# Aperture vs Iphoto



## VADER1775 (Aug 25, 2008)

anyone have an opinion?


----------



## joethedestroyer (Aug 25, 2008)

well, if you're not going to be doing any easy post-processing (exposure, white balance, etc), iPhoto works great for storing your photos and removing redeye & cropping.  It's basically the same thing as iTunes, but for pictures.  

Aperture has a little bit of a wider reach in that it can do all the easy quick fixes without opening photoshop, and also that whenever you make a change to a "Master," it saves the changes into a new version, so you never lose the original image.  To my knowledge (and feel free to check my facts), iPhoto doesn't do that.  Aperture is costs a little more, but it's a little more flexible, in my opinion.  I think the backup vault thing is a little more streamlined than whatever iPhoto has, too.


----------



## Jeff Canes (Aug 25, 2008)

i miss read OP


----------



## photogincollege (Aug 25, 2008)

I dont know about aperture, as I have never used it. But I hate iphoto.


----------



## holga girl (Aug 25, 2008)

i have used aperture, lightroom and iphoto. of the 3, i chose lightroom. but if we are only comparing aperture and iphoto, i would have to go with aperture. hands down. the one thing aperture has on all of them, is the ability to watermark.


----------



## reg (Aug 29, 2008)

holga girl said:


> the one thing aperture has on all of them, is the ability to watermark.



False. Lightroom can watermark. There's a dialog box for it.


----------



## bhop (Aug 29, 2008)

They're not the same type of program, so there really is no comparison.  Aperture is full editing software, iPhoto is an organization and browsing tool with some basic editing features thrown in (red-eye, b/w conversion, etc.)


----------



## johngpt (Aug 29, 2008)

Don't know about Aperture, but with iPhoto, one must be very cognizant of its idiosyncrasies. It catalogs images in ways that aren't at first easy to understand.

First and foremost, if one uses iPhoto to bring the actual images into one's computer, never, never, never use Finder to move those images around.

I will use iPhoto, but I only let it import aliases of the images, never the actual images themselves.

I like iPhoto's ability to create 'slideshows' and export as quicktime movies, which can then be imported into iDVD. I like its ability to interact with iTunes.

I refuse to use it to manage my photo libraries. I wouldn't bother with its image editing. 

Aperture, Lightroom, and just about any other image/library management software would be preferable for someone who is serious about keeping track of their images.


----------



## TUX424 (Sep 2, 2008)

I have iphoto 06' and i really dont like it i thnk the ways to organize ur photos is stupid and it donsnt work,
Aperture on the other hand i feel is much better but if u want to adjust the white balance/ exposer ur pictures have to be in RAW b/c that way ur camera has saved some info about it im not sure the exate way that it works


----------

