are any other key points....thanks.!

avatar

lukelucas

i say that because last year, we shot a massive event (36 debutantes) and one of the dads was a photographer. while we completely agreed on Canon, when we started talking Lightroom v. Aperture, he was totally trashing Aperture, calling it a toy in comparison to Lightroom. when i got home, i did a little digging and found out there are some really nasty words on the interwebs written in the course of the "battle."

we're straight up Aperture in our small photo business, and its for one reason: organization.

the way LR "organizes" is just an unmitigated mess. keeping track of folders and virtual this & that... just awful. we don't want to spend our time with folders spread out all over the place. but in Aperture, we simply create a new Library for each massive project (like a wedding), and everything is stored neatly in one package and can transport between any number of Macs when stored on an external hard drive. and when we completely wrap on a big project, we simply move its Library to a "Final Archive" external hard drive and store it.

are the editing tools in LR3 better? in some ways, yes. there's also a bigger, more active LR online community than there is for Aperture.

disclaimer: every single native file from the camera gets dumped, untouched, onto an archival hard drive that gets stored elsewhere because, yes, its entirely possible for Aperture libraries to get corrupted. however, we've yet to see that happen in APR3.

Log in to Mac|Life directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.