# Aperture vs iPhoto



## VNJ85 (Feb 24, 2006)

I tried to search on the forum for this answer, but didn't yield great results.

So what is the difference between Aperture vs iPhoto? Why use one vs the other? 

(other than for RAW images in Aperture).


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Here are a few of the more significant differentiators between iPhoto and Aperture: 

RAW handling: iPhoto imports and reads RAW images, but immediately converts to JPEG or 16-bit TIFFS for all edits. Aperture offers fully native RAW file processing throughout entire workflow, until you explicitly export the file in a specific format. The RAW Fine Tuning controls that are included (which let you customize the parameters of the RAW decode, to tweak contrast, noise reduction and sharpening) are not available in iPhoto.

Image processing: iPhoto creates a new file when adjustments are made. To create five different variations of an image means duping the file over and over. Aperture's adjustments are non-destructive; all adjustments can be removed, modified, and reapplied anywhere in the workflow. So you can create as many different versions of an image as you want, without ever having to duplicate the original file. 

Metadata: iPhoto supports basic metadata, such as comments, title, film roll, and keywords. Aperture has full support for EXIF and IPTC metadata formats, with flexible display of metadata via tooltips, inspectors and overlays. Also, keywords can be organized hierarchically, instead of in a flat list, and can be attached to buttons for one-click application.

Multiple-image display: iPhoto can do 8-up; Aperture can go to 12-up, and can do simultaneous zooming and panning across multiple images (with iPhoto, you have to zoom and pan one image at a time). 

Then, of course, there are all the features that are not available in iPhoto at all. The following are all unique to Aperture:

Stacks and auto-stacking, Light Table, Loupe, watermarking, color management/ICC profile support (for printing and export), multiple display support, Lift & Stamp (batch adjustments & metadata), monochrome channel mixer (for high-quality black-and-white conversions), Highlights and Shadows; black, white, and gray tint controls, white balance eyedropper, quarter-tone controls in Levels, color meter, Vaults etc...

More on those features here:
http://www.apple.com/aperture/overview/


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

Wow, Mr Mayor, a nice comprehensive answer!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yeah good answer :clap:

- short summary - Aperture for Pros - iPhoto for consumers.
GraphicConverter is a better alternative to iPhoto in my mind


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

MacDoc said:


> Yeah good answer :clap:
> 
> - short summary - Aperture for Pros - iPhoto for consumers.
> GraphicConverter is a better alternative to iPhoto in my mind


GraphicConverter may be a nice program, but I think the advantages of the intergration of all the iLife apps with iPhoto as well as FrontRow outway using GraphicConverter by itself. 

Aperture 1.5 will also now offer this iLife integration.


----------



## VNJ85 (Feb 24, 2006)

Thank you ehMax, that was a wonderful answer. Very informative and well written.
Thanks.

One question, Does iPhoto have any features Aperture does not have?


----------



## capitalK (Oct 21, 2003)

I would say iPhoto is better for doing things like calendars, greeting cards, etc. Aperture doesn't have the templates for them. Aperture can do books, though and gives you much more control on the layout than iPhoto.

Also iPhoto does the webcasting with .Mac


----------



## Moscool (Jun 8, 2003)

I have never played with Aperture: does it manipulate jpegs as well? At present I am usingphotoshop in a pretty basic way and picture by picture. In oter words: not very often. If Aperture allowed some clever workflow and let me tore the finished product in iPhoto that would be cool.


----------



## capitalK (Oct 21, 2003)

Aperture can manage basically anyimage format that Quicktime can handle, including TIFFs, PSDs and PDFs.

I use Aperture to manage my library and output to web, but I tend to do my post-processing for print output in Canon Digital Photo Professional which is the software that came with my cameras.


----------



## kent (Oct 18, 2003)

I've been using Aperture for a month and love it. If you're looking to see what it does compared to iPhoto check out some of the videos on the Apple site, they'll give you a good idea. Versioning and non-destructive image processing in Aperture is beautiful - worth the price of admission alone. That said, one needs a powerful machine to run it. I'm backing-up my library right now and just about to install 1.5.


----------



## Kirtland (Aug 18, 2002)

Well said Mayor.
I have been waffling back and forth on my decision to buy Aperture or go with Lightroom. Aperture 1.5 has swayed me back to the Aperture camp for a few reasons. I like the integration with iLife and iWork as well as the organizing improvements. I wish that Aperture had a trial download so I could compare better with Lightroom beta 4. This is a hard decision, but it sure is fun doing the research on my new 24" iMac


----------



## Moscool (Jun 8, 2003)

kent said:


> I've been using Aperture for a month and love it. If you're looking to see what it does compared to iPhoto check out some of the videos on the Apple site, they'll give you a good idea. Versioning and non-destructive image processing in Aperture is beautiful - worth the price of admission alone. That said, one needs a powerful machine to run it. I'm backing-up my library right now and just about to install 1.5.


Some impressive stuff in here, I particularly like flexible albums. I have found iPhoto a bit too constraining in that dpt.

One last 'unwashed' question: given that many pics will need some small photoshop treatment (e.g. remove blemishes), what is a sensible workflow? Also, even if I keep iPhoto as my main storage device (and there are many reasons to do this), should I organise the iPhoto contents differently?


----------



## jdurston (Jan 28, 2005)

Non-destructive editing is huge for me!


----------



## VNJ85 (Feb 24, 2006)

So... let me get this straight? 

Use Aperture for everything, because it conserves disk space and everything is reversible. However KEEP iPhoto for displaying pictures to friends, and creating albums. 

(It is not good to use iPhoto to edit pictures because it just takes up more room since it images each picture)

That is basically what I've understood, is this correct?


----------



## Fasting (Jun 15, 2005)

I've been wondering about Aperture vs. iPhoto and wanted to post about it here on ehMac but was beaten to it.

Great thread.


----------



## jdurston (Jan 28, 2005)

VNJ85 said:


> So... let me get this straight?
> 
> Use Aperture for everything, because it conserves disk space and everything is reversible. However KEEP iPhoto for displaying pictures to friends, and creating albums.
> 
> ...


You can create slide shows and albums in Aperture, but the interface is more cluttered so it is a little more difficult. It depends how crazy you want to get with your slideshows.

Apparently Aperture can somehow reference your iPhoto library without actually importing the pictures in version 1.5. I haven't figured this out yet. My wife says Aperture "makes her grumpy!", she insists on having all the images in iPhoto for easy access to show her friends and to make slideshows with. I prefer Aperture for its power/flexibility and non-destructive editing.


----------



## Moscool (Jun 8, 2003)

So how does it work? Does the modified photograph appear in the iPhoto library, or are you stuck with originals only? Surely Apple has thought about this one, but I can't quite picture how...


----------

