Aperture 3 vs PS

[r.spitz09]

This has probably been asked before but couldnt find it. I currently have aperture 3 and wondering if its worth shelling out for cs4 or perhaps something else (lightroom?). I am very new to dslr so learning both the camera and post processing. Any info from someone thats used both would be nice.

[Medley]

OK, first of all, don't shell out the money for Lightroom, as it is basically the Adobe equivalent of Aperture, so you wouldn't be getting much for your money.

I use Aperture2, and have CS2. But I also do some drawing and graphics design, so CS2 made sense (I actually had PS before getting Aperture.)

Aperture3 expanded the pp capabilities by a fair margin. What Aperture does that PS doesn't do is help you organize your photos.

My advice is to stay with Aperture3 and learn as much pp there as you can. You'll know when the application begins to limit your capabilities.

After that, it's going to take a judgement call on your part. For most people, the full version of Photoshop is more than they'll ever need. However if money isn't an object and/ or you think you may want to learn Photoshop above and beyond photograpic processes, then I'd hate to discourage you.

For most people though, Photoshop Elements provides all the pp power they'll ever need in the digital imaging arena.

- Joe U.

[Frog]

If you do go photoshop, you might want to consider their latest 'elements' programs.
You can do almost as much in elements as you can in cs and its way cheaper.

[r.spitz09]

Thanx for the responses guys. The more I play with Aperture 3 the easier it is getting so I think I will stick with it for now, again thanx for the responses

[thomasrboyd]

There's some really good tips and tutorials here for Aperture 3: http://aperture.maccreate.com/

[nikon4ever]

I have CS3 and Aperture 3, I find myself editing photos with AP3 and doing layouts for my cd printing projects with PS3. The photo organization that Aperture provides is amazing! If I would purchase again, I would by one of the elements programs instead of the full CS3.

~Larry

OK, first of all, don't shell out the money for Lightroom, as it is basically the Adobe equivalent of Aperture, so you wouldn't be getting much for your money.

I use Aperture2, and have CS2. But I also do some drawing and graphics design, so CS2 made sense (I actually had PS before getting Aperture.)

Aperture3 expanded the pp capabilities by a fair margin. What Aperture does that PS doesn't do is help you organize your photos.

My advice is to stay with Aperture3 and learn as much pp there as you can. You'll know when the application begins to limit your capabilities.

After that, it's going to take a judgement call on your part. For most people, the full version of Photoshop is more than they'll ever need. However if money isn't an object and/ or you think you may want to learn Photoshop above and beyond photograpic processes, then I'd hate to discourage you.

For most people though, Photoshop Elements provides all the pp power they'll ever need in the digital imaging arena.

- Joe U.