I guess I'm the only one here using Aperture, eh?
I like Aperture because it saved my wallet off ~S$200, for essentially the [more or less] same function as Lightroom, which is to edit photos. Aperture seems a bit limited, and I do like Lightroom for its intergration with Photoshop, but hey, you get what you pay for, right?
I'm also using LR & CS3. Anyone know why the exposure of the photos looks o.k in my camera but under exposure when I opened using LR or CS3? now I'm really dunno which exposure is correct, my camera or LR/CS3? Something has been set wringly in LR/CS3?
If you are doing more than editing - aperture v2.1 is draggy when you are doing adjustments - yeah they place the sharpen function in some strange place when compared to LR.
If you are going to have large libraries Aperture has some issues in speed and stablity. From Aperture forum, corrupted libraries can be wiped out on a rebuild.
As a pure editing platform - Aperture is more friendly to the eye than LR. You can do full screen editing in Aperture with a one keystroke command LR requires a couple of key strokes and its still not full screen...only in slide show mode. Yeah do this on a 24" imac it can be addictive.
If you are doing more than editing - aperture v2.1 is draggy when you are doing adjustments - yeah they place the sharpen function in some strange place when compared to LR.
If you are going to have large libraries Aperture has some issues in speed and stablity. From Aperture forum, corrupted libraries can be wiped out on a rebuild.
As a pure editing platform - Aperture is more friendly to the eye than LR. You can do full screen editing in Aperture with a one keystroke command LR requires a couple of key strokes and its still not full screen...only in slide show mode. Yeah do this on a 24" imac it can be addictive.