But that's not to say you don't have other photo workflow options in OS X: ACDSee Pro 3 is available, and there's even the completely free, open-source darktable (Opens in a new window) That's less of an issue if you're using an old-school Power Mac, but iMacs, Mac minis, an MacBooks are not internally upgradable.Īnd Windows users also have more photo workflow software applications to choose among: in addition to Lightroom, worthy options include ACDSee Pro 6, Corel AfterShot Pro, CyberLink PhotoDirector ($199.99 at Amazon) (Opens in a new window), and Serif PhotoPlus.
And there are reasons photographers might prefer to run Windows, with more upgrade options for storage and other system components. If you're running a Mac, you have the choice that the title of this article posits: If you run a Windows System, it's a moot point, since Aperture is not available for that operating system. But here, I'll stick to presenting the major differences and strengths of each, to help you make the choice. Lightroom at, with regular features on different specific aspects of photo processing in the two applications. There's a whole site dedicated just to the topic of Aperture vs. They also both do a good job of mapping your geo-tagged photos and of directly uploading them to online services such as Flickr, SmugMug, and Facebook. Other similarities include both programs' ability to correct specific areas of a photo with local adjustment brushes, work with tone curves and histograms, perform cropping, lay out and send photo books out for printing, to create quality slideshows. There's an excellent explanation of the advantages you get by shooting to raw format on Cambridge in Color (Opens in a new window). Their ability to work with camera raw files lets you get all of the image data from your camera's sensor, for a lot more powerful corrections to white balance, exposure, and more. It's worth noting that there are several things each app does equally or nearly equally wellraw conversion is one. Lightroom did include the editing tools needed to get photos looking their bestlighting, color, sharpness, and the like. Lightroom ($199.99 at Amazon) (Opens in a new window) left out the design-type toolstypography, layering, masking and all that sort of thing.
Two years later Adobe came out with Lightroom, which combined just those workflow characteristics with the photo-specific adjustment tools from Photoshop itself, to serve the needs of professional photographers.
But Aperture lacked, and still largely lacks, the emphasis on workflow, which takes you through discrete steps of the photo processing. It offered Photoshop-like image adjustments along with tools for photo organization, as well as for creating slideshows, printing, and sharing to online services such as Flickr. In 2005 Aperture ($199.99 at Amazon) (Opens in a new window) made its debut to address just these needs, as a more pro-level version of iPhoto.
But while Photoshop is great for working on individual photos, it's weaker when it comes to importing, organizing, rating, and outputting the photos. The choice used to be simple: You used Photoshop.
Pro photographers have long known that having top-notch hardware is just half the story: You need software that can take the photographic "negatives" from those great digital cameras and turn them into really pleasing images. But even the cameras on-board those smart phones have improved impressively, themselves, with new entries like the "41-megapixel" Nokia Lumia 1020 ($199.99 at Amazon) (Opens in a new window).Īll this points to the fact that people care about their photographs, and want them to be the best they can be. You only have to look around any tourist zone in the world, and you'll see a surprising number of shooters using cameras capable of far superior images to those possible with point-and-shoots and smart phone cameras. Judging from the increasing sales of DSLRs, more and more people are getting into digital photography in a serious way.