I have now tested quite a lot Aperture 3 to see if I would start to use instead of LR3. I have been using LR for years now, and now and then tried to solve out if Aperture may replace LR in my workflow. The main reason for not using Aperture has been the fact it is quite slow in my rig as compared to LR. There are also many other reasons which hindered the use of Aperture:
– I like keywording much more in LR. It is a smooth process and does not require much time. I do keywording about in half time in LR in comparison to Aperture.
– Adjustment brushes and graduated filter. You can make multiple adjustments in one brushing with LR. That is not possible in Aperture (and there is no graduated filter at all). This speeds up working so much. If you are using these tools a lot LR is a clear winner.
– Lens correction tool. Just wonderful in LR and missing from Aperture. No more arguments needed.
– Noise reduction. Lightroom has a very effective NR built in. In Aperture there is a need for a plug-in if you shoot high-ISO shots.
– Lightroom is very much faster almost in every area. Aperture is faster only in importing the photos. And my LR library is many times bigger than my Aperture library. There may be even bigger speed difference with same sized libraries.
– Some plug-ins I am using regularly, like Viveza 2 and Silver Efex Pro, work much smoother and faster with LR. E.g. to open these plug-ins may take very long time in Aperture (even tens of seconds).
Those are the main things why I am still choosing Lightroom for my RAW converter. I like Aprture’s UI more but I am very used to cycle LR’s Library and Develop modules by using keyboard shortcuts so that’s not a big deal for me.