![aperture software vs lightroom aperture software vs lightroom](https://i.pinimg.com/474x/50/e7/72/50e7727d55142990b8d5304861b722f2--aperture-lightroom.jpg)
What I so dislike is your attitude and manner of expression. Which one would I pick? Well, Lr 4.1 is a little slower to import than Aperture 3.3, a little faster to finish 1:1 previews, and the raw conversion and noise reduction is substantively better to my eye. Photo Mechanic blazed through the viewing in nine and a half minutes but cannot process any photos. Aperture 3.3 did the same job in 21 minutes to import, 1.5 hours to finish the rendering, and I was only able to process 12 photos to a finish state while it was doing the process. However, I was able to process 20 photos to a finished rendering, including exports, while that was happening. Preview rendering to a 1:1 preview took an hour. Lightroom 4.1 imported 900 18 MPixel raw files from my M9 in 27 minutes. What does "fastest" mean? That depends on what you are trying to do and what your specific needs are. It's a stupid measure to evaluate in my opinion. There's no point to the measure of "holding down the next button to scroll continuously through the photos" that the author complained about so much. We try very much to keep this group on track and not to resort to any sort of invectives, it seems to work pretty well most of the time!Īnd I can assure you that there are times when resorting to sarcasm is very tempting, but it is an easy option and one we try to circumvent! Thanks Thomas, the problem with your last post was that it was a little sarcastic in response to Godfrey's reasonable, although obviously not necessarily correct, assessment of the comparison you had posted. Godfrey DiGiorgi (a group admin) edited this topic 119 months ago. Originally posted at 11:46PM, 20 June 2012 PDT Why should an app, that does so much, perform so poorly on the first and most basic function of importing? And I would want them to change the behavior in how it displays images if they get skipped over. If I were totally invested in Lr, and then saw how fast Aperture was, I'd be very pissed. And, honestly, I was shocked how slow Lr was at this one task. But, I do want to know which one works fastest (among other things). I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything.
![aperture software vs lightroom aperture software vs lightroom](https://talktog.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/aperture.jpg)
Do any of you disagree with that? And, other apps ARE faster. So, regardless if you think the app is fast enough, faster would be better. If an app is TOO fast, the user can slow down, but if it's TOO slow they can't speed it up. If Lr 4.2 is turns out to be faster than Aperture, or PM, are Lr users going to complain that it's too fast? I don't think so. Why is this okay with so many users? Why do they just happily find a work around? Why is slow okay? One thing I don't get, is why Lr4.1 users aren't demanding better, faster performance on import. This test isn't a criticism as much as is informing people of what they can expect from three different photo apps on import. The difference with Aperture is that on import is the photo can be evaluated, toned and exported before the images are done copying off the card. Yes, Photo Mechanic and Aperture permit this, except they show you the images much faster.