07 Detail rendition 3
This shot was taken at ISO 1600 on a Nikon 1 compact system camera. This has a 1-inch sensor, so the noise levels are medium-high. The Aperture version (left) controls the noise well, but the fine detail isn’t particularly sharp. The Lightroom version (right) is sharper, but the noise is actually quite bad. I’ve felt for a while that Lightroom and Adobe Camera Raw (they’re the same thing) is quite noisy, and this bears it out. On balance, I think the Aperture version holds up best.
08 Corrections
I didn’t want to get drawn into any comparisons between image-enhancement tools, but distortion correction is now a basic feature of many RAW converters, including Lightroom, Capture One Pro and DxO Optics Pro 9 – but not Aperture. For architectural shots like this, Lightroom has a clear advantage, correcting barrel and pincushion distortion and perspective issues like converging verticals. You can see the difference between the uncorrected Aperture version (left) and the corrected Lightroom image (right). Aperture depends on external editors for this kind of correction, whereas Lightroom has it built in.
09 Detail rendition 4
The fine detail comparison delivers the same results as the previous images. The Aperture rendition is less noisy but also less sharp; Lightroom delivers slightly greater sharpness but a lot more noise.
10 Conclusions
I prefer the overall colour and tonal rendition of Aperture RAW conversions. I think its images look punchier and more natural. Up close, though, it’s apparent that Lightroom’s conversions are a little sharper – though its noise levels are surprisingly high, and you’ll often see noise in low ISO shots taken with large-sensor cameras. Its in-built optical corrections do give it a significant advantage over Aperture for some types of photography, though.
To be honest, though, I think neither can really match up to DxO Optics Pro and Capture One for ultimate quality.
See also
DxO Optics Pro vs Lightroom vs Capture One Pro
Thanks!! I did not expect such a quick response and it is greatly appreciated!
After reading and seeing results it appears that Capture One Pro needs to be added to my software tools. Since I use Aperture for my Cataloging and Keywords would the Express version of Capture One Pro give me the same results that you did in your blog entry?
Capture One Express delivers the same basic quality, but it doesn’t have the localised adjustment tools or the lens correction profiles in the Pro version (not covered in my comparison). You can download a 30-day trial for either version from http://www.phaseone.com/en/Downloads.aspx, and I’d recommend that first to see how you get on. I love the results, but integrating it with an Aperture workflow in a straightforward takes a bit of thinking through.
How on Earth did you conclude that LR has worse highlights recovery options? Just by making default conversion? You just need to move the highlights slider in LR to prove to yourself that LR does recover MORE than Aperture.
You might want to read the post again. This was the best LR could do AFTER I adjusted the highlights and was NOT a default conversion.
I would just ignore those comments Rod. You didn’t have to respond to that person’s comment. You had made it quite clear that you had already adjusted the slider. Some people just can’t read or have an axe to grind.
An interesting comparison, but I’m wondering about the “default” conversion comparisons. As you probably know, Aperture actually has a way to “customize” the “default” conversion using the Camera RAW Fine Tuning controls. Usually, Aperture picks up the Defaults it made for that particular camera, but unlike other RAW convertors, the defaults are indeed customizable. Also, when you just use the default conversion in Lightroom, if you look in the “Detail” brick, you will find that Sharpening has been preset to Amount 25, Radius 1.0, Detail 25. And the color noise adjustment has been set to Color 25, Detail 50, and Smoothness 50. If you back those off to their 0 adjustment, you will get a better look at Lightroom’s “default” conversion. But, in general, I agreed with your assessment.
Thanks, Doug, though I don’t think I can agree with you about ‘default’ settings. To my mind, the program ‘defaults’ are the settings the software will apply unless you manually override them, and I really do think the argument is that simple. You can change the Aperture RAW Fine Tuning, but then you’re no longer using Aperture’s default settings. And if you zero the Lightroom sliders, you might produce a kind of ‘baseline’ conversion, but it’s not, by definition, Adobe’s default. If Adobe sets the sharpening Amount (etc) to 25, that’s because Adobe thinks it’s both necessary and produces the best results.
The sharpening example is interesting. I don’t think you can assume that ‘zero’ settings mean what they appear to mean. All digital images need a degree of sharpening, largely because of the low-pass filters used in front of most camera sensors to prevent moire effects, and the interpolation process needed to generate full-colour data from the red, green and blue photosites on our single-layer sensors. Adobe would probably argue that ‘zero’ sharpening is inadequate, an Amount value (etc) of 25 is adequate and any more is subject to user discretion. Other makers may build this ‘capture sharpening’ into the camera conversion profiles and simply not tell us, so the sharpening is hidden, rather than being out in the open like Adobe’s.
My understanding is that the ACR (Lightroom) conversion already has the normal RAW conversion sharpening to offset the effect of the low pass filter and interpolation. They actually add a little sharpening in the adjustment pane because they know that it will make the image a little bit more appealing. Aperture also applies the requisite sharpening in the RAW conversion, but it does not add some after the fact. Add a similar amount of sharpening in Aperture and you will see a similar look. As you mentioned, “lightroom has produced sharper fine detail”. Take another look at the RAW Fine Tuning tool in Aperture. I don’t know of another RAW convertor that lets you fine tune the actual “initial” conversion. Most others are locked. I think it’s very difficult to compare RAW conversions between programs, because each one makes different assumptions about what is default and what isn’t.
I want to scream that Apple let Google buy Nik instead of them. Had they done that and incorporated Nik into Aperture 4.0 I would have been the happiest Mac owner and photographer.
Yes!