autrefois
macrumors 65816
Apple has said the new Photos app won't have the Faces feature from iPhoto? I haven't read this anywhere on Apple's website or here on MR. Can someone please point to confirmation either way if there is any so far?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Aperture Replacement 'Photos' to Offer Image Search, Editing, Effects and Plugins
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple has said the new Photos app won't have the Faces feature from iPhoto? I haven't read this anywhere on Apple's website or here on MR. Can someone please point to confirmation either way if there is any so far?
Yes, the size of the online storage is a serious concern given the Apple's iCloud storage pricing. I am guessing that it will be upgraded version of Photostream coupled with a referenced library system. At least, that is what I hope will happen. Like many, I am hoping to be pleasantly surprised with the new app.
I did not see the standalone still there. I do have both Aperture and LR and certainly understand what they do and do not do. Try to be a bit more arrogant next time.
It hides the files and only shows the images instead.
iTunes does as well but still the vast majority has no problem with that.
It is not the edited images are gone or not gone, it is simply that with non-destructive editors, the edited photos simply doesn't exist as a file yet until you export it.
Only in one direction, whatever you move inside LR will be moved in the Finder as well. And the Finder normally only sees the originals, it doesn't see the edited images as they don't exist yet as files. And that is without adding Albums/Collections or Versions/Virtual Copies which also don't exist in the Finder.
Sure, for the originals you can match inside LR what you do in the Finder manually on a folder by folder basis but that is not automatic.
As I said, that only applies to originals, not the edited images, not to virtual copies, not to collections and in one direction requires manual action. The advantage is that it lets you more easily use other raw converters and that it reassures people that if LR would fail to launch one day, they'd still see their folder structure.
The disadvantage is that you cannot fully exploit the potential of non-destructive editing as you cannot integrate collections and virtual copies in your normal folder hierarchy but are forced to browse for stuff in two separate folder structures.
iCloud Drive just disproves the notion that Apple is so opposed to users managing their own files that would never make it easier to do so.
----------
If you want to view a single movie file, you'll launch Quicktime (or have it launched by just double-clicking the file), this is the same with Preview. And as Quicktime lacks the concept of a media library, so does Preview. And if you want to throw in Aperture, you can compare: Preview -> iPhoto -> Aperture with Quicktime -> iMovie -> FCP.
And yes, you could take out movies and TV shows from iTunes and split the latter into an audio and a video half. But that wouldn't affect QT, you'd still need an app to launch that single movie file you just want to view without adding it to your library, the same way as Preview won't go away because of the new Photos app.
Ya know what I'd love to see (but will never happen) is Apple taking up the XMP metadata format (and *not* as a sidecar file) for photo tags. XMP metadata is really useful and there's so much that can be packed into a single jpg. If Apple's "Photos" supported it, I could (in theory) apply a bunch of tags and regions to a photo and write that data directly into the jpg; I could then send that jpg to another user (whether Mac or PC) and all the entered tags would be there for them to access.
Yes, I appreciate that there is EXIF and ITPC, but it is limited compared to xmp.
Oh well, here's to dreaming.
Yes, I appreciate that there is EXIF and ITPC, but it is limited compared to xmp.
Oh well, here's to dreaming.
I am a CC member and I totally forgot about Revel. I wonder if it comes with CC? I just checked the Revel FAQ and it looks like the premium version is $59.99/yr or $5.99/mo and has unlimited storage. It is not a part of CC, CC members only get the 2 GB limit.
I am not sure. It says "Certain professional features"... Apple is targeting this for common users than pro's. My guess is their lack of updates has driven customers to Lightroom and there is no point investing huge amount of resources to develop that anymore.
Photos is bringing Aperture to the current state of technology. I'm a professional photographer that makes 100% of my living as a photographer and the most important aspect of the job is asset management, not editing. People pay me for my photos, not for my editing. The new Photos App will pretty much bring my workflow up to speed so I can quickly upload RAWs and JPGs to iCloud via iPhone or iPad during or after a shoot and then allow me to quickly edit on the go on the device of my choosing. This means that I can edit EXIF, cull images, and some small edits to photos on an iPad and then continue when I get back to the studio. One of the things I really like about the new controls is that Apple has combined several adjustments to a single slider control so I can quickly adjust overall exposure and white balance and then fine tune it later on should I choose. I can still choose to use Lightroom or Photoshop to do more intensive edits if needed after using Photos but at least having everything in iCloud will be much better asset management than the current storage on RAID arrays which have now gone all the way to about 12TB of data which means that I now handle multiple Aperture Libraries per assignment which definitely can't be done easily in Lightroom and forget about Adobe CC where storage is quite limited. Overall, I see this as a very positive effort for actual photographers and amateur hobbyists to have their photos accessible on multiple devices and a faster and easier editing process.
Somehow, I don't see iCloud having multiple libraries, nor handling 12TB very smoothly. Any more than basic triage - focus and good shot/bad shot, would be unlikely as well. Sure you can do a quick edit to a photo on iPad, maybe even a preview for the client, but professional editing will still need to be done on a large display, with lots of grunt behind it. I've done some sparkling edits on iPad, but when you see them on a Mac, it's like 'who are you kidding?'
I'd dearly love to see Photos with good asset management capabilities, but iCloud won't be that, not even for enthusiasts. I do about 1000 shots a month on top of day-to-day point and shoot iPhone stuff & iCloud just won't cut it for me.
I'll be wanting local storage & backup, and a means of managing, judging and comparing all my shots. RAW treatment and editing can be outside the asset manager. I have no love for adobe, and so far Media Pro is ahead by a nose, followed by Photo Director, which goes a little bit further and has lots of editing, including lens correction, but not my particular wide angle lens, of course. Dark Table looks interesting, until you try to actually use that unix-like interface, with no standard file dialogues nor even the concept of a desktop, then you realise you're a long way from home.
I'd much rather use standard Apple apps, but cloud storage is going to kill it for me, no matter how clever the app is. I was holding off buying Aperture in case an upgrade was coming. If Apple sold it for $50, I'd still buy it and put off my decision for a year. But since lens correction is a must, these days, I guess I'm looking elsewhere.
True, but we do know that Lightroom does not use GPU acceleration. GPU acceleration could certainly result in a order of magnitude increase in performance for noise reduction and other algorithms.