[Chinney]

I decided that it was time to move beyond the 'Aperture is Dead' thread, and into the reality that Apple Photos is now officially with us. I think that this new reality is actually one for iPhoto users, since Photos is, let's face it, an iPhoto replacement, not an Aperture replacement. For the moment, there is no Aperture replacement - at least not within Apple's software suite. As for non-Apple replacements, I've used Lightroom in the past, but I really do not care for it very much, so I will not be switching over to Lightroom. Given that, with the official release, the limitations of Photos as a potential Aperture replacement have been confirmed, I will be sticking with Aperture for the time being. Aperture still works fine for me, and the lack of future development by Apple is not a major problem, for now.

All that being said, there is room to evaluate Photos for what it is, not for what it is not. Is anyone using Photos yet on a regular basis? What are your impressions? Is it at least better than iPhotos? What are its pros and cons? Also, there is room to evaluate Photos for what it might eventually become. It is not an Aperture replacement now, but maybe that could change in the future. With a few more built in features, and, especially an ability to have Plug-Ins, perhaps it could develop into a pro tool. Our could it?

[PB PM]

My impressions from working with Photos during the developer build period was that Photos is simply iPhoto with a new cover and name on it. Basically all Apple wanted to do was make iPhoto look like Photos on iOS. It does what iPhoto did, for the most part anyway. The new UI will be a welcome change for some, and not so much for others. Just like the new Photos app on iOS it takes time to get used to, but is okay. Not great, just okay.

Editing is mostly filter centric, with some basic adjustments available. Apple is basically trying to compete with the likes of Instagram, and unless the latter falls into a whole, that isn't going to happen. If working with iPhone/iPad pictures the tools available will suite needs of most people. For anyone who wants to do more the basic saturation and exposure adjustments it's just not up to snuff, not in the slightest.

Conclusion: Like iPhoto before it, it's not worth the time to use it if you have advanced editing needs. If you are a iPhone/iPad snap shooter, then I'm sure it is a great system for keeping photos organized, making basic edits, adding filters, and easily sharing them. Could it be better at those things? Yes, and I'm sure it will improve with time. Will it ever take the place of a professional level photo organizer and advanced image editor like Aperture/Lightroom? Without some major changes to the way images are organizable, not a chance. Is it a good iPhoto replacement? Sure. Apple did what they needed to do, rewrite iPhoto in the modern coding language to make it compatible with future versions of OS X, beyond that not much has changed.

[Brave Ulysses]

Apple's iLife suite when from innovative, fresh, and dead simple.... to stale, confusing, and bloated. Photos doesn't really change that, and the ideology behind it fundamentally flawed.... Apple simply does not, and will not, ever provide enough low cost (preferably free) storage to make iCloud Photo Library viable.... even for most casual consumers.

Apple's attempts at Cloud integration into their software has been a painful process to watch.

I don't know what I'm going to do to be honest. I'll probably hold on to Aperture until it no longer works.