Lightroom or Aperture, RAW or JPG?

Previously I've used Photoshop for handling digital images. But I've just acquired a new Canon 5D and have the budget to get Aperture or Lightroom. I have a sense that Lightroom, e.g., is probably a better solution for me than the old Photoshop + Bridge setup.

Are Lightroom/Aperture only worthwhile if you shoot in RAW? (I do street-photography so speed can be an issue and so I often shoot JPGs.) That is, is it still worthwhile software for working with JPGs? I'll do a combination of both, but I don't want a product that limits me to only working well with RAW.

I've downloaded trial versions of both, but Aperture seems really slow on my computer.

Here's what I want, hopefully, out of one of these products. :
• an effective way to organize and categorize photos (seems both do that just fine)
• a way to enhance each photo (sharpening, color balance, whatever's needed)
• hopefully to have 2 versions of a photo: one that I use for multimedia presentations and another that's ready to be printed onto paper

Any suggestions or insights about either software program for meeting these needs?

Look inthe box!

Look in the box that your 5D came in - I really like ZoomBrowserEX and Digital Photo Professional. You can adjust any raw image as if you made the change in camera before you shot it - and it allows global edits too. It is an excellent pair of programs that are easy to use. JPG's too have a wide range of edits allowed.

Love Lightroom! I'm also using a 5D. Its really been great in getting me to organize my images and the raw processing and controls are lovely. But try the demo of it and maybe Aperture and see which you prefer. I have Aperture and there are some cool features but I'm sold on Lightroom for my needs.

I'm using Lightroom more and more.
I do shoot with Canon 1DS M2 but i'm sure it's the same thing with the 5D: Lightroom is very quick, i can organize my files in the folder structure that i prefer.
Editing RAW is now WYSIWYG (ever played with the color adjustment sliders, magical), so no more need for jpg capture (and true 12 bit color steps instead of 8bit jpgs).
I personally love and use the vignetting tool, that Aperture is missing, nearly all the time.

And last the output options are straight up, you can easily create your own presets in all the modules.

So after using PS for the last couple of years this is the most intuitive "missing link" that i have seen, i still use Capture 1 Pro once in a while, sometimes the files are significantly better and easier to get than LR, ACR, but i like the Workflow and feel of LR over everyhting.
And i have to add, i feel i get more creative with the coloring and contrast settings, which leads to more interesting results (just like a good master printer did over some standart machine print slave)

best
Mark

Everything you want to do, can be done with both programs. And both programs have the advantage of using non-destructive editting, which is important for JPEG because it means you do not further downgrade the image if you make edits.

Lightroom is easier and needs slightly less powerful hardware, but Aperture is lightyears ahead in its file management and searching capabilities. Once you've discovered the power of Smart Albums in Aperture, the Collections in Lightroom seem a solution from the previous century.

HI

Rather than think of LR as part of the work flow, think of it as a database and method to keep your images organised. Then you can choose the best raw converter for your camera and use Photoshop for fixing or altering images and then bring them into LR for organising, exporting, saving as web images etc.

Yours

Ravi

Thanks for all the suggestions. After playing with both Aperture and Lightroom for a few days, and listening to your comments, it's clear I need to go with Lightroom for now. It's very simple (good for me) and it's much much quicker on my Mac Powerbook.

All that said, I'll now look into ZoomBrowserEX and Digital Photo Professional also. Kathy: thanks for this suggestion!