[Brave Ulysses]

Originally Posted by Kickaha "for many" is the key phrase here from Darlymple's statement. I do believe that Lightroom will be a much better match for many Aperture users. I do not believe that Lightroom is the *ONLY* alternative for all Aperture users, which is what you imply above.

That's not what I imply. In fact, I'm not *IMPLYING* anything. Others are, and I am interpreting. I honestly don't know one way or the other, nor do you. Dalrymple presumably (and most definitely) knows more than you, I, Dorian, or most anyone else. And he posted a pretty blunt post that said Lightroom would be the best option "for many" Aperture users.

This leads me to interpret (NOT IMPLY MYSELF) that in his opinion, Photos is going to be lacking in many critical areas where Aperture excelled.


I am not a pro photographer by ANY means. However, I take a ton of photos and I am an enthusiast, much like you label yourself. Aperture appealed to me for the same reasons of increased organization and library size. I do not see how Photos will come close to solving that problem for me. It is not at all uncommon for me to take 3,000 photos in a week when traveling. It actually happens quite often. Annually I take 15,000-25,000 photos easy.... maybe more. There is simply no way iCloud Photo Library is up to that challenge, storage needs, versioning needs, and archival needs. And Apple's public statements about capacity and cost simply would not work for me or many other people.

Apple's Cloud offerings to date have been extremely rigid and have not allowed much user customization and file organization at all. I don't expect iCloud Photo Library to be much better.

[Kickaha]

Originally Posted by Brave Ulysses That's not what I imply. In fact, I'm not *IMPLYING* anything. Others are, and I am interpreting. I honestly don't know one way or the other, nor do you. Dalrymple presumably (and most definitely) knows more than you, I, Dorian, or most anyone else. And he posted a pretty blunt post that said Lightroom would be the best option "for many" Aperture users. This leads me to interpret (NOT IMPLY MYSELF) that in his opinion, Photos is going to be lacking in many critical areas where Aperture excelled.

Certainly, I would expect it to, or it'd be a straight up replacement, and his audience may skew more heavily to pros, etc, etc, etc.

I am not a pro photographer by ANY means. However, I take a ton of photos and I am an enthusiast, much like you label yourself. Aperture appealed to me for the same reasons of increased organization and library size. I do not see how Photos will come close to solving that problem for me. It is not at all uncommon for me to take 3,000 photos in a week when traveling. It actually happens quite often. Annually I take 15,000-25,000 photos easy.... maybe more. There is simply no way iCloud Photo Library is up to that challenge, storage needs, versioning needs, and archival needs. And Apple's public statements about capacity and cost simply would not work for me or many other people. Apple's Cloud offerings to date have been extremely rigid and have not allowed much user customization and file organization at all. I don't expect iCloud Photo Library to be much better.

I hear ya, I'm roughly in the same realm for photo production. (Good god it's crazy fun isn't it?) I would hope (hope, dammit hope) that the iCloud Photo Library is one source for storage/access, and that local-disk-only storage (archiving?) is also available. Heck, weave in a little Back to My Mac magic, and there may not be much of a functional difference for remote access, but that's crazy pixie dust and unicorn farts talk there. Agreed there's no way I can see that iCPL is up to the task of a bazillion photos, but... yeesh.

It's *so close*...

[Kickaha]

Originally Posted by chucker Oh, I know, I know. It's pretty damn awesome, too! Exactly. Maybe focus it entirely on PDF, for instance.

I dunno, it offers the same tools for many image formats. PDF forms is a PDF-only goodie, naturally.

Damn, I really can't come up with a better name for it. Viewer?

[Frank777]

I have Aperture, but I can't fault Apple's thinking here.

They had to rebuild iPhoto and Aperture for next-gen usage with Yosemite, iOS, iCloud and 4K screens. They chose not to duplicate their efforts, and make Photos a system-level app like Mail. Nothing is wrong with that.

They've given everybody enough notice of what's happening, and we all know - from the FCP X and iWork reboots - that the first version of Photos will probably not have key pro features. So please don't update to Yosemite and they scream like a little girl when a feature you rely on is missing.

If you must have the latest photo software without interruption, go sell your soul and your firstborn child to Adobe CC. Otherwise, keep on using Aperture until Photos is unveiled and reviewed in the Mac press, and see if it's ready for your needs. And remember, Pros don't whine.

[PB PM]

Originally Posted by Frank777 They've given everybody enough notice of what's happening, and we all know - from the FCP X and iWork reboots - that the first version of Photos will probably not have key pro features. So please don't update to Yosemite and they scream like a little girl when a feature you rely on is missing.

It's not shipping with Yosemite, its coming in 2015. My guess is, free with all new Macs, $15-20 for everyone else.

[Frank777]

Originally Posted by PB PM It's not shipping with Yosemite, its coming in 2015. My guess is, free with all new Macs, $15-20 for everyone else.

Yes, but we haven't yet been guaranteed that all current Aperture features will work with Yosemite, right?

Edit: I don't see how they can charge $15. for a system-level photo program.

[PB PM]

Originally Posted by Frank777 Yes, but we haven't yet been guaranteed that all current Aperture features will work with Yosemite, right? Edit: I don't see how they can charge $15. for a system-level photo program.

Apple has said they will release one final update for Aperture to make it compatible with Yosemite.

If you have an older Mac that shipped with an older version of iPhoto updating the current version of iPhoto costs $15, why would things change with Photos?

[Chinney]

I am another amateur user of Aperture who has invested a fair bit of time into it, for whom an iPhoto-level application is not sufficient, and who definitely does not want to switch to Lightroom. I am a bit alarmed with Apple's decision to stop development on Aperture. However, I will see what the new Apple Photo software will bring before getting too worked up. Maybe it will be sufficient for my needs. For the pros out there though, it seems that those who are not already using Lightroom will have little option other than Adobe.

[drewprops]

What if another developer stepped forward to purchase Aperture from Apple?


...

[Dorian Gray]

Originally Posted by drewprops What if another developer stepped forward to purchase Aperture from Apple?

Would that work, though? For a start, the new owner would be dependent on Apple supplying timely raw-file support in order to remain competitive. Quite a few features in Aperture are integrated with OS X. And more importantly, large sections of the code are probably shared with iPhoto and will be reused in Photos.

[Frank777]

Originally Posted by drewprops What if another developer stepped forward to purchase Aperture from Apple? ...

Not gonna happen. Apple's not abandoning the space.

They are building a new application to replace both iPhoto and Aperture (and probably reusing a lot of the code.) So they won't sell it.

[turtle]

On the one hand I'm really disappointed by this being official, on the other I'm less worried about it. In general I end up working stuff via iPhoto instead of Aperture. I'm really hoping that the new Photos App does what we need it to for the times I like using Aperture's advanced features.

[PB PM]

Originally Posted by drewprops What if another developer stepped forward to purchase Aperture from Apple?

Unlikely that Apple would sell any aspect of a product like Aperture since, as others have mentioned, it is heavily integrated with the OS.

Originally Posted by Frank777 Not gonna happen. Apple's not abandoning the space. They are building a new application to replace both iPhoto and Aperture (and probably reusing a lot of the code.) So they won't sell it.

Lets be honest here, Apple is not abandoning the space filled by iPhoto. Most rumors point to the fact that Photos was originally going to be called iPhoto X. What it does mean, is that Apple is abandoning the space held by Aperture, no question about it. From what we have seen so far one of the greatest strengths of Aperture, the DAM, is likely to be missing from Photos. Without the DAM, I see little reason to use Photos.

[Chinney]

Originally Posted by turtle On the one hand I'm really disappointed by this being official, on the other I'm less worried about it. In general I end up working stuff via iPhoto instead of Aperture. I'm really hoping that the new Photos App does what we need it to for the times I like using Aperture's advanced features.

Good point Turtle, but my worry is that particular features that I need to use on occasion will not be there. I don't use all of Aperture's advanced features by any means, but I have occasional need of some of them. Will all of the ones amateur users use be there? Doubtful, because putting together the various features that various amateur users take advantage of, that would account for most all of the features currently on Aperture.

Unless, the new Photo application would be two-speed software, encompassing both a simple level for the snapshot photographer and another full-featured "pro" level, then something is going to be left out and somebody is going to be disappointed. A two-speed solution would be my dream, but 'dream' probably the operative word here.

[PB PM]

Heads up Aperture Users, there is a third party developer making an app to make the switch to Lightroom easier. The app exports all original files into folders named and organized as they are stored in Aperture Libraries, with keywords/captions stored in Lightroom friendly .xmp files and can optionally export jpegs of the edited files. Aperture Exporter is currently in beta form, but it seems to work reasonably well.

From my testing of the app the process is not fast, and if you have more than a 2-3k images be prepared to sit back and watch for a long time, but then again neither is exporting them manually.

[drewprops]

I can't remember if it's already been mentioned and am too sleepy to search the thread to find out, but has anybody noticed that Apple still includes Aperture as a Build To Order option when buying a new machine?

Really?



...

[Dorian Gray]

Yeah. Not cool. But I suppose from Apple’s perspective there will be a migration path to Photos and that’s good enough.

[PB PM]

Frankly I'm surprised there is no notice of Aperture's demise on the app store either.

[Chinney]

Maybe it truly will be much more of an evolution than a demise. I choose to interpret this as good news, hopeless optimist that I am.

[PB PM]

Looks like Aperture just received it's final update, 3.6 for 10.10 compatibility. Apple hasn't done much that I can see, and it seems to function just as well as the last version of 3.5.x.

[turtle]

So it looks like developers have access to Photos now. I'm not impressed. Then again, I hate this flat UI scheme.

Relevant article.

[kieran]

I'm importing my pictures now.

Very interested to see how it works with a full library

I'm a fan of the look so far but let's see how it looks in a year.

[drewprops]

Can you let us know if (and how) "projects" make the crossing?

[PB PM]

Also loading photos into "Photos" now. Not looking to promising from the preview on Engadget, but I'll hold off any comments until I get to work with it myself.

[PB PM]

Aperture "Projects" become albums and iPhoto albums stay as well, albums. Basically it's iPhoto with a new skin to make it look like the iOS version of "Photos". Nice try Apple, but no. Now the search is on to find an Aperture replacement. I guess there's Lightroom...

[drewprops]

Arrrgghh... Lightroom: the ugliest interface known to photographers.

You made me look at the Lightroom page on Adobe's website, in hopes that things had changed. One look at this video and it's obvious that they have not.




...

[kieran]

I tried Lightroom in the past few weeks and absolutely hated it. It was awful. The biggest thing for me is no iOS integration.

Photos seems ok so far. Haven't really gotten into any editing or anything like that. It's just really picky on what it wants to import and how many. I tried importing around 9,000 images and it froze with a nice big beachball. Smaller amounts work, but nothing too big.

[PB PM]

Lightroom is hidous, UI wise, but there are so few programs that match it in terms of overall features, camera RAW support and lens correction profiles. There's always Capture One, DXO and open source. I've tried most of the open source stuff and found them lacking in some areas, even compared to out of date Aperture 3.

[Kickaha]

My understanding that strong RAW support was baked in to Photos.

If, *IF* they support plugins as is rumored (and expected - the iOS version does already), then I have the feeling that Photos will go from wtf to hellsyes quickly.

Right now they're laying a foundation: sync, storage, organize, and codec support.

[PB PM]

RAW support, like for iPhoto and Aperture, is baked into Mac OS, not the applications themselves.

Having to buy plug-ins to use anything other than basic adjustments is simply odd, adds all kinds of complexities, not to mention possible incompatibility issues. If it is anything like iOS most of these add ons would be silly filters and Instagram type stuff. A good photo editor those things do not make. There is no plug-in support in the current beta, and no menu for such a feature. If it does come that will be down the road.