7 replies to this topic

[loftus]

As is my habit to stir the pot by posting controversial Nikon vs Canon, Apple vs PC and Video vs still posts; I'd be interested to hear some critiques of this article demonstrating Aperture 3 to be significantly faster than Lightroom.
I do not use Lightroom, so I can't comment as to the methodology used. Are there any folks here who use both who think this test is flawed?
http://aperture.macc...ter-but-not-4x/

Edited by loftus, 02 December 2010 - 10:47 AM.

[Captain_Caveman]

I don't use Aperture, but LR is a dog when you have too many images in your catalogue.

Still love it though.

[bvanant]

As is my habit to stir the pot by posting controversial Nikon vs Canon, Apple vs PC and Video vs still posts; I'd be interested to hear some critiques of this article demonstrating Aperture 3 to be significantly faster than Lightroom.
I do not use Lightroom, so I can't comment as to the methodology used. Are there any folks here who use both who think this test is flawed?
http://aperture.macc...ter-but-not-4x/

Well it is a test only of import to catalog speed. While that is important, it isn't the whole story for most UW photographers. We usually aren't on deadline and importing files to see instantly if they are OK isn't really a part of my workflow at least but to a news or sport guy I could see how this could be important. Far more important to me is the speed of the program when actually editing/developing files. I haven't tried to objectively figure out if LR or Aperture is faster for that sort of thing since I think there are too many variables to be able to test without some sort of DOE approach.

Bill

[loftus]

Well it is a test only of import to catalog speed. While that is important, it isn't the whole story for most UW photographers. We usually aren't on deadline and importing files to see instantly if they are OK isn't really a part of my workflow at least but to a news or sport guy I could see how this could be important. Far more important to me is the speed of the program when actually editing/developing files. I haven't tried to objectively figure out if LR or Aperture is faster for that sort of thing since I think there are too many variables to be able to test without some sort of DOE approach.

Bill

If there's any interest it's probably worth following Mac Create. I think that the plan on MacCreate is to do a sequence of comparisons including editing / developing and exporting.

[BotSO]

Jeff stir the pot? That's new!

[johnspierce]

First of all, they are both slow if you have a ton of images and don't have sufficient hardware. Of course, my experience is with Apterture 2, so that may have changed a bit, but the reviews I have read on Aperture 3 don't mention much in the way of speed increases. I used Aperture for awhile, but got scared off after reading about several well noted photographers losing their entire catalog to corruption when they got too big. I went to a John Shaw seminar last month and he said he has close to 1gb of photos in his Lightroom catalog. Mine is only about 200gb.

Secondly, I've found Lightroom runs pretty much exactly the same on OSX and Windows 7.

Thirdly, Lightroom is heavily I/O bound. Having a faster CPU and/or faster GPU certainly helps, but if you want it to run really nicely with a bunch of images, this is the recipe:

- Have 8gb of RAM. Sometimes when I have Lightroom, a browser, Photomatix and a few other things open I am using over 6gb.
- Solid State Drive (SSD) for the program itself. Lightroom launches in about 5-8 seconds on a conventional harddrive on my quad-core system, less than 1 second with an SSD. A single 128gb drive is probably sufficient to keep all your programs on -- about $190-240. This makes a HUGE difference in how Lightroom runs - and anything on your system for that matter.
- Store all images local, not on a network drive. Backup to your network drive, fine, but don't try to edit from there.
- Buy a 10,000 RPM WD Velociraptor for processing your images. A 450gb one will run about $270. I have two. I would get a 500gb SSD if it was only $500, but we're still a year away from that...
- Back up to a large USB drive using automated backup software once per week (or manually if you just did a bunch of work). I like Cobian backup for Windows 7 and Chronosync on OSX.

Lightroom will run *very* well with the above configuration. Now.... if a person is getting ready to tell me they don't want to invest that type of money in their processing system, I will ask you what the heck they are doing with a $5000 U/W imaging system and a $500 computer? I'm sure that doesn't describe Loftus of course, I'm betting he has some serious hardware.

Edited by johnspierce, 07 December 2010 - 04:59 PM.

[loftus]

I think they are both great programs. I think it's good though that someone ran a comparison test like this to dispel the myth that Lightroom is faster than Aperture, at least with current generations of each programs. Aperture 3 is really a huge improvement over 2.

Edited by loftus, 07 December 2010 - 06:28 PM.

[johnspierce]

I think they are both great programs. I think it's good though that someone ran a comparison test like this to dispel the myth that Lightroom is faster than Aperture, at least with current generations of each programs. Aperture 3 is really a huge improvement over 2.

May be time to take a look at it again.