A couple of weeks ago I went to a media briefing for the launch of the new Sony alpha digital cameras and was talking to another journalist. I asked him why consumers would consider Aperture when iPhoto well and truly passes the "good enough" test. When I went to Apple's Aperture roadshow (see this report) I saw that software do some amazing things at the hands of one of Apple's product specialists.

One of the Aperture's main advantages is its handling of RAW files - the format that dSLR shooters use. RAW isn't an image format per se - it's the data that comes off the camera's sensor. Aperture lets you do some sensational transformations to RAW images. What I discovered tonight, when I imported some images from my Nikon D80 using iPhoto, was that iPhoto can handle RAW files. Now, if you use Photoshop for tweaking your images, it's hard to see why you'd need Aperture.

As an aside, the ability for Macs to use RAW files isn't built into applications - it's in the operating system That means RAW files should look the same in all programs.

Now, iPhoto can't do everything Aperture can. However, I'd venture that most serious photographers would have a copy of Photoshop and the combination of iPhoto and Photoshop might just be enough for many photographers. That said, I can see the attraction of Aperture 2. It's clean interface isn't as glitzy as iPhoto but it has all the tools a photographer needs close at hand. Whereas iPhoto is focussed on organisation and showing photos off, Aperture is about tweaking and workflow.

Many of the differences between iPhoto and Aperture might only be superficial but they are all about their target audiences.

 Aperture • iPhoto • Photography