Got a buddy here at work who uses Aperture but since it is going away he gave Lightroom another try.

So he imported a RAW file into Aperture and Lightroom and told me that the Aperture version looks way better. Or at least closer to what was shot. The Lightroom version was way off. So not being that familiar with Lightroom he was wondering if there was a setting somewhere that pre-processes RAW files on import. Or something along those lines.

---

It probably doesn't look as good because he's seeing the untouched RAW file. Import presets are completely customizable in LR (presets and preferences are its bread and butter), so he probably just needs to define some default import presets for his equipment.

There are probably a bunch of good tutorials/articles on this. I don't have time to look right now, but it looks like one might be a good start.

[www.learn-to-lightroom.com]

So you're saying he has to set import options to make Lightroom display the correct image out of the gate vs. Aperture doing it automatically?

---

Should we be assuming the import options for raw images are set the same for both programs ?

---

The Phorum Wall keeps us safe from illegal characters and words
The doorstep to the temple of wisdom is the knowledge of one's own ignorance. -Benjamin Franklin
BOYCOTT YOPLAIT [www.noyoplait.com]
[soundcloud.com]

Is Lightroom rendering the RAW file for display or using the JPEG preview? IIRC, it uses the preview by default which might explain the difference.

Both are set to default. He just noticed the difference b/c he imported the same file into both this time.

---

Aperture is not "going away" It will continue to function (functionality is up for debate by some) for the foreseeable future. It is no longer supported, just like iWeb, and it works the same as it always has.
I am waiting to see if the new Photos App will get more features like when FinalCut Pro X came out.

I think the only thing Lr does on import is to apply a negligable amount of sharpening, and that's only to provide some baseline data for the catalog. (I think - I looked this up a long time ago because I noticed the sharpening sliders weren't zeroed out.) So in theory what you see in Lr on import should be basically just what the sensor captured.

Knowing Apple, I'd be more inclined to think Aperture does something to the image on import than Lr, but I've barely used it so I don't know.

And it's true that different RAW processors will give very different results on the same image. I read in forums about people who don't care for Lr's procssing and prefer something else, and vice versa. It would be interesting to see these side by side, or get some more info on what your friend likes better about Aperture.

---

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/05/2015 11:20AM by Uncle Wig.

Just by comparing the two instances he prefers the Aperture version b/c it was closer to what he actually shot. The Lightroom version was not. I'm not sure what exactly was off. He didn't mention. Just that Aperture was closer.

---

For NIkon .NEF files, Nikon Capture NX does the absolute best at rendering RAW files. It mimics the picture controls on their cameras so that changing settings is a breeze. BUT, it doesn't manage files. I wish Nikon would create a RAW file rendering plugin for Aperture/Lightroom/Photoshop etc.

Quote
bazookaman
Just by comparing the two instances he prefers the Aperture version b/c it was closer to what he actually shot. The Lightroom version was not. I'm not sure what exactly was off. He didn't mention. Just that Aperture was closer.

I'm not sure what he means. Does he mean Aperture is closer to the image he sees in his mind's eye? In is memory of the scene? I don't think that's a very useful standard. The whole idea of Lr (and Aperture) is to adjust the image data until it looks the way you want it, be that natural & true to the scene or otherwise. For a majority of images, one can create a "standard" Lr preset that will do this in one click. To get there requires some experimentation of course.

Vision63: Lightroom has camera profiles. Would that not be what you're looking for to render NEF files?

---

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/05/2015 12:39PM by Uncle Wig.

Quote
Uncle Wig
I'm not sure what he means. Does he mean Aperture is closer to the image he sees in his mind's eye? In is memory of the scene? I don't think that's a very useful standard.

I disagree. If you are sitting in a room (he takes real estate pics) then photograph said room then open the resulting file in Aperture and Lightroom I would think you'd be able to tell which version actually LOOKS like the room you are sitting in.

I realize not all photographers can view an image right after it's shot but that doesn't make it any less valuable.

---

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/05/2015 12:46PM by bazookaman.

Quote
Ken Sp.
Aperture is not "going away" It will continue to function (functionality is up for debate by some) for the foreseeable future.

...or until Apple discontinues support for it at the OS level, which could happen as soon as this summer.

---

It is what it is.

DxO Optics is also worth a look: [www.dxo.com]

Quote
bazookaman
So you're saying he has to set import options to make Lightroom display the correct image out of the gate vs. Aperture doing it automatically?

Not exactly. Just that if he is taking the trouble to shoot RAW in the first place, there are other things to consider beyond the defaults. If automatic processing was the be-all-end-all, why not shoot in jpg and be done with it? JPG will likely look better out of the gate in either program, but both programs allow for refinement and customization that may give more pleasing results. Since this may just be a one-time adjustment (kind like a calibration), why not take advantage of it?

I agree that if Aperture gives more satisfactory results, that may all that he needs to make up his mind. But if LR is "way off," then it might make sense to look into why that would be the case.