Top Apps For March

It’s been longer than a month since we last did an iPhone app post, so figured we’d look back on some of the great apps in March. There were some great ones to choose from. Here are the ones you should atleast try out…

Human Weather: This little app might not be a marvel in technical sense, but it provides a bit of fun to weather forecasts. Instead of listening to weathermen, fire this app up with provides forecasts from its users. It’s Twitter, meets weather. The community aspect of the app might not be for some, but trust me it can come in handy.

Slideshow Builder: Don’t be fooled by the name, this app is more than just grouping photos together and watching it go. You add effects as you see it, and take control of your slideshow with many other options. You can add in music, or even captions to accompany certain pictures. There are numerous effects, the most important being the Ken Burns effect.

iPhorest: If you’re down with the environment, and who isn’t these days? Then check out iPhorest. The app itself isn’t all that great, you get to virtually create a tree and watch it grow. The great thing is every time the app is downloaded, a tree is planted by the EcoLife, and iPhorest groups.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,   Posted in iPhone

Aperture 2 vs Lightroom 2 Beta

The two biggest players in the photo management game for OSX are Apple’s Aperture and Adobe’s Lightroom products. Both take RAW files in and make it easy to do basic editing and processing to greatly reduce the time required to process your images. Today, we will be testing the speed of imports, as well as their respective processing outputs, with sample images and 100% crops.

Lightroom VS Aperture

We used the latest versions of Aperture 2 and Lightroom 2 private beta (available to owners of Lightroom and by invitation). To test import speed, a Sandisk Ultra 2 card was filled with 21 RAW images, taking up 144.6MB space. It was placed in a Digital Concepts USB 2.0 CompactFlash Card Reader and connected via USB to an Apple Macbook Pro laptop with a 5400RPM hard drive. We used a clean install of Mac OSX 10.5.3 Leopard and new installations of Aperture and Lightroom. The camera used for testing was a Canon 30D.

First up - the import speed test. This was fairly self explanatory: both immediately recognized the CF card when it was inserted and were ready to roll.

Aperture was by far the big winner here, clocking in at 20.5 seconds to import our 21 RAW files.

Apple Aperture Import Speed

Lightroom had a much poorer showing, though it is currently a beta version. It took 35.5 seconds to import our test files.

Adobe Lightroom Import Speed

But what do measly seconds mean when the greater issue is image quality? We did a comparison test using the automatic tools built into Aperture and Lightroom to compare the final image quality. Thought you will always get the best results out of an individually processed file in Photoshop, Canon DPP or Nikon Capture NX, a photographer trying to process thousands of RAW files on a deadline doesn’t have time to edit each file. These presets and automatic adjustments are huge timesavers if the end result is acceptable. We used factory default settings and clicked Auto Adjust for both programs.

Lightroom

Full size (resized for web)

Lightroom Image Sample

100% Crop (resized for web)

Lightroom Image Sample Crop

Aperture

Full size (resized for web)

Aperture Image Sample

100% Crop (resized for web)

Aperture Image Sample Crop

In my opinion, Lightroom is the winner in terms of image quality using the automatic settings. Quality is completely subjective and I encourage readers to voice their opinions using the comment form as to which they feel is the better result, but the Lightroom sample is more pleasing to my eye then the Aperture sample. It may be due to more aggressive sharpening or higher contrast, but the Aperture version looks softer. Again, no sliders or settings were manually adjusted; only auto tools were used. It does appear that the Lightroom crop has more digital noise then the Aperture crop, perhaps a byproduct of the sharpening (or a lack of noise reduction, which can make an image less sharp).

Like any test, please take this with a grain of salt. Hopefully this has helped shed a bit of light on the best options for photo cataloguing and processing.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,   Posted in Photography, Software, Testing