# Aperture vs Photoshop



## MacroButterfly

Has anyone used both? Which would you prefer and why?


----------



## Inst!nct

Considering ive never heard of aperture (im thinking your talking about software ), photoshop would be key considering how popular it is.


----------



## justashot

aperture is a software for mac.
i like aperture. That is what i use to edit my photos. 
If your looking for hardcore photo editing photoshop is the way to go.


----------



## Dwig

MacroButterfly said:


> Has anyone used both? Which would you prefer and why?



Being from the "dark side" (read: a Windows user) I've not tried or seriously investigated Aperture, which is Mac specific. I think, though, that you will find trying to compare it to Photoshop to be problematic; the apps are quite different in their capabilities. Aperture is much more in the class of Adobe's Lightroom.


----------



## DScience

Dwig said it. I use aperture, lightroom, and photoshop. Lightroom and aperture are almost the same; their both file management programs, with editing capabilities. LR does however offer a far better means of editing, but apertures file handling is superior.


----------



## CW Jones

its hard to say... I have used both and have Aperture right now. They are not he same type of program. Aperture really only adjusts the image, where PS can alter them, add different backgrounds, skin tones, etc. 

as it has already been said, Apreture is "minor" type stuff but can still do lots of fun things. While PS is a really hardcore editing and manipulation program.


----------



## usayit

MacroButterfly said:


> Has anyone used both? Which would you prefer and why?




Both shouldn't be compared as their overall purpose is different.  Often they are used together to compliment each other.

If you need advanced editing capabilities, you will want to go with photoshop.  If you need a focus on workflow to process and managed digital photos quickly, you will want to go with Aperture.

If you do decide that workflow is your focus, then your next question (and an appropriate comparison) would be Aperture versus Lightroom.  (my preference is LR)


----------



## Guido44

Lightroom2 and PS


----------



## elemental

Guido44 said:


> Lightroom2 and PS



This is a nice combo because they integrate well. You can easily make a copy of a photo in Lightroom to edit in Photoshop and save it right in your Lightroom library (you can also use other heavy-duty image editors- I use GIMP). I chose Lightroom over Aperture on my Mac because I found Lightroom more intuitive and it has fantastic black and white conversion (much better than Aperture).


----------



## inTempus

Two totally different applications for two different purposes.  One doesn't replace the other, they complement each other.  Aperture is similar to Lightroom.  If you have PS, get Lightroom to go with it.


----------



## John Thawley

Aperture is a digital asset management tool with an excellent user interface. It is also excellent for basic image adjustments. It is NOT Photoshop... but then, it doesn't really need to be. Most people using Photoshop barely scrape the surface of it's capabilities when they do their day-to-day photo adjustments.

LightRoom came along sometime after Apple developed Aperture. For the most part, LightRoom is playing catchup with Aperture, though they do have a perceived edge with local image adjustments. I suspect the next version with Aperture will once again remove any doubt which of the two is the pro application.

Regardless, if you are a serious photographer (pro or hobbyist) you should be using Lightroom or Aperture first... think of these programs as an "operating system" for photographers. Once you thoroughly understand the programs and how to truly manage your workflow, you'll see how each can handle 99% of all your needs. 

I shoot about 50,000, - 75,000 images per year... I rarely use Photoshop anymore, Aperture has made my life much simpler and much more organized. From importing images into the system, managing IPTC data, Keywords, sorting, ranking, image adjustements and ultimately exporting to whatever output I need, it's all done within Aperture. 

JT


----------



## linpelk

I was an Aperture and Photoshop user until about about two weeks ago.  I just got a 5D mk 11 and took a few pictures of my kids in RAW format and realized that my 4GB card filled up in about 20 minutes..which won't work for a real photoshoot.  SO, I decided to shoot in sRAW1 format for my photoshoot that afternoon which takes 10 megapixel images as opposed to the 21 mp image that the straight RAW format was using.  When I got home from my shoot, I tried to import my pictures into Aperture and realized that it DOES NOT recognize this format.  Fortunately, I have Photoshop CS4 so I was able to import the pictures into Camera Raw.  I was so mad though that Aperture markets itself to be a professional level RAW image processor and yet still hasn't caught up with current technology.  What a waste for me to have Aperture at all anymore!  I wish I had Lightroom now!


----------



## JamesMason

2 different progs for 2 diff purposes. I use aperture (switching to lr tho) every day for importing pics, minor raw adjustments ect. and PS about once a month if i have a mega retouch job on


----------



## asila

photoshop since i dont have mac :lmao:


----------



## pauliec

I wanted to bump this thread to ask about how Aperture compares to iPhoto. I iPhoto essentially a stripped-down version of Aperture -- that is, mainly workflow, organization, and basic editing?

I use iPhoto exclusively but would like to graduate to something that would give me a little more control of organizing my photos as well as editing them. Would Aperture be the answer? Does it provide much more in terms of editing? I'm not a pro and frankly I feel like Photoshop would intimidate me a little bit.


----------



## Live_free

Aperture is better, MUCH MUCH better, for editing photos. While photoshop is better for creating things. I have both.


----------



## Live_free

pauliec said:


> I wanted to bump this thread to ask about how Aperture compares to iPhoto. I iPhoto essentially a stripped-down version of Aperture -- that is, mainly workflow, organization, and basic editing?
> 
> I use iPhoto exclusively but would like to graduate to something that would give me a little more control of organizing my photos as well as editing them. Would Aperture be the answer? Does it provide much more in terms of editing? I'm not a pro and frankly I feel like Photoshop would intimidate me a little bit.



Let's say that Iphoto was a 1982 honda accord, comparatively aperture 2 would be a 2010 lamborghini murcielago.


----------

