So has most of Apples competitors. The main reason for so much secrecy. Even rumors are enough to get them trying to push competing products before Apple.
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
So has most of Apples competitors. The main reason for so much secrecy. Even rumors are enough to get them trying to push competing products before Apple.
Ah yes, that seems to be the piece in the puzzle that I missed!
"When your app begins working with an edited asset, examine the adjustment data provided by a PHContentEditingInput object to decide whether the last edit made to the asset is compatible with your app. If so, you can allow the user to resume working with that edit. If not, you can make further edits to the last saved version of the photo. "
Together with the last sentence here:
"The Photos framework stores only one PHAdjustmentData object for each asset, describing the most recent edit made to the assets content."
it still seems however that "intermediate results" ("last saved versions") are stored (which is also important in case a plugin is not installed, such that the plugin result can at least be displayed). It also means that only the last plugin edit can be edited - all previous steps (done by other plugins) are kind of lost and only available as "last saved versions of the photo" (or maybe not even that!)
So we might have something like:
Original.jpg -> Saved version1 -> Saved version2 -> PHAdjustmentDataPlugin1 & Saved version3 (representing the result of 'PHAdjustmentData of Plugin 1')
So either a given plugin "understands" the most recent "PHAdjustmentData" and can continue editing/recording that, or it has to continue using the "Saved version3" and create its own PHAdjustmentData, so the Photo Library will end up like:
Original.jpg -> Saved version1 -> Saved version2 -> Saved version3 -> PHAdjustmentDataPlugin2 & Saved version4 (representing the result of 'PHAdjustmentData' of Plugin 2)
So it is kind of a "compromise" between "recording editing steps" and "intermediate results"
Not really. Aperture was leapfrogged by competitors long ago to the point where it isn't much of a competitor anymore.
But now that Aperture is officially abandon-ware, of course companies making similar products are going to rush to capture the remaining users. They have to go somewhere.
If this is a RAW converter and image database with basic tweaking tools (sort of iPhoto+ or Aperture-), but includes robust support for 3rd-party plug-ins that can work on the RAW files and add more advanced functionality, then this "could be" a winner.
Well, Apple doesn't specify the format of the data that is stored in PHAdjustmentData, so it would be up to the developer of the plug-in to store the data in a way that they can recreate the steps.
I thought about this as well, and knew you were going to bring it up.
Think about it this way. I send a version of my photo to your Plug-In, do some edits on it and return to Photos. Photos stores the AdjustmentData as returned from the Plug-In (i.e. the recorded editing steps taken on the version). I go back to the Plug-In and do some more adjustments. The Plug-In should take in what I previously did and remember those steps, adjust what I changed and rewrite all of those steps back out in the PHAdjustmentData.
Adjustments to photos (at least in Aperture) are cumulative, meaning that the order they were done does not affect the final image.
So, while only saving one PHAdjustmentData sounds like a negative, it's not since it's up to the App to preserve the previous data + the new adjustments for each version.
Huh? I think you are confusing things here: proxy and original media! Yes, the recent release allowed you to store proxy media in locations other than your Library.
I am not a professional (more like a "long-therm occasional video editing enthusiast"), but I can tell you that I store all my original video media on a NAS - separate from the FCP X Library (which is on the local disk). Can't tell you since which version for sure, but I can assure you that I don't even have FCP X 10.1 installed (since Mavericks only).
Sorry, yes. That's what I meant to type. Proxy and optimized couldn't previously be stored elsewhere which is big in sharing environments.
Although what you described didn't come until 10.1 (which was really the first feature complete version really).
Yes - that's the easy scenario
But study again the sentence that I quoted from the Apple docs and think "multiple plugins":
"When your app begins working with an edited asset, examine the adjustment data provided by a PHContentEditingInput object to decide whether the last edit made to the asset is compatible with your app. If so, you can allow the user to resume working with that edit. If not, you can make further edits to the last saved version of the photo."
That is, the plugin has to first examine the presented PHAdjustmentData and only if it knows how to interpret/edit that data can it continue using that data! Otherwise the plugin has to fall back to the "last saved version" (= bitmap data in case of photos) and continue with that. In that case the existing PHContentEditingInput (written by previous plugins) gets overwritten by the latest editing steps, so you'll end up with the "chain" of original -> saved versions -> edit steps that I illustrated before.
Off course it does not have to be the same plugin that continues editing the PHAdjustmentData than the plugin that originally wrote the data - as long as the data within PHAdjustmentData is understood and written back in a "compatible way".
----------
10.1.x is the latest version (only running on OS X 10.9.2 and above) which introduced the new feature of "storing proxy data elsewhere".
I described the feature of "storing original data elsewhere", which I would almost dare to say exists since the very beginning (10.0.0) - but for sure < 10.1, since I currently have 10.0.7 installed.
Adjustment stuff here looks basic, but usable but they're never going to match what you can do in Photoshop.
As long as Photos is able to pass off images to external programs like Photoshop, I'm happy to just bypass whatever editing tools it has when they're not sufficient.
As long as Photos is able to pass off images to external programs like Photoshop, I'm happy to just bypass whatever editing tools it has when they're not sufficient.
No I know. I think that, despite what has been announced, it will work for at least one iteration past Yosemite, giving me until Fall 2016 to figure out what I want to do next.
I suspect, though, that I'll be making that change in late 2015 either way, which is enough time to give Photos one big update (I think, but that's obviously guess work).
Capture1 isn't an option for me, at least until they start supporting plugins (I do a lot of work in with Nik software).
Lightroom is probably the alternative for me, but I'm willing to give Photos a chance (if it's not great in it's first iteration, it think Apple has proven it is releasing good updates to its software these days).
I'm not nearly as doom and gloom on Photos as everyone else in this thread apparently is.
I switched from Aperture to Lightroom a few months ago. Lightroom is everything I expectd Aperture to become. It's great with RAW images from my Canon 6D (full frame). However, since I purchased it, it is no longer a standalone product -- instead, there's a monthly fee. It comes out to $120/year. Not outrageous, but not cheap. Having used it for two months, the $9.99 monthly fee is well worth it.
I think Photos will be something in between iPhoto and Aperture, and I'm sure it will be free.
If they do it properly, supported plugins will work on the processing pipeline. So, for example, no need to muck about with intermediate files as Aperture does at the moment.
For example:
Processing pipeline, out of the Yosemite box:
OS > RAW processor: Lens Adjustment > Noise Reduction > etc. ...
To which, Photos would add to the pipeline
... > Photos Standard Edits > Vendor plugin 1 > Vendor plugin 2 > etc.
No, he means next year. Specifically "early next year".
Last sentence in the quote block:
https://www.macrumors.com/2014/06/27/aperture-development-stops/
You can buy it without the subscription. http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop-lightroom.html
Scroll all the way down. "Lightorom 5 Standalone"
Come on man. Just because someone likes something outside of Apple here doesn't mean they're paid to say it.
Have you used it? Are you a photographer?
I think it's also a fair assessment to say that if Photos had as many "pro" quality features and plugin support as Aperture, they probably would have mentioned it during the announcement of Photos or shortly after it was public knowledge that Aperture was going to be EOL.
Also, if Apple was going to make a new app with "pro" features as an Aperture replacement, lets not forget the obvious.. why not just upgrade Aperture or announce it as an Aperture replacement??
Lastly, while we don't know the details of the new Photos app, in order to be a competitor to Lightroom, Capture One, etc... wouldn't it need to have a similar feature set? (in other words, more than the features of the ~1-4 year old Aperture??)
Although I love Aperture, I've switched to Lightroom long ago. I don't enjoy it, but it gets the job done.
As others have alluded, Aperture will still work, well into Yosemite.
I bought Aperture only 18 months ago to give me controls iPhoto just does not have, so I would expect at the least, in Photos, to be able to crop, sharpen, adjust colour saturation, contrast, definition and shadows, as a minimum.
I expect Photos to be part of OS X.
I bought Aperture only 18 months ago to give me controls iPhoto just does not have, so I would expect at the least, in Photos, to be able to crop, sharpen, adjust colour saturation, contrast, definition and shadows, as a minimum.
I expect Photos to be part of OS X.
Speaking of iWork, it’s the ios-ification that waters down the apps from anything remotely professional. I recall creating pages in Pages that exploited most of the desktop version’s feature, only to find much of it disregarded and disorganized when opening the same document in the iPhone version of Pages.
Edit:
This was on the horizon unknown to us when Apple held that the future lay around the cloud and not around the mac, as it had been for so many years.
Edit:
This was on the horizon unknown to us when Apple held that the future lay around the cloud and not around the mac, as it had been for so many years.
Last edited:
And for all of these, once presented with the idea, one can find good reasons for them. Presented with the idea that you could not import images into Photos without an internet connection or that once an internet connection was established the images would be deleted from your computer, I cannot find good reasons for. It is not that Apple doesn't do unpredictable things, it is that they do not things without a reason and there is no reason to disable local storage unless you want to get away with not having a local client (and Apple clearly said there will be a local client). That is why I said common sense can be used, but you are not showing much of that here.
Of course Apple will be enabling you to store all your images in iCloud. But enabling that does in no way require disallowing local storage. Your paranoia is getting the better of you here or maybe you are projecting your own kind of thinking onto Apple.
And it will be a replacement in that it imports Aperture libraries.
Certainly.
Who says a 'tweaked' Aperture UI would not end up looking the Photos UI?
----------
You mean that is why they released iCloud Drive where the user can organise their own files?
It is Apples general policy on how it give details until its ready. In this case not updating Aperture for years until the final announcement on its future. They could even try to come out with a easier to use consumer version of Lightroom if they know future plans of Aperture earlier on as an example.