What Typewriter Do You Use – Part 26

Every once in a while, I take a look at how Aperture measures up to Adobe Lightroom. With the latest 3.1 update, Apple apparently has fixed the most glaring performance issues that so far kept me from using it. To my own surprise, after spending more than two weeks processing a wide variety of images, and after experimenting with the web gallery and book tools, I’ve come to really like the whole package.

Why even bother to question the quasi default choice Adobe? Perhaps I just need a change. Perhaps I find Adobe too much stuck in the 1990s with their clumsy, yet heavy-handed marketing, and their outrageous level of customer service. So here is some recent work, straight from Aperture. I tried to achieve results that I similarly like with Lightroom as well, but couldn’t; it also took me longer to get the files to a level that was in the ballpark, although I know Lightroom much better.

Apple should still work on some performance issues. And they should make life easier for those, like me, who see value in the old Finder paradigm. Finally, why the Aperture install has to be almost eight times the size of Lightroom, I do not know (I can guess though: lazy coding; Aperture may be better, but not eight times better!). Those things aside, I think the time is not at all wasted to download both trials, and play with them for a couple of weeks.