and both applications have come a long way. So... have opinions been changed? Critical features added? Achilles heels revealed?
And regardless of which I pick, should I suck it up and let them manage my library or stick with my hierarchical self-managed structure?
The Aperture v Lightroom question speaks for itself, I think. I've found Lightroom's quick crop system (ie, the recognition that it's more likely what you'll be doing than anything else and not making me press C first and return to accept it) pretty nice, but dislike the switching between viewing and altering mode. Aperture's stacks are nice and I LOVE having an add-on importer to push the set up to Flickr after I'm done. And quite frankly, Apple's collection of instructional videos is a big plus for me.
Are there other compelling issues I'm missing?
On both applications I am facing the referenced vs imported issue - All my photos - and there's more than a few - are currently organized like this:
Using Aperture I don't need (hell, shouldn't) separate out my jpeg and raw images, but I'm finding keeping to using referenced to make life harder - at least when it comes to putting in the old stuff. The 10000 image limit for a project precludes just picking "2007" and pulling everything in. In this, it seems, I am not alone.
The prospect of picking shift-option-I about 2000 times is not appealing. Am I missing something? Should I butch up and just let Aperture import everything? Would Lightroom be notably better at this?
Help an unfrozen caveman photographer cope with tools that do more than just show everything in a directory!