Re: Lr & Aperture: I find them both equally versatile with both raw and JPEG, but of course there's simply less editability with JPEG files. Both excel at image management, something that pixel editors like PS and PSE are not designed to do at all.
On Tuesday, April 19, 2011, steve harley <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2011-04-19 15:25 , Thomas Bohn wrote: > > So basicly iPhoto means for me, to stuck at a certain level and > Aperture would mean a lot of feature which I might need or want in the > future. > > > > in a nutshell, compared to iPhoto, Aperture (or Lightroom) is more > appropriate if you shoot RAW, if you want control over where your images are > stored, if you want more control over image adjustments and tagging, and/or > if you often work on multiple versions of an image > > it's also a much more complex tool than iPhoto; you can ignore many of the > features to start, but you'll have a bit of learning to do to get comfortable > with it > > i've been using Aperture for almost three years, and from what i can see it's > a little bit behind Lightroom, but i get enough from it that the hassle of > switching wouldn't be worth it; Aperture is also relatively cheap via the Mac > App Store > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > -- Godfrey godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
