Editing Software Aperture vs. PS Elements

Fishfreak218

New member
Hey,
So I am just getting into photography and was wondering which you guys thought was better? Has anyone used Aperture 2.0?
How did you like it? Was it a good amatuer editing software?
Aperture 2.0 is like $100+ more then the PS elements and the layout and everything looked really clean.
Opinions?
thanks a lot!
-Josh
 

Misled

RC Mod
Staff member
RC Mod
I use elements and am very pleased with it. I can't help with aperture because I've never used it. With elements I did decided to change my monitor. The pic you work with was too small on my old 15.5 so I went up to a 22. I'm old though and my eyesite isn't what it used to be.

Elements is well layed out and does come with tutorials and vids to help you learn it.
 

BlueCorn

Retired
Premium Member
Much of Aperture's worth is built around it's RAW editing capabilities. Like Adobe Lightroom, it's an image processor not a pixel editor. Elements is a pixel editor.

In a perfect world you'd like to have both. If you had to choose between the two I'd recommend Elements. Since you're obviously on Mac, you should also take a look at Pixelmator. It's pretty reasonable and more powerful than Elements.
 

TitusvileSurfer

New member
If you have multiple Adobe programs such as Photoshop, Elements, ect. they would all work very well together with Bridge. I know its a stretch, but depending on what else you have I think it is a worthy thought.
 

BlueCorn

Retired
Premium Member
You can try out LR 2.0 (still in beta) here:

http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/lightroom/

Aperture is also available as a trial. I actually bought Aperture first and used it for quite a while before switching to LR. I actually liked the Aperture a little more but the image quality wasn't as good as in LR.

Try them both and see what you think. You will, at some point, need a pixel editor as well. Elements, Pixelmator or Gimp (free) are all viable options.
 

zibba

New member
Initially I used Aperture, but switched to Photoshop CS3. Obviously the winner is clear as it's difficult to compare the power of CS3 with aperture, but Aperture does offer some nice features which are great if the editing that you'll be doing is fairly minimal. Just my two-cents.

Beerguy - can you explain why one would also use a pixle editor? I'm still learning about photo editing and didn't realize that there would be a difference. TIA
 

MCary

Premium Member
I'm not Beerguy, but I can maybe contribute here.

Lightroom is a cataloging, filing and developing program. As is Aperature I believe. They are can touch up photos, crop, set exposures etc. They are very efficient because they can sync there settings to many photos at a time. They are also none destructive. The changes are attached to the photo by way of a small file which can be changed or reverted at any time leaving the original photo untouched.

CS3 is a pixel editor. It is for manipulating photos down to single pixels in need be. You can put cat heads on sharks with this program. You can change background, clone out large areas, mearge photos etc. LR cannot do things to this level. On the other hand, dispite the power of PS, it is not the program for downloading, writing meta data, sorting and filing picutures coming off your camera. You wouldn't want to use it to reset the exposure one stop on 200 photos from a wedding or cloning out a dust spot on the entire set of photos from a day. You wouldn't use it to search for all your bear photos. It isn't the program for printing contact sheets.

Mike
 

BlueCorn

Retired
Premium Member
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12844928#post12844928 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by zibba
Initially I used Aperture, but switched to Photoshop CS3.

They aren't completive products. They compliment each other.

I use Lightroom and Photoshop CS3. I use both on nearly every image. Think of it in "darkroom" terms. Lightroom (or Aperture) is what you use to get your image from the memory card to a finished "negative." Photoshop is how you turn that negative into a print or a finished image.

Make sense?
 

zibba

New member
Ok so I've been using PS to edit single pictures where I could be using Aperature/lightroom to be more effiecient? Is that right? Would you mind sharing how you're typically using the two programs collectively on each photo, or if you have a link - that would be fine. I'm still in the beginning stages of learning post processing so I appreciate your patience and I'm eager to learn.

Thanks.

- Z
 

BlueCorn

Retired
Premium Member
Read Mike's post again. ;)

Aperture and Lightroom are cataloging a RAW processing applications. They work on the whole image.

PS - is a pixel based editor. It's for doing very specific and targeted editing.
 

Fishfreak218

New member
ahhhh very informative last posts!!!
now i have a better understanding of the different editors...
so is photoshop elements a pixel based editor?
If it is.. Im thinking about just going with
Aperture 2 and PS elements since im a total noob and wouldn't be getting real serious about editing anyways.. (just some touch ups and stuff)
 

BlueCorn

Retired
Premium Member
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12847460#post12847460 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Fishfreak218
ahhhh very informative last posts!!!
now i have a better understanding of the different editors...
so is photoshop elements a pixel based editor?
If it is.. Im thinking about just going with
Aperture 2 and PS elements since im a total noob and wouldn't be getting real serious about editing anyways.. (just some touch ups and stuff)

Yes. That'd be a great combo.

Cheers
 

afex

New member
the new version of lightroom supports editing of only part of the image.

Localized corrections ââ"šÂ¬Ã¢â‚¬Â Enhance specific areas of an image for unsurpassed nondestructive flexibility and control reminiscent of the traditional darkroom dodge and burn experience.

for most ppl who want to turn their RAW photo into a better image, photoshop is a waste of money.
 

BlueCorn

Retired
Premium Member
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12848653#post12848653 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by afex
the new version of lightroom supports editing of only part of the image.
for most ppl who want to turn their RAW photo into a better image, photoshop is a waste of money.

I've been using the beta version and yes, just like Aperture, it supports some very basic localized editing. It's still not an editor.

A pixel editor is still something that needs to be in your toolbox. Like I said earlier, that doesn't have to be a full version of Photoshop CS3 Extended. Elements, Pixelmator or Gimp are all viable options. There are still a LOT of things that you can't do from LR (or Aperture). Don't get me wrong, I love LR. It's just not the complete solution.
 
Top