Adobe Releases Guide on Transitioning Photos From Aperture to Lightroom

Oh god why is this happening. I really loved the Apple-y-ness that was Aperture, great and easy to use and had great iCloud integration. Also the end product looked stunning when done correctly. Why are they throwing this away? I tried Lightroom and it's not my cup of tea, it's just not as much of a delight to use as Aperture and rather frustrating and annoying (probably just me). And I also have powerful machines but Aperture just seems to run better than Lightroom.

I really wish they would've developed a huge update to this and released the long-awaited version 4. It's a shame really, maybe their Photos alternative will be a good replacement but I don't see it.

I do agree on the fact that this had to be done to iPhoto but not Aperture. iPhoto is what iTunes is to music, a mess, so simplifying it with iOS integration made sense. But there is a professional field out there and it's terrible to see Apple heading in the direction they are heading, and frankly I'm concerned about the existence of Logic Pro and maybe even FCPX.

Apple is pretty brain dead when it comes to Application life cycle management.

Unnecessary. If everyone will just hang on for the release of Photos for Mac they will see that it will handle just about everything Aperture does. Apple is not about to throw away their photography clients when photography is becoming more and more important to them. Hang on, folks. Adobe wants you to panic. You really don't need to.

grblade said:

Unnecessary. If everyone will just hang on for the release of Photos for Mac they will see that it will handle just about everything Aperture does......

Click to expand...

Experience tells us it will do about 50+ percent of what Aperture does, and the missing functionality will come when Apple gets around to it, provided they think a hip teenager really needs or is smart enough to use that functionality.

I tried Aperture and didn't love it. Went back to iPhoto, and don't love it either. I think I will wait to see how Photos does before making the switch to Lightroom. If I were more than an occasional photo dabbler, I probably would have switched long ago.

still sticking through the muck.

I guess I was expecting a lot more/better Guide to the transition. this seems something they could have posted a month ago.

Anyway, I guess I am still a hopeful for Photos. If they wanted an "X" style app, I feel they would have thrown that out already. I think Photos was long in development after the "fiasco" from their previous "overhauls"

Why be in a rush to do anything? Aperture does everything I currently need and will work fine under Yosemite. That gives me a year or more before I have to seriously consider anything else. I am not a fan of Adobe products. Lightroom would be towards the bottom of the list of possible alternatives.

grblade said:

Unnecessary. If everyone will just hang on for the release of Photos for Mac they will see that it will handle just about everything Aperture does. Apple is not about to throw away their photography clients when photography is becoming more and more important to them. Hang on, folks. Adobe wants you to panic. You really don't need to.

Click to expand...

Apple's Final Cut X and latest iWork releases prove otherwise.

Gesh, they even had to write a Support Article to deal with the uproar of all of the missing features in iWork.

In rewriting these applications, some features from iWork ’09 were not available for the initial release. We have reintroduced some of these features and will continue to add brand new features on an ongoing basis.

Click to expand...

http://support.apple.com/kb/HT6049

Personally, I would expect the same thing from the new Photos app. It'll be missing many features at the beginning that Apple will add in over time.

Since Aperture will continue to work with Yosemite, I don't feel the immediate need to jump anywhere for my photos (including the first version of Photos, whenever it comes out).

Dilster3k said:

I tried Lightroom and it's not my cup of tea, it's just not as much of a delight to use as Aperture and rather frustrating and annoying (probably just me).

Click to expand...

No, it's not just you. Frustrating and annoying are accurate assessments of nearly everything Adobe makes.

Dilster3k said:

I really wish they would've developed a huge update to this and released the long-awaited version 4. It's a shame really, maybe their Photos alternative will be a good replacement but I don't see.

Click to expand...

They are developing a huge update. It will just have a different name now. Most of the real improvements will be under the hood, so it may take awhile after its release before you can fully appreciate or even notice them. If Final Cut Pro X is any indication, user features will be re-implemented over time. And it will take full advantage of the hardware they are selling now, like the new Mac Pro.

You can only expand an existing code base so much. Eventually, you get to the point where the only way to go forward is to take a couple steps back.

Won't Ever Pay the Adobe Premium

Why does anyone think paying $9.99 a month or $119.88 a year is something anyone would rush over and convert to? Aperture is $79.99 and is still for sale. Here's a simple comparison. In the three years I've owned Aperture it has cost me $79.99 for the entire time. If I do the same with Adobe I've now spent $359.64. That sucks anyway you dice it.

So Astrobrat is right. I'll continue to use Aperture until it won't run on a Mac anymore, then I'll most likely switch over to Corel After Shot Pro 2. It is a very similar product to Aperture, is faster than Adobe, and is the same $79.99. It will work on Mac or PC too.

I much prefer owning software or apps instead of renting them online. Why pay a subscription fee that only serves the need to feed the corporate monster and does not do anything better or unique to less expensive owned alternatives.

Come on, Apple, quit throwing away your customers.

For anyone that is likely to have the level of interest to be an Aperture user, wouldn't the transitioning process of 'creating a backup, exporting as TIFF and importing to Lightroom' be patently bleedin' obvious?!

What would be more helpful is if Adobe created an application that actually converted the RAW file edit data (never gonna happen).

Zaqfalcon said:

For anyone that is likely to have the level of interest to be an Aperture user, wouldn't the transitioning process of 'creating a backup, exporting as TIFF and importing to Lightroom' be patently bleedin' obvious?!

What would be more helpful is if Adobe created an application that actually converted the RAW file edit data (never gonna happen).

Click to expand...

Exactly, and with this press release Adobe has shown their hand: they are NOT going to ever support getting anything but the original or edited versions out of Aperture as TIFF files. That "migration" workflow means that all your actual work in Aperture is lost: you can get the original photos out, or you can get the end-stage photos out, but not both, and certainly not any of the nondestructive edits along the way. For people who really used Aperture to its limits, Adobe just doesn't "get it" and with this press release has shown they have no intention of trying.

Which means, no matter how pessimistic you are about Photos ever replacing Aperture, if you've actually been doing work in Aperture rather than just using it as a more expensive iPhoto, your best bet is to give Apple first shot at replacing Aperture. Which of course was obvious before this (why pay $10/month to Adobe for the next year and some while Aperture is still supported by Apple?)

If Lightroom works better for you than Aperture (I've heard lots of folks say this is the case with them) I'd assume you've long since switched over. For those of us still holding onto our old copies of Aperture, I can't see any reason why forcing a switch to Lightroom now would ever be a good choice - wait until the alternatives, especially Apple's, are all out and ready to pick from.

Wow.

Not quite that great.

I think I'll stick with Aperture until it actually won't work anymore.

Dilster3k said:

Oh god why is this happening. I really loved the Apple-y-ness that was Aperture, great and easy to use and had great iCloud integration. Also the end product looked stunning when done correctly. Why are they throwing this away? I tried Lightroom and it's not my cup of tea, it's just not as much of a delight to use as Aperture and rather frustrating and annoying (probably just me). And I also have powerful machines but Aperture just seems to run better than Lightroom.

I really wish they would've developed a huge update to this and released the long-awaited version 4. It's a shame really, maybe their Photos alternative will be a good replacement but I don't see it.

I do agree on the fact that this had to be done to iPhoto but not Aperture. iPhoto is what iTunes is to music, a mess, so simplifying it with iOS integration made sense. But there is a professional field out there and it's terrible to see Apple heading in the direction they are heading, and frankly I'm concerned about the existence of Logic Pro and maybe even FCPX.

Click to expand...

Aperture was always a half-assed effort. I don't know why this surprises you. It added way too much bloat in terms of library sizes, and it was just a complete mess, yet for whatever reason some people liked it. I'll never understand that. Had they devoted the appropriate resources, they could have built a much better application.

grblade said:

Unnecessary. If everyone will just hang on for the release of Photos for Mac they will see that it will handle just about everything Aperture does. Apple is not about to throw away their photography clients when photography is becoming more and more important to them. Hang on, folks. Adobe wants you to panic. You really don't need to.

Click to expand...

Adobe doesn't want you to panic. They are just doing what is logical and extending an invite. If they didn't do that I would think their marketing team was asleep at the wheel. As for photography, it matters who is shooting it. Their biggest photo market is that of enthusiasts, so their approach is likely to focus heavily on people who want to organize things shot on their iphone. I don't see them devoting a lot of resources to the optimization of raw processing or anything like that.

The BIG problem with switching software is that you loose all the non-destructive edits. The only way to move your edits to orel or Lightrooms or sorting else is to export the RAW files as TIFF files. This is a big waste.

I really do hope Adobe's new upcoming migration tools some how can move the non-destructive edits.

Apple just might allow this in their new Photos app. But they are being stupid to keep it a secret. The longer they keep the new app a secret the more photographers will jump ship to Adobe. Maybe they don't care.

----------

thekev said:

...
their approach is likely to focus heavily on people who want to organize things shot on their iphone. I don't see them devoting a lot of resources to the optimization of raw processing or anything like that.

Click to expand...

Yes. Apple knows where the money is. It is iPhones. I think Apple is ok with handing the market over to Adobe.

ChrisA said:

The BIG problem with switching software is that you loose all the non-destructive edits. The only way to move your edits to orel or Lightrooms or sorting else is to export the RAW files as TIFF files. This is a big waste.

I really do hope Adobe's new upcoming migration tools some how can move the non-destructive edits.

Apple just might allow this in their new Photos app. But they are being stupid to keep it a secret. The longer they keep the new app a secret the more photographers will jump ship to Adobe. Maybe they don't care.

Click to expand...

Well they use different internal profiles, so you will have some tweaking to do. I don't personally care for Adobe's linearized prophoto RGB as a space for processing colors, but in spite of that I still prefer Lightroom to Aperture. The best raw processors are really those that have come out of Linux with full ICCv4 support, but they could use a lot of polish. Non-destructive is also kind of a strong term in itself. You still have to bake/rasterize those changes to use it anywhere else.

ChrisA said:

Yes. Apple knows where the money is. It is iPhones. I think Apple is ok with handing the market over to Adobe.

Click to expand...

Of course it is. I was pointing out that I think that market will represent Apple's primary focus. They often favor simplicity over backward compatibility and sometimes over maximum control.

grblade said:

Unnecessary. If everyone will just hang on for the release of Photos for Mac they will see that it will handle just about everything Aperture does. Apple is not about to throw away their photography clients when photography is becoming more and more important to them. Hang on, folks. Adobe wants you to panic. You really don't need to.

Click to expand...

Wow dude.

Have you seen what they did to iWork? Final Cut X? Mac Pro?



----------

MidwestMacGuy said:

I much prefer owning software or apps instead of renting them online. Why pay a subscription fee that only serves the need to feed the corporate monster and does not do anything better or unique to less expensive owned alternatives.

Click to expand...

You probably subscribed to MobileMe. At least Adobe updates their software more than once every 3 years. Apple still has the b@lls to charge $80 for a dead piece of software (actually it died 3 yrs ago).

nt5672 said:

Apple is pretty brain dead when it comes to Application life cycle management.

Click to expand...

Yeah - it started for me when they killed off iWeb. WTF? Anyways in on Squarespace now, which is better.

grblade said:

Unnecessary. If everyone will just hang on for the release of Photos for Mac they will see that it will handle just about everything Aperture does. Apple is not about to throw away their photography clients when photography is becoming more and more important to them. Hang on, folks. Adobe wants you to panic. You really don't need to.

Click to expand...

Clinging on still?, I guess until a few months ago you was one of those can't wait for Aperture X guys.

If Photography was so important to Apple, surely they would have fully developed and released Photos before announcing the end of Aperture development.

I look forward to seeing Photos as anything will be better than the bloated crapware that is iPhoto.

Here's a few thoughts:

• Lightroom is available as a standalone product at a reasonable one off price to keep forever.

• Aperture features a ton of batch automation that professionals require as a minimum - these will likely be missing from Photos in any incarnation.

• I've used both extensively and personally prefer Lightroom as it features plenty of powerful tools from Photoshop. It's brush tools are far far more mature than Apertures as well.

aperture v lightroom

Aperture was one of the main reasons i got into the Mac environment. Loved it then started to get into timelapse photography. After looking at Lightroom and the capabilities that it had for timelapse collation I purchased Lightroom. I still use both programs, Aperture as file storing functionality & database with editing and Lightroom for TL when hundreds of pictures are used.
Lightroom has some better features which i really wish were in Aperture. Honestly i think Aperture is`nt up to the same level as what i can do in lightroom (Graduated filter function) and was patiently waiting for Version 4 update.
Cant wait to see what Photo`s will do before deciding whether to stay Photo`s or Lightroom.
But i`d NEVER pay the monthly subscription method, Adobe can swivel on that one.

This was posted on another thread by CausticPuppy, but I endorse it 100% (that's why I repost it here) and I'll wait until I can use Photos before I start even considering thinking about moving to LR.


Originally Posted by CausticPuppy in another thread about Photos and the discontinue of Aperture and iPhoto:

"I don't think the program has to live up to the hype. If you want to see where Apple is going with photos, don't get hung up on the Photos app but look at what they are making available to developers.


Yosemite has an all-new RAW processing engine, with vastly improved noise reduction, support for multiple GPU's, and the ability to allow 3rd party plugins to apply filters during RAW processing. They certainly are NOT giving up on photography, rather they are giving 3rd party developers a lot more power by developing an extremely capable photography platform.

In LR, the noise reduction takes a second or two after you move the slider; with Yosemite, Apple demonstrated NR working in real-time at 60 fps!! That's probably on a Mac Pro using dual GPU's, but still significantly faster than anything else out there.

The Photos app itself might have some editing capability but probably not everything Aperture had (though it certainly WILL preserve edits done in Aperture, just like iPhoto currently does even though it's not as capable). But, Photos will be extensible and there will be professional-level 3rd party plugins, which will all be able to work non-destructively.

Hopefully, Lightroom will make use of Apple's new API but then they'd give up on their proprietary RAW engine. Apple's API allows direct access to the RAW pipeline, with GPU acceleration, direct access to Apple's DAM, while Adobe's is closed off and requires 3rd party developers to either work with huge TIFF files, or stay limited to creating presets with Adobe's built-in editing tools.

A year from now it'll be "your move, Adobe." "

Until Adobe allows purchase rather than subscription software I'm not buying. I bought their software from Version 1.0 to CS4 over the past three decades. I'm not interested in a subscription that requires me to keep paying monthly just to be able to access and work with my files. It's my data. I buy the tool. I don't rent it.

----------

iChrist said:

You probably subscribed to MobileMe.

Click to expand...

No, actually I don't. Nor do I subscribe to iCloud. But the comparison you're trying to make is invalid. MobileMe and iCloud are services, not tools. Without them I can still fully use my data. I don't need either to continue listening to my music, etc. On the other hand with Adobe's suckscriptions I must continue to pay their horefees to be able to use my own creations, my data, my images, my artwork. I won't subscribe to Adobe's business model. I just stick with CS4. I don't rent tools. I own them.